flwrlabs/fed-legal huggingface dataset:
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: penalty of $2,500 for “each violation” of regulations relating to nursing homes, for instance, a state appellate court held that a trial court had discretion to construe “violation” differently depending on the particular facts of the case. See People v. Casa Blanca Convalescent Homes, Inc., 159 Cal.App.3d 509, 535, 206 Cal.Rptr. 164 (1984), abrogated on other grounds by Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal.4th 163, 83 Cal.Rptr. forth in a state statute is not susceptible to a narrowing construction, the California Supreme Court has considered whether the imposition of mandatory, ever-mounting penalties violates the due process clause of the state and federal constitutions in a particular case. See Hale, 22 Cal.3d at 403-04, 149 Cal.Rptr. 375, 584 P.2d 512 (<HOLDING>). The California Supreme Court has indicated Options: A. holding the death penalty unconstitutional for defendants under age eighteen at the time of the crime B. holding that the death penalty is unconstitutional as applied to juvenile defendants C. holding that although a mandatory 100perday penalty scheme was not necessarily facially unconstitutional the imposition of a 17300 penalty under the statute was constitutionally excessive in that case given the defendants lesser culpability and the possibility of an unmerited windfall to the plaintiff D. recognizing the unique and irrevocable nature of the death penalty and the consequently overarching need for reliability in the imposition of such a penalty E. holding that the penalty is applicable

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that although a mandatory 100perday penalty scheme was not necessarily facially unconstitutional the imposition of a 17300 penalty under the statute was constitutionally excessive in that case given the defendants lesser culpability and the possibility of an unmerited windfall to the plaintiff
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The execution and delivery by the Borrower and Corporate Guarantors of this Amendment, the First Replacement Notes, and all other documents executed and delivered in connection herewith and therewith, and the performance by Borrower and Corporate Guarantors of all of their respective Obligations hereunder and thereunder, have been duly and validly authorized and approved by the Borrower and the Corporate Guarantors and then- respective board of directors pursuant to all applicable laws and no other corporate action or consent on the part of the Borrower, the Corporate Guarantors, their board of directors, stockholders or any other Person is necessary or required by the Borrower and Corporate Guarantors to execute this Amendment, the First Replacement Notes, and the documents executed and delivered in connection herewith and therewith, to consummate the transactions contemplated herein or therein, or perform all of the Borrower’s and Corporate Guarantors’ Obligations hereunder or thereunder. This Amendment, the First Replacement Notes, and each of the documents executed and delivered in connection herewith and therewith have been duly and validly executed by the Borrower and the Corporate Guarantors (and the officer executing this Amendment and all such other documents for each Borrower and Corporate Guarantors is duly authorized to act and execute same on behalf of each Borrower and Corporate Guarantors) and constitute the valid and legally binding agreements of the Borrower and Corporate Guarantors, enforceable against the Borrower and Corporate Guarantors in accordance with their respective terms.

assistant: Authority
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that joint custody be awarded. The parties withdrew their fault-based complaints for divorce prior to trial and agreed to an irreconcilable differences divorce. April and Shane agreed to submit the issues of custody and child support to the chancellor for his determination. While neither Shane nor April specifically requested joint custody, their submission of the issue of custody to the chancellor opened the door for the chancellor to award joint custody if he found it to be in the best interests of the children. See Miss.Code Ann. § 93-5-24(2) (Rev.2004) (“Joint custody may be awarded where irreconcilable differences is the ground for divorce, in the discretion of the court, upon application of both parents.”); see also Crider v. Crider, 904 So.2d 142, 148(¶ 15) (Miss.2005) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 47. Shane’s and April’s consent to allow Options: A. holding that we review for clear error a district courts factual determination as to whether prior cases were consolidated for sentencing under ussg 4a12a2 and that we give the court due deference in its application of the guidelines to that determination B. recognizing that a state courts determination is not an unreasonable application of law merely because it is erroneous C. holding that the determination of whether there was joint access and control for actual authority is a fact question reviewed under the plainerror standard but a determination of whether the government reasonably relied on a third partys consent is a question of law to be reviewed de novo D. holding that when parties consent in writing to the courts determination of custody they are consenting and agreeing to that determination satisfying the statutory requirement of a joint application E. holding that the state courts determination that the petitioner could not show prejudice because he did not allege that the witness was available to testify was a reasonable application of federal law to the facts of the case

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that when parties consent in writing to the courts determination of custody they are consenting and agreeing to that determination satisfying the statutory requirement of a joint application
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: During the Employment Period, Executive shall serve as the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company and shall report to the Chief Executive Officer and have the normal duties, responsibilities and authority of an executive serving in such positions, subject to the direction of the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”). Upon the termination of Executive’s service for any reason, unless otherwise determined by the Board, Executive shall be deemed to have resigned from any positions held at the Company or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates voluntarily, without any further required action by Executive, as of the cessation of Executive’s services, and Executive, at the Board’s request, shall execute any documents deemed in the discretion of the Company to be reasonably necessary to reflect his resignation(s).

assistant: Positions
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware applicable to contracts entered into and performed entirely within such State and regardless of the law that might be applied under principles of conflicts of laws.

assistant: Governing Laws
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: 7.3.4 you represent and warrant that you ( i ) understand and comply with all laws , rules and regulations that may apply to your experience , event or other host service ( s ) , and ( ii ) will obtain any required licenses , permits , or registrations prior to providing your experience , event or other host service ( s ) .

assistant: None
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: prejudiced appellant. Appellant similarly does not explain in his brief how he was prejudiced. Absent a record that elucidates trial counsel’s strategy, we are unable to assess whether appellant’s speedy trial claims had merit ánd, relatedly, whether ■ trial counsel’s decision not ■ to obtain a hearing and ruling on the motion raising such violations falls outside the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. See Crocker v. State, 441 S.W.3d 306, 313-14 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. ref'd) (presuming, in face of silent record, that trial counsel had valid strategic reason for failing to pursue speedy trial claim); see also Dean v. State, No. 12-03-00074-CR, 2004 WL 1486154, at *5 (Tex. App.—Tyler' June 30; 2004, pet. refd) (mem. op.) (not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>), cert denied, 545 U.S. 1118, 125 S.Ct. 2910, Options: A. holding that trial counsels failure to call defendants family members as witnesses during penalty phase was reasonable trial strategy and not ineffective assistance of counsel B. holding that defendant failed to show that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not objecting to the states leading questions when there was no evidence that such failure was not based on trial strategy C. holding counsels failure to object to victim impact testimony and evidence was not ineffective assistance of counsel when the trial record was silent as to counsels strategy D. holding that an ambiguous or silent record will not support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel E. holding that ineffective assistance claim based on failure to pursue speedy trial violation must fail where record silent as to counsels strategy

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that ineffective assistance claim based on failure to pursue speedy trial violation must fail where record silent as to counsels strategy
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Prior to the commencement of its operational activities, TOTAL shall acquire, and thereafter maintain, product liability insurance and general commercial liability insurance, to the extent, in amounts and from carriers with quality ratings not lower than industry standards for a similarly situated company, during the Term and thereafter for so long as TOTAL is exercising its license rights granted hereunder and including with respect to TOTAL’s facilities used in conducting such activities. TOTAL shall provide to AMYRIS a certificate of insurance evidencing such coverage upon request.

assistant: Insurances
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: exists and, if so, (2) whether the specific dispute falls within the scope of that agreement. Dean Witter [Reynolds, Inc. v. McDonald], 758 So.2d [539,] 542 [ (Ala.1999) ]. “Procedural arbitrability,” on the other hand, involves questions that grow out of the dispute and bear on its final disposition, e,g., defenses such as notice, laches, estoppel, and other similar compliance defenses; such questions are for an arbitrator to decide. See Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 84, 123 S.Ct. 588, 154 L.Ed.2d 491 (2002) (“ ‘ “procedural” questions which grow out of the dispute and bear on its final disposition are presumptively not for the judge, but for an arbitrator, to decide’ ”); John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, 84 S.Ct. 909, 11 L.Ed.2d 898 (1964)(<HOLDING>).’ “Brasfield & Gorrie, L.L.C. v. Soho Options: A. holding that an arbitrator should decide whether the steps of a grievance procedure were completed where those steps were prerequisites to arbitration B. holding that the trial court not the arbitrator must decide a challenge to an arbitration provision based on public policy C. holding that upon vacating an arbitration award the court has the discretion to remand to the same arbitrator or different arbitrator D. holding that where a contract containing an arbitration clause is challenged as unconscionable those disputes should first be resolved by an arbitrator E. holding that questions of procedure are for the arbitrator not the courts

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that an arbitrator should decide whether the steps of a grievance procedure were completed where those steps were prerequisites to arbitration
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: no joint venture , partnership , employment or agency relationship exists between you , uber or any third party provider as a result of the contract between you and uber or use of the services .

assistant: None
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: The court based its decision on its findings that Wade (the juror who spoke with Orlando after the trial) lacked credibility, that no corroboration existed for most of Wade’s allegations, and that the allegations made by Wade that were corroborated did not prejudice the defendants. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion for a new trial based upon the alleged jury irregularities. The district court conducted a thorough Remmer hearing, during which all of the empaneled jurors, the three alternate jurors, and.Martin’s wife testified. Counsel for the defendants had the opportunity to question all of the witnesses during the hearing, without any limitations other than those set forth in the Federal Rules of Evidence. See id. at 96 (<HOLDING>). Although the defendants focus on the comments Options: A. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion for mistrial where the trial court sustained defendants objections to a question by the prosecutor containing improper information and instructed the jury to disregard the question B. holding that the district court did not err by concluding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance motion to withdraw and motion for reconsideration and rehearing C. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the appellants motion for change of judge where the appellant failed to demonstrate actual bias D. holding that district court abused its discretion by failing to conduct an adequate evidentiary hearing into the allegations of extraneous influences on the jury pursuant to the holding in remmer and remanding for a hearing at which the defendant should be accorded the opportunity to question the jurors individually and under qath E. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying zelinkas motion for a mistrial based upon alleged juror bias noting that the remmer hearing was unhurried and thorough and that defense counsel were permitted to question the jurors and did so at some length

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying zelinkas motion for a mistrial based upon alleged juror bias noting that the remmer hearing was unhurried and thorough and that defense counsel were permitted to question the jurors and did so at some length
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: commit the offense and that evidence of motive and opportunity alone are, as a matter of law, insufficient to prove identity. See Merritt, 368 S.W.3d at 526. Again, we disagree. The same evidence that circumstantially established the corpus delicti of the offense also circumstantially established Carrizales’s identity. See Earls, 707 S.W.2d at 85. We note that Carrizales appears to concede that the evidence establishes that he had the motive and opportunity to commit the offense; he was unhappy with the speed at which the Go-mezes were driving on the road outside his home (motive), and he lived near the Go-mezes (opportunity). The evidence of motive and opportunity, while not sufficient alone, are nonetheless circumstances linking Carrizales to the crime. See Merritt, 368 S.W.3d at 526 (<HOLDING>); see also Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341, 361 Options: A. holding that allegations of motive and opportunity were not enough to create a strong inference of scienter B. holding that when regulations are intended to have different purposes and are not dependent on each other they are not intertwined C. holding that evidence of prior criminal misconduct is admissible under rule 404b to prove motive opportunity intent preparation plan knowledge identity or absence of mistake or accident D. holding that even though motive and opportunity are not sufficient to prove identity they are circumstances indicative of guilt E. holding that the probative value of evidence that defendant had recently been released from prison offered to show identity opportunity and motive outweighed its prejudicial effect in bank robbery prosecution

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that even though motive and opportunity are not sufficient to prove identity they are circumstances indicative of guilt
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All of the written materials furnished by or on behalf of the Company to the Investors regarding the Company and its Subsidiaries, their respective businesses and the transactions contemplated hereby, including the Disclosure Schedules to this Agreement, taken as a whole, are true and correct and do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. The press releases disseminated by the Company during the twelve months preceding the date of this Agreement do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary in order to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made and when made, not misleading. The Company acknowledges and agrees that no Investor makes or has made any representations or warranties with respect to the transactions contemplated hereby other than those specifically set forth in the Transaction Documents.

assistant: Disclosures
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: liable for employment discrimination. See Hallett v. N.Y.S. Dep’t of Correctional Services, 109 F.Supp.2d 190, 199 (S.D.N.Y.2000). The ADA “provides disabled individuals redress for discrimination by a ‘public entity.’ That term, as defined in the statute, does not include individuals.” Id. at 199 (citations omitted); see also Menes v. CUNY Univ. of N.Y., 92 F.Supp.2d 294, 306 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (“Individual defendants may not be held personally liable for alleged violations of the ADA”) (citations omitted). Second Circuit precedent involving individual liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 further supports the conclusion that an individual may not be held liable in her or his personal capacity under the ADA. See Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1321 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); see also Lane v. Maryhaven Center of Hope, Options: A. holding that individual defendants may not be held liable for violations under title vii B. holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii C. holding that individual defendants with supervisory control over plaintiff cannot be held personally liable under title vii D. holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii E. holding individual employees may be liable under title vii

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that individual defendants may not be held liable for violations under title vii
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: agency may adopt, reject or modify the ALJ’s findings, the decision of the ALJ will be deemed adopted as the final decision of the agency unless the agency modifies or rejects the report within forty-five days of its receipt. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c). In this proceeding the Merit System Board issued an Order that affirmatively adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the AL J. Once the agency has issued its final decision, “the Appellate Division’s initial review of that decision is a limited one.” Clowes, supra, 109 N.J. at 587, 538 A.2d 794; see also Brady v. Board of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210, 704 A.2d 547 (1997) (“The judicial capacity to review administrative agency decisions is limited.”); Goodman v. London Metals Exch., Inc., 86 N.J. 19, 28, 429 A.2d 341 (1981) (<HOLDING>). The scope of review of an administrative Options: A. holding that judicial review of an administrative agencys decision is limited solely to whether given the relevant standard and facts the agencys decision was arbitrary illegal capricious or unreasonable B. holding that ultimate determinations of reasonable suspicion are subject to independent appellate review C. holding 5 usc 8347c bars review of agencys factual determinations but not questions of law and procedure D. holding that there is no right to habeas review of administrative evidentiary determinations before a district court where direct review of the administrative proceedings is available in the appellate courts E. holding that appellate review of an administrative agencys factual determinations is circumscribed

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that appellate review of an administrative agencys factual determinations is circumscribed
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement is and, upon issuance and delivery thereof in accordance with this Agreement, each Note will be the legal, valid and binding obligations of the Company, enforceable against the Company in accordance with their respective terms.

assistant: Enforceability
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute a fully executed agreement, with the same effect and validity as a single, original agreement signed by all of the Parties.

assistant: Counterparts
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and the rights and obligations of DaVita hereunder may be assigned by DaVita and shall inure to the benefit of and shall be enforceable by any such assignee, as well as any of DaVita’s successors in interest. This Agreement and the rights and obligations of Teammate hereunder may not be assigned by Teammate, but are binding upon Teammate's heirs, administrators, executors, and personal representatives.

assistant: Assignments
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Guaranty is a continuing and irrevocable guaranty of all Guaranteed Obligations now or hereafter existing and shall remain in full force and effect until all Guaranteed Obligations and any other amounts payable under this Guaranty (other than obligations and liabilities under Secured Cash management Agreements and Secured Hedge Agreements) are paid in full in cash and the Commitments are terminated. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Guaranty shall continue in full force and effect or be revived, as the case may be, if any payment by or on behalf of the Borrower or the Guarantor is made, or any of the Secured Parties exercises its right of setoff, in respect of the Guaranteed Obligations and such payment or the proceeds of such setoff or any part thereof is subsequently invalidated, declared to be fraudulent or preferential, set aside or required (including pursuant to any settlement entered into by any of the Secured Parties in their discretion) to be repaid to a trustee, receiver or any other party, in connection with any proceeding under any Debtor Relief Laws or otherwise, all as if such payment had not been made or such setoff had not occurred and whether or not the Secured Parties are in possession of or have released this Guaranty and regardless of any prior revocation, rescission, termination or reduction. The obligations of the Guarantor under this paragraph shall survive termination of this Guaranty.

assistant: Terminations
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any claim or controversy arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be resolved, to the extent possible, within forty-five (45) days through informal meetings and discussions held in good faith between appropriate representatives of the parties. Any remaining claim or controversy shall be settled by binding arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) in accordance with its Commercial Arbitration Rules then in effect by a single arbitrator in Los Angeles County; provided, however, that binding arbitration shall not be utilized to adjudicate matters that primarily involve review of Provider’s professional competence or professional conduct, and shall not be available as a mechanism for appeal of any determinations made as to such matters. If possible, the arbitrator shall be an attorney with at least fifteen (15) years of experience, including at least five (5) years of experience in managed health care. The parties shall conduct a mandatory settlement conference at the initiation of arbitration, to be administered by AAA. The arbitrator shall have no authority to provide a remedy or award damages that would not be available to such prevailing party in a court of law, nor shall the arbitrator have the authority to award punitive damages. Each party shall bear its own costs and expenses, including its own attorneys’ fees, and shall bear an equal share of the arbitrator’s and administrative fees of arbitration. The parties agree to accept any decision by the arbitrator as a final determination of the matter in dispute, and judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. Arbitration must be initiated within one year of the earlier of the date the claim or controversy arose, was discovered, or should have been discovered with reasonable diligence; otherwise it shall be deemed waived. The use of binding arbitration shall not preclude a request for equitable and injunctive relief made to a court of appropriate jurisdiction.

assistant: Arbitration
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: expect criminal defense lawyers to be seers, but we must demand that they at least apprise themselves of the applicable law and provide their clients with a reasonably accurate description of it. Id. at 355. This element of gross misinformation was also present in Strader v. Garrison, 611 F.2d 61 (4th Cir.1979), where defense counsel provided, prior to his client’s guilty plea, notably inaccurate information regarding a parole eligibility date and, as was the case later in Ostrander, the defendant relied upon the advice in deciding to plead guilty. Consequently, the Court said, “When the erroneous advice induces the plea, permitting him to start over again is the imperative remedy for the constitutional deprivation.” 611 F.2d at 65. See also Richardson, 397 U.S. at 772, 90 S.Ct. 1441 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Fisher, 711 F.3d 460, 465-66 Options: A. holding that although defendant is not entitled to appeal from his guilty plea as a matter of right his arguments challenging the factual basis for his guilty plea are reviewable pursuant to a petition for writ of certiorari B. holding that plea of guilty admits all facts well pleaded and sentence imposed and is not subject to collateral attack on ground that as factual matter accused was not guilty of the offense charged C. holding that defendant was entitled to withdraw guilty plea upon habeas corpus proceedings where he pled guilty in exchange for an illegal sentence D. holding that previous crimp 35 attacks on the voluntariness coercion and adequacy of advisement of defendants guilty plea precluded raising a similar attack alleging that defendant did not understand the nature of the charge E. recognizing incompetent advice from attorney as proper ground for federal habeas attack on voluntariness of guilty plea in state court

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing incompetent advice from attorney as proper ground for federal habeas attack on voluntariness of guilty plea in state court
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices or other communications required or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing and given by certified mail (return receipt requested) or by nationally recognized overnight courier service that regularly maintains records of items delivered. Each party’s address is as set forth in the opening paragraph of this Agreement, subject to change by notice under this paragraph. Notices shall be effective the next business day after being sent by overnight courier service, and five business days after being sent by certified mail (return receipt requested).

assistant: Notices
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: for various reasons, the Protocol violates the United States and Tennessee Constitutions. During the course of the litigation, the parties became embroiled in a discovery dispute, which eventually resulted in this Court’s March 10, 2015 decision, West v. Schofield, 460 S.W.3d 113 (Tenn. 2015). In this first interlocutory decision, we, inter alia, made clear that the Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action was limited to challenging the Protocol on its face, as opposed to any as-applied challenges. Id. at 131-32. This Court issued a second interlocutory decision after the Plaintiffs amended their complaint to challenge the constitutionality of a 2014 statute that designated electrocution as an alternative method of execution. See West v. Schofield, 468 S.W.3d 482, 484-85 (Tenn. 2015) (<HOLDING>). In between these two decisions, the trial Options: A. holding that the carrying out of an execution after the first execution attempt had failed did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment B. holding that a release of such claims or other matters arising from the beginning of time to the date of execution of this agreement did not protect the defendant from liability arising from unconstitutional conduct that occurred after the agreements execution C. holding that because the plaintiffs are not currently subject to execution by electrocution and will not ever become subject to execution by electrocution unless one of two statutory contingencies occurs in the future their claims challenging the constitutionality of the 2014 statute and electrocution as a means of execution are not ripe and reversing the trial courts denial of the defendants motion to dismiss these claims D. holding creditors who obtained judgment subsequent to corporations execution of mortgage had no right to challenge mortgages execution E. holding that defendants claim that execution by electrocution or lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is meritless

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that because the plaintiffs are not currently subject to execution by electrocution and will not ever become subject to execution by electrocution unless one of two statutory contingencies occurs in the future their claims challenging the constitutionality of the 2014 statute and electrocution as a means of execution are not ripe and reversing the trial courts denial of the defendants motion to dismiss these claims
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: both the Code and the relevant regulations that allowed the double deduction at issue. In fact, Ilfeld itself suggests that it would give way to permissive regulations. See 292 U.S. at 68, 54 S.Ct. 596 (“There is nothing in the Act that purports to authorize double deduction of losses or in the regulations to suggest that the [IRS] construed any of its provisions to empower [the IRS] to prescribe a regulation that would 'permit consolidated returns to be made on the basis now claimed by [the parent].” (emphases added)). The deductions in Ilfeld violated the existing regulations, which was the basis of the decision. Id. at 67, 54 S.Ct. 596. Nor do any other Supreme Court cases make such a leap. See McLaughlin v. Pac. Lumber Co., 293 U.S. 351, 355-56, 55 S.Ct. 219, 79 L.Ed. 423 (1934) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Skelly Oil Co., 394 U.S. Options: A. holding that the claimed deductions were inconsistent with the governing statute where no onpoint regulations permitted the duplicative deductions B. holding that as the court has made clear in several recent decisions a claim that the application of government regulations effects a taking of a property interest is not ripe until the government entity charged with implementing the regulations has reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue C. holding that where the subject matter of the statute falls squarely within the agencies areas of expertise and the regulations were issued as a result of a statutorilycoordinated effort among the agencies chevron is the governing standard D. holding that the mustbill policy is a reasonable implementation of the reimbursement system and consistent with the governing statute and regulations E. holding moot a constitutional challenge to a state statute governing the involuntary commitment of mentally ill minors because the law had been replaced with a different statute

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the claimed deductions were inconsistent with the governing statute where no onpoint regulations permitted the duplicative deductions
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower shall pay all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses (including reasonable fees and disbursements of outside counsel): (1) of the Administrative Agent incident to the preparation, negotiation and administration of the Loan Documents, including any proposed Modifications or waivers with respect thereto, the syndication of the Revolving Commitments (but such expenses shall not include any fees paid to the syndicate members), and the preservation and protection of the rights of the Lenders, the Issuing Lenders, the Swing Line Lenders and the Administrative Agent under the Loan Documents, and (2) of the Administrative Agent, each of the Issuing Lenders, each of the Swing Line Lenders and each of the Lenders incident to the enforcement of payment of the Obligations, whether by judicial proceedings or otherwise, including, without limitation, in connection with bankruptcy, insolvency, liquidation, reorganization, moratorium or other similar proceedings involving any Borrower Party or a “workout” of the Obligations; provided that only one property inspection or site visit performed pursuant to Section 7.4 shall be paid for by the Borrower each year, unless a Potential Default or Event of Default has occurred and is continuing, in which case there shall be no limit to property inspections or site visits performed pursuant to Section 7.4 , and the Borrower shall pay the costs associated with each such inspection and visit performed during such periods. The obligations of the Borrower under this Section 7.6 shall survive payment of all other Obligations.

assistant: Expenses
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: The Town then invoked the Williamson County state-litigation requirement and asserted that the Owners’ taking claim was unripe. Although “[r]ipeness reflects constitutional considerations that implicate ‘Article III limitations on judicial power,’ as well as ‘prudential reasons for refusing to exercise jurisdiction,’ ” Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 130 S.Ct. 1758, 1767 n. 2, 176 L.Ed.2d 605 (2010) (quoting Reno v. Catholic Social Servs., Inc., 509 U.S. 43, 57, n. 18, 113 S.Ct. 2485, 125 L.Ed.2d 38 (1993)), the Williamson County state-litigation requirement involves only prudential considerations, Suitum v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 520 U.S. 725, 734, 117 S.Ct. 1659, 137 L.Ed.2d 980 (1997); see also Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc., 130 S.Ct. at 2610 (<HOLDING>). Because Williamson County is a prudential Options: A. holding that motion to transfer also must show either that county where action is pending is improper or that venue is mandatory in another county B. holding that exhaustion of issues is jurisdictional C. holding immunity from liability is not jurisdictional D. holding that williamson county is not jurisdictional E. recognizing county officers as those whose general authority and jurisdiction are confined within the limits of the county in which they are appointed who are appointed in and for a particular county and whose duties apply only to that county and through whom the county performs its usual political functions

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that williamson county is not jurisdictional
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, asserting the Supreme Court established a new rule made retroactive when it held in Johnson v. United States that the “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) is unconstitutional. 576 U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). The government joins his motion. We grant Woods authorization to file a successive § 2255 petition. In October 2002, a jury convicted Woods of being a felon in possession of a firearm and a felon in possession of ammunition, both in violation of 18 U.S.C § 922(g)(1), and a felon in possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(k). While Woods’s conviction under § 922(g)(1) would typically carry a maximum sentence of ten years, Woods had (<HOLDING>); Pakala v. United States, 804 F.3d 139, 140 Options: A. holding johnson announced a new substantive rule and prior supreme court holdings make it retroactive B. holding the same under blakely v washington 542 us 296 124 sct 2531 159 led2d 403 2004 C. holding that after blakely v washington 542 us 296 124 sct 2531 159 led2d 403 2004 statutory maximum is the maximum that this particular defendant can face in light of his criminal history and the facts found by a jury or admitted by the defendant D. holding that the safety valve provision of 18 usc 3553f is not unconstitutional under apprendi 530 us 466 120 sct 2348 147 led2d 435 or blakely v washington 542 us 296 124 sct 2531 159 led2d 403 2004 E. holding supreme court made new substantive rules retroactive in schriro v summerlin 542 us 348 351 124 sct 2519 159 led2d 442 2004 but finding johnson did not announce a new substantive rule under summerlin

assistant: The best answer is E. holding supreme court made new substantive rules retroactive in schriro v summerlin 542 us 348 351 124 sct 2519 159 led2d 442 2004 but finding johnson did not announce a new substantive rule under summerlin
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 322, 111 S.Ct. 1267, 1273, 113 L.Ed.2d 335 (1991) (citations omitted). “This requirement of judgment or choice is not satisfied if a ‘federal statute, regulation, or policy specifically prescribes a course of action for an employee to follow,’ because ‘the employee has no rightful option but to adhére to the directive.’ ” Id. (quoting Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531, 536, 108 S.Ct. 1954, 1958-59, 100 L.Ed.2d 531 (1988)). Second, the judgment or decision must be grounded on considerations of social, economic, or political public policy. Id. at 323-24, 111 S.Ct. at 1273-74. a. Discretionary Conduct The United States is under no statutory duty to establish an aid to navigation at a particular place. See Tringali Bros. v. United States, 630 F.2d 1089, 1090 (5th Cir. Unit A 1980) (<HOLDING>). Although, the Coast Guard has the specific Options: A. holding no duty and noting that foreseeability bears on the scope of a duty and not whether it exists in the first place B. holding that trial court has no duty to establish waiver on record C. holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify D. holding that while a district court has discretion to consider other materials in the record it has no obligation to do so where the evidence is not set forth in the opposing papers with adequate references so that it could conveniently be found E. holding that the coast guard has no statutory duty to place navigational aids in hazardous waterways but is authorized to do so

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the coast guard has no statutory duty to place navigational aids in hazardous waterways but is authorized to do so
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: You have seven (7) days from the date you sign this Agreement to change your mind. If you change your mind, you must send written notice of your decision to the Chairman of the Board at Gyrodyne, LLC, One Flowerfield, Suite 24, St. James, New York 11780, with a copy to Farrell Fritz, P.C., 1320 RXR Plaza, Uniondale, New York 10017, Attention: Alon Y. Kapen, Esq., so that the Chairman of the Board and Mr. Kapen receive your revocation no later than the eighth (8th) day after you originally signed the Agreement. You should understand that the Company will not be required to provide the payment set forth in paragraph 3 unless this Agreement and the Supplemental Release become effective.

assistant: Effective Dates
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: machines (for example, for pulp or asbestos-cement) (excluding machinery belts of heading 59.10). (3) Articles formed of linked monofilament yarn spirals and having similar uses to the textile fabrics and felts of a kind used in paper-making or similar machines referred to in (2) above. (4) Gaskets and diaphragms for pumps, motors, etc., and washers (excluding those of heading 84.84). (5) Discs, sleeves and pads for shoe polishing and other machines. (6) Textile bags for oil presses. (7) Cords cut to length, with knots, loops, or metal or glass eyelets, for use on Jacquard or other looms. (8) Loom pickers. (9) Bags for vacuum cleaners, filter bags for air filtration plant[s], oil filters for engines, etc. Explanatory Notes, Heading 5911, at (B) (emphases omitted). 23 . 10, 113 (1914) (<HOLDING>); Benteler Indus., Inc. v. United States, 17 Options: A. holding that where the bia has given reasoned consideration to the petition and made adequate findings it need not expressly parse or refute on the record each individual argument or piece of evidence B. recognizing that most small articles are not produced as individual or separate products of the loom but for economy of manufacture are first woven in the piece and stating that where such articles are imported in the piece and nothing remains to be done except to cut them apart they shall be treated for dutiable purposes as if already cut apart and assessed according to their individual character or identity but only where the character or identity of the individual articles is fixed with certainty and where the woven piece in its entirety is not commercially capable of any other use C. holding that an administrator need not address each piece of evidence D. holding that the bia is not required to expressly parse or refute on the record each individual argument or piece of evidence offered by the petitioner as long as it has given reasoned consideration to the petition and made adequate findings E. holding that there is a duty to check articles of incorporation of defunct corporation for identity and address of directors

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that most small articles are not produced as individual or separate products of the loom but for economy of manufacture are first woven in the piece and stating that where such articles are imported in the piece and nothing remains to be done except to cut them apart they shall be treated for dutiable purposes as if already cut apart and assessed according to their individual character or identity but only where the character or identity of the individual articles is fixed with certainty and where the woven piece in its entirety is not commercially capable of any other use