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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The grant of Granted PBRSUs and any issuance of PBRSU Shares hereunder shall be subject to, and shall comply with, any applicable requirements of any foreign and U.S. federal and state securities laws, rules and regulations (including, without limitation, the provisions of the Securities Act, the Exchange Act and in each case any respective rules and regulations promulgated thereunder) and any other law, rule regulation or exchange requirement applicable thereto. The Company shall not be obligated to issue any PBRSUs or any shares of Common Stock pursuant to this Agreement if any such issuance would violate any such requirements. As a condition to the settlement of the Granted PBRSUs, the Company may require the Participant to satisfy any qualifications that may be necessary or appropriate to evidence compliance with any applicable law or regulation.

assistant: Compliance With 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: intent, or identification, so long as the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant. Fed.R.Evid. 404(b); Fed.R.Evid. 403. Toliver was charged under the RICO statute, and thus the government was required to prove that he was “employed by or associated with any enterprise ” affecting its purpose through racketeering activity. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (2006) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has held that an “enterprise” under the statute includes “a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct.” United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 583, 101 S.Ct. 2524, 69 L.Ed.2d 246 (1981); see also Boyle v. United States, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 2237, 2245-46, 173 L.Ed.2d 1265 (2009) (<HOLDING>). For an individual to be convicted of a RICO Options: A. holding that to constitute an enterprise under rico the enterprises structure must provide some mechanism for controlling and directing the affairs of the group on an ongoing rather than an ad hoc basis B. holding that a rico enterprise does not need to have a formal businesslike structure or hierarchy C. holding that private plaintiffs can seek equitable relief under rico D. holding that predicate acts need not be in furtherance of the enterprise E. holding that an enterprise under rico need not have a businesslike structure and can have a rather informal organization

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an enterprise under rico need not have a businesslike structure and can have a rather informal organization
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: where the underlying claim is for breach of a contract); W.D. Haden Co. v. Dodgen, 158 Tex. 74, 81-82, 308 S.W.2d 838, 842 (1958) (drawing no distinction between the individual defendant and the agency defendant in holding that a suit seeking “enforcement of contract rights” is barred by immunity in the absence of any “statutory provision governing or limiting the manner of sale”). The underlying nature of Multi-County’s contract claim is not altered simply because it seeks to prevent the governmental entities from continuing the alleged breach of contract in the future rather than seeking monetary damages for a breach that may have occurred in the past. In sum, this is a contract action to which governmental immunity applies. See, e.g., Dodgen, 158 Tex. at 79, 308 S.W.2d at 840-41 (<HOLDING>); Anderson v. City of McKinney, 236 S.W.3d 481, Options: A. holding that immunity applies to suit for declaratory judgment that plaintiff was entitled to continue paying for mudshell at the price specified in its contract with the government B. holding that plaintiff stated a claim for breach of contract when it alleged the government failed to purchase insurance for plaintiff as agreed by contract C. holding that for a suit to be brought in the venue in which the contract was to be performed the contract must expressly state where the performance of the contract was to occur D. holding that plaintiff was entitled to sue under rule 10b5 for the difference between the price and the value received from the sale of the security where as here the evil is not the price at which plaintiff bought but the fact of being induced to buy E. holding that immunity from suit precluded claim for breach of contract for sale of county property and request for specific performance of contract

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that immunity applies to suit for declaratory judgment that plaintiff was entitled to continue paying for mudshell at the price specified in its contract with the government
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 Plaintiff is not subject to merit system protection under Ala.Code § 45-4-120 or otherwise that he did not, therefore, have a property interest in his job. Nonetheless, no published decision of an Alabama state or federal court appears to have interpreted that statute or otherwise addressed the rights of a deputy sheriff from Bibb County as they relate to due process or continued employment more generally. Further, the Alabama Supreme Court has recently noted some potential uncertainty as it relates to whether deputy sheriffs are subject to civil service protections afforded county employees. See Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 64 v. Personnel Bd. of Jefferson County, 103 So.3d 17, 20 n. 3 (Ala.2012); cf. Etowah County Com’n v. Grant, 10 So.3d 1009, 1012-13 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (<HOLDING>). As a result, the legal basis of Plaintiffs Options: A. holding that a denial of entitlement to service connection is a factual determination that we may not review B. holding that deputy sheriffs were in the service of the county rather than in the service of the state for purposes of determining their entitlement to overtime compensation under alacode 36214 or 41 distinguishing whitten and mack supra C. holding that an attempted service on the partys counsel was insufficient without proof of the counsels actual authority to receive service D. holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service E. holding that service of a statecourt summons and complaint after removal to federal court is valid service

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that deputy sheriffs were in the service of the county rather than in the service of the state for purposes of determining their entitlement to overtime compensation under alacode 36214 or 41 distinguishing whitten and mack supra
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: The term “Confidential Information” means any and all tangible and intangible information disclosed to Receiver in oral, written, graphic, recorded, photographic, any machine-readable or in any other medium or form relating to the intellectual property, management, operations, products, inventions, suppliers, customers, financials of VIDAR or any present or contemplated project, contract or relationship between VIDAR and Receiver, including without limitation, any and all plans, Intellectual Property (defined below), know-how, computer programs, software (source and object code), algorithms, computer processing systems, techniques, methodologies, formulae, compilations of information, designs, drawings, schematics, analyses, evaluations, formulations, ingredients, samples, processes, machines, prototypes, mock-ups, product performance data, proposals, job notes, reports, records, specifications, manuals, supplier and customer lists and information, licenses, the prices it obtains or has obtained for the licensing of its software products and services, purchase and sales records, marketing information or any other information concerning the business and goodwill of VIDAR and any information which is identified as being of a confidential or proprietary nature or should be considered confidential under the circumstances.

assistant: No
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: which a fair-minded jury could find that intentional racial discrimination on the part of the Defendants caused Andromeda to close. See Denny, 456 F.3d at 434. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Count III. VI. Supplemental Jurisdiction The rulings above dispose of Plaintiffs’ federal claims. The state law claims (Counts VI-V) remain. This Court could retain the state law claims only by exercising its supplemental jurisdiction. This case does not, however, present a compelling reason for this Court to decide claims that arise solely under state law. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Counts VI-V. The dismissal is without prejudice so that they may be refilled in state court if Plaintiffs so elect. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Revene v. Charles County Commr’s, 882 F.2d 870, 875 (4th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). VII. Conclusion For the reasons stated Options: A. holding that the lower court should have entered a final order on custody B. holding appeal from an order dismissing action without prejudice was properly before this court C. holding that a district court retained supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs statelaw claims after dismissing the plaintiffs federal claims and did not abuse its discretion by declining to remand the case to state court D. holding that an order dismissing a claim without prejudice is a final appealable order if the statute of limitations for that claim has expired E. holding that the district courts order dismissing the pendent statelaw claims should have been entered without prejudice

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the district courts order dismissing the pendent statelaw claims should have been entered without prejudice
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 U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 366 U.S. 207 81 S.Ct. 1051 6 L.Ed.2d 233 Veron ATCHLEY, also known as Jack Atchley, petitioner,v.STATE OF CALIFORNIA. No. 95. Supreme Court of the United States May 1, 1961 Miss Rosalie S. Asher, Sacramento, Cal., for petitioner. Mrs. Doris H. Maier, Sacramento, Cal., for respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of California. PER CURIAM. 1 After hearing oral argument and fully examining the record, we conclude that the totality of circumstances as the record makes them manifest did not warrant bringing the case here. Accordingly, the writ is dismissed.

assistant: 9
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 Lender may at any time, without the consent of, or notice to, the Borrower or the Administrative Agent, sell participations to any Person (other than a natural person or the Borrower or any of the Borrower's Affiliates or Subsidiaries) (each, a "Participant") in all or a portion of such Lender's rights and/or obligations under this Agreement (including all or a portion of its Commitment and/or the Loans owing to it); provided that (i) such Lender's obligations under this Agreement shall remain unchanged, (ii) such Lender shall remain solely responsible to the other parties hereto for the performance of such obligations and (iii) the Borrower, the Administrative Agent, the Lenders, and the Issuing Lender shall continue to deal solely and directly with such Lender in connection with such Lender's rights and obligations under this Agreement.

assistant: Participations
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: covered by its policy of insurance, where the insurer is guilty of negligence or of fraud or bad faith in failing to adjust or compromise the claim to the injury of the insured.” Id. at 343-44, 43 S.E.2d 282. Subsequently, other cases raised the issue of whether the standard was negligence as opposed to bad faith. See, e.g., Smoot v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 299 F.2d 525 (5th Cir.1962) (noting prior Fifth Circuit cases “go a long way in suggesting that Georgia does not follow the negligence theory” but that a “considerable body of Georgia law found in very pointed expressions in many cases strongly indicates that Georgia may, if it has not already done so, adopt the negligence concept as well”); Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Phillips, 110 Ga.App. 581, 139 S.E.2d 412 (1964) (<HOLDING>). The case most often cited for establishing Options: A. holding title company liable for bad faith B. holding that insured cannot bring an action against its insurer for bad faith failure to settle a claim in the absence of an excess verdict C. holding that under montana common law an insurer cannot be held liable for bad faith in denying a claim if the insurer had a reasonable basis for contesting the claim D. holding that a negligence claim against an insured and a bad faith claim against the insurer are not separate as the first must be proved to prevail on the second E. holding bad faith not merely negligence must be proved if insurer is to be held liable for damages over policy limits for refusing to settle

assistant: The best answer is E. holding bad faith not merely negligence must be proved if insurer is to be held liable for damages over policy limits for refusing to settle
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: not have acquired any executory obligations towards Brunson because his employment was terminable at will misses the point. Brunson is not suing to enforce an ex-ecutory obligation but to recover compensation for services which he has already fully performed, allegedly in reliance on promises made to him in advance of such performance. Compare Alston v. Brown Transport Corp., 182 Ga. App. 632 (356 SE2d 517) (1987); Murphine v. Hosp. Auth. of Floyd County, 151 Ga. App. 722 (261 SE2d 457) (1979). Brunson would not have been required to give the company “additional” consideration over and above the performance of his job as a sales representative in order to accept the offer created by these alleged promises. Compare Management Search v. Morgan, 136 Ga. App. 651 (222 SE2d 154) (1975) (<HOLDING>). Similarly misplaced is C. B. A.’s reliance on Options: A. holding that under the mwa the question of whether an employee was an independent contractor or an employee was a question of statutory interpretation B. holding that an employers promise to pay a bonus to an employee was not enforceable where the employee was already obligated under a written contract to perform the services in question C. holding that employee may claim contract created based on employer promise of severance pay to employee D. holding that under texas law a contract may be terminable at will and without cause but an employer cannot promise to pay employee a certain wage and then unilaterally decide to pay employee less for work she has already performed E. holding that res judicata properly barred claims based on an employers decision to terminate an employee because the termination was not a fresh act of discrimination rather it was the same decision not to allow the employee to return to work that the employee had challenged previously

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an employers promise to pay a bonus to an employee was not enforceable where the employee was already obligated under a written contract to perform the services in question
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: then no bills until March 2004, within the ninety days prior to the April 13, 2004 letter. In March, doctors’ notes indicate that Bur-ress sought to find work that could accommodate him, but that his employer would not let him go back to work while he was using a cane. A doctor’s note from April 8, 2004, states that Burress was “obviously a little bit discouraged” because he learned the day before from another physician that his brucellosis was “a life-threatening situation and he was going to require a major surgical procedure.” Also, the April letter explained that while Burress had recently been diagnosed with brucellosis, he had “only more recently” been informed of the connection to his work at IBP. See Holmquist v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 261 N.W.2d 516, 523 (Iowa Ct.App.1977) (<HOLDING>). Because we have no factual findings by the Options: A. holding letter that came into evidence without objection may be used to establish any material fact B. holding that a statute providing for confidentiality of medical records may not be used to shield relevant and material evidence from legal process C. holding that such circumstantial evidence may be used to prove discrimination D. holding that ijnadmissible evidence may be material if the evidence would have led to admissible evidence E. holding that although trial courts oral opinion may be used as a reference in the interpretation of its written findings of fact it is not a finding of fact

assistant: The best answer is A. holding letter that came into evidence without objection may be used to establish any material fact
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 district court would have been de facto granting a continuance by declaring a mistrial and summoning new jurors. We decline here to find that the district court abused its discretion in denying a mistrial when the defendant’s own misconduct caused the alleged impartiality of the jurors and the court took reasonable steps to ensure the jurors could serve impartially. Williams v. Woodford, 306 F.3d 665, 723-24 (9th Cir.2002) (“The Sixth Amendment affords no relief when the defendant’s own misconduct caused the alleged juror partiality and the trial judge employed reasonable means under the circumstances to preserve the trial’s fairness”) (citing United States v. Hernandez, 952 F.2d 1110, 1116-18 (9th Cir.1991)). See also United States v. Harris, 2 F.3d 1452, 1456 (7th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Because the district court afforded the Options: A. holding that law will not permit insured to profit from his own breach of contract when insured disregarded his contractual obligation to cooperate with insurer B. holding that a bank officer who obtained for his own benefit a profit participation in a real estate venture in exchange for loaning bank money misappropriated a corporate asset C. holding that a defendant should not profit from his own outburst D. recognizing in context of fraudulent nondisclosure cases that a defendant may reasonably expect the plaintiff to make his own investigation draw his own conclusions and protect himself E. holding that outofstate plaintiff had procured his own absence at trial of his case where record contained no intimation that his absence resulted from any reason other than his own volition

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a defendant should not profit from his own outburst
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 term of this Partnership shall continue in existence until the close of Partnership business on the earliest to occur of (i) the fiftieth anniversary of the date of this Agreement, and (ii) such earlier time as this Agreement may specify.

assistant: Terms
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: If any provision or covenant, or any part thereof, of this Agreement should be held by any court to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, either in whole or in part, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability will not affect the validity, legality or enforceability of the remaining provisions or covenants, or any part thereof, of this Agreement, all of which will remain in full force and effect.

assistant: Severability
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: (a) The Seller hereby acknowledges that the Purchaser has, concurrently with the execution hereof, executed and delivered the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and that, in connection therewith, it has assigned its rights hereunder to the Trustee for the benefit of the Certificateholders and the Retained Interest Owner. The Seller hereby acknowledges its obligations pursuant to Sections 2.01, 2.02 and 2.03 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the Seller, the Purchaser and their permitted successors and assigns. Any Person into which the Seller may be merged or consolidated, or any Person resulting from any merger, conversion or consolidation to which the Seller may become a party, or any Person succeeding to all or substantially all of the business of the Seller, shall be the successor to the Seller hereunder without any further act. The warranties and representations and the agreements made by the Seller herein shall survive delivery of the Mortgage Loans to the Trustee until the termination of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, but shall not be further assigned by the Trustee to any Person.

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: To the best knowledge of MHC, it has complied with all laws, municipal bylaws, regulations, rules, orders, judgments, decrees and other requirements and policies imposed by any governmental authority applicable to it, its properties or the operation of its business, except where the failure to comply will not have a material adverse effect on the business, properties, financial condition or earnings of MHC.

assistant: Compliance With 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: See Larson, 337 U.S. at 695, 69 S.Ct. 1457 (concluding that sovereign immunity bars suits challenging a government official’s decision, even if that decision was “based on an incorrect decision as to law or fact, if the officer making the decision was empowered to do so”). We need go no further. In accordance with the foregoing, we vacate the dismissal of the action on the merits and remand for the entry of an order dismissing the action, without prejudice, for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. So Ordered. 1 . Although the instant action is also premised on the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that statute plainly does not operate as an express waiver of sovereign immunity. See Progressive Consumers Fed. Credit Union v. United States, 79 F.3d 1228, 1230 (1st Cir. 1996) (<HOLDING>). 2 . In view of this fact, the appellant’s Options: A. holding that neither injunctive nor declaratory relief is available to private litigants under the fdcpa B. recognizing that the declaratory judgment act does not effect a waiver of sovereign immunity because it neither provides nor denies a jurisdictional basis for actions under federal law but merely defines the scope of available declaratory relief citation and internal quotation marks omitted C. holding that the declaratory judgment act is remedial only and the party seeking declaratory relief must have an underlying cause of action D. holding that the judicial immunity available to federal officers extends to section 1983 actions for declaratory and injunctive relief E. recognizing that the declaratory judgment act is only procedural and does not create substantive rights internal quotation marks and citations omitted

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that the declaratory judgment act does not effect a waiver of sovereign immunity because it neither provides nor denies a jurisdictional basis for actions under federal law but merely defines the scope of available declaratory relief citation and internal quotation marks omitted
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 may be terminated at any time prior to the Closing Date by mutual written consent of the Buyer and the Seller. In the event of a termination of this Agreement pursuant to this Section, this Agreement shall forthwith become void and there shall be no liability on the part of any party hereto or any of its affiliates, directors, officers, stockholders or members except that nothing herein shall relieve any party from liability for any breach hereof occurring prior to termination. All fees and expenses incurred in connection with this Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby shall be paid by the party incurring such expenses, whether or not the Seller Acquisition is consummated.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: He, thereafter, failed to return the fee to Ms. Nelson. We agree with Judge Greenberg that Respondent’s actions violate Rule 8.4(c). An attorney violates Subsection (d) of Rule 8.4 when he or she “engage[s] in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.” We have previously held that an attorney violates Rule 8.4(d) when he or she willfully fails to attend a hearing on behalf of his or her client. See Shakir, 427 Md. at 206, 46 A.3d at 1168; Attorney Grievance v. Dominguez, 427 Md. 308, 325-26, 47 A.3d 975, 985 (2011). An attorney can also violate 8.4(d) by failing to pursue his or her client’s objectives, failing to communicate with his or her client, or withholding unearned fees. See McCulloch, 404 Md. at 401, 946 A.2d at 1017; Tinsky, 377 Md. at 651, 835 A.2d at 545 (<HOLDING>). Here, Respondent did not appear on behalf of Options: A. holding that an attorney violated rule 84d when he attempted to charge his client whom he had agreed to represent for free because defendants view of the judicial process would be tainted B. holding that an attorneys filing a notice of appearance on behalf of his or her client constitute a waiver of service of process by the client C. holding that an attorney violated rule 84d when he failed to perform any effective action on behalf of his client D. holding that an attorney violated mlrpc 84d by faffing to inform his client of the dismissal of his clients complaint E. holding trial court erred when it sanctioned client where the evidence showed that the attorney filed frivolous pleadings on behalf of the client but the client did nothing more than rely on her attorneys advice

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an attorney violated rule 84d when he failed to perform any effective action on behalf of his client
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: By accepting this Award, Participant expressly warrants that he or she has received an Award of Performance Share Units under the Plan, and has received, read and understood a description of the Plan. Participant understands that the Plan is discretionary in nature and may be amended, suspended or terminated by the Company at any time.

assistant: Amendments
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: Each of the Lenders and the Issuing Bank may continue to make loans or extend credit to the Borrowers based on this Loan Guaranty until five (5) days after it receives written notice of termination from any Loan Guarantor. Notwithstanding receipt of any such notice, each Loan Guarantor will continue to be liable to the Lenders for any Guaranteed Obligations created, assumed or committed to prior to the fifth day after receipt of the notice, and all subsequent renewals, extensions, modifications and amendments with respect to, or substitutions for, all or any part of such Guaranteed Obligations. Nothing in this Section 10.08 shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of, or eliminate, limit, reduce or otherwise impair any rights or remedies the Administrative Agent or any Lender may have in respect of, any Default or Event of Default that shall exist under clause (r) of Article VII hereof as a result of any such notice of termination.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: an arbitration clause, ther s Workers of Am., 422 F.2d 77, 81 (2d Cir.1970) (relying on “positive assurance” rule to conclude that employer claims were subject to arbitration). Notably, less than a month before this court heard oral arguments in this case, the Second Circuit again emphasized that although traditional rules of contract interpretation generally apply to these types of cases, they are not always “readily [ ] transposed into the context of national labor law—as though the notion ‘one size fits all’ applies in the law. On the contrary, in labor law there are other policies to con sider, in particular the strong presumption in favor of arbitrability....” Mulvaney Mechanical, Inc. v. Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Ass’n, 288 F.3d 491, 2000 WL 33730559, at *1 (2d Cir. Apr.24, 2002) (<HOLDING>). C. Interpretation of “Article XXIII: Options: A. holding that in the grievance representation context an employee must prove that the unions acts tainted the grievance procedure such that the outcome was more than likely affected by the unions breach internal citation and quotation omitted B. holding that presumption of arbitrability precluded employer from unilaterally repudiating its cba despite unions breach of nostrike clause C. holding that a cause of action for breach of a purported implied contract would require interpretation of a cba and the totality of the parties contractual relationship D. holding that proof of unions breach of duty to fairly represent is an essential element of employees hybrid suit E. holding that no modification of the original employment contract occurred when the employer unilaterally issued a new handbook

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that presumption of arbitrability precluded employer from unilaterally repudiating its cba despite unions breach of nostrike clause
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: at the time of infringement.” Id. Consequently, as the court explained in Grain Processing, the issue is whether the noninfringing product was an available and acceptable substitute for the patented product. Id. at 1353. Plaintiff does not dispute that the 2707 ball was available, as that term is used in applying the “but for” inquiry. Thus, the issue is whether the 2707 ball was an acceptable substitute. The issues of availability and acceptability are questions of fact, typically left for a jury to decide. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1577 (Fed.Cir.1992) (“The existence of a non-infringing substitute [under the Panduit test] is a question of fact.... ”); Scripto-Tokai Corp. v. Gillette Co., 788 F.Supp. 439, 445 (C.D.Cal.1992) (<HOLDING>). The issue for the court on defendant’s motion Options: A. holding that estoppel was a question of fact B. holding the question of whether insurance companys requests were reasonable under policy language was a fact question C. holding that the question whether a cause of action exists is not a question of jurisdiction and therefore may be assumed without being decided D. holding it is a question of fact E. holding that the issue of whether acceptable noninfringing substitutes existed and were available was a question of fact to be decided at trial

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the issue of whether acceptable noninfringing substitutes existed and were available was a question of fact to be decided at trial
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: Interest on Loans, Letter of Credit fees, Related Expenses, and commitment and other fees and charges hereunder shall be computed on the basis of a year having three hundred sixty (360) days and calculated for the actual number of days elapsed.

assistant: Fees
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: Participation in the Plan shall be limited to executives who (i) meet such eligibility criteria as the Committee shall establish from time to time, and (ii) elect to participate in this Plan by submitting a Participation Agreement via the third party administrator’s website during the defined Open Enrollment period. A Participation Agreement must be submitted prior to the December 31st immediately preceding the Plan Year for which it is effective. The Committee shall have the discretion to establish special deadlines regarding the submission of Participation Agreements for Participants if it determines that such deadlines conform to the requirements of Code Section 409A.

assistant: Participations
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: There is no Legal Proceeding pending against Seller or, to Seller’s Knowledge, threatened or asserted in writing, against Seller or any of its Affiliates (i) with respect to the Product or any other Purchased Asset, or (ii) that would (A) prohibit or materially hinder, delay or otherwise impair Seller’s ability to perform its obligations under the Transaction Documents, (B) affect the legality, validity or enforceability of the Transaction Documents, (C) prevent or delay the consummation of any of the Transactions, (D) affect the use of any of the Purchased Assets, or (E) affect the marketing and sale of the Product.

assistant: Litigations
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 Employee's employment, the Company shall promptly pay or reimburse Employee for all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by Employee in the performance of duties hereunder in accordance with the Company's policies and procedures then in effect.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: From and after the Effective Date, the applicable Agent shall make all payments in respect of the Assigned Interest (including payments of principal, interest, fees and other amounts) to the Assignor for amounts which have accrued to but excluding the Effective Date and to the Assignee for amounts which have accrued from and after the Effective Date.

assistant: Payments
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: we make no warranties or representations , express or implied , as to the timeliness , accuracy , quality , completeness or existence of the content and information posted on the products .

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The execution, delivery and performance by the Loan Parties of the Loan Documents to which such Loan Parties are parties and the consummation of the transactions contemplated by such Loan Documents do not and will not (i) except as could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect, violate (A) any provision of any law or any governmental rule or regulation applicable to such Loan Party or (B) any Requirement of Law applicable to such Loan Party (including, without limitation, in respect of the Australian Borrowers, Section 260A of the Corporations Act (Cth) (2001)); (ii) except as could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect, conflict with, result in a breach of, constitute (with due notice or lapse of time or both) a default under any Contractual Obligation of such Loan Party; (iii) violate any of the Organizational Documents of such Loan Party, (iv) result in or require the creation or imposition of any Lien upon any of the properties or assets of such Loan Party (other than any Liens created under any of the Loan Documents in favor of the Collateral Agent, on behalf of the Secured Parties and Permitted Liens); or (v) require any approval of stockholders, members or partners or any approval or consent of any Person under any material Contractual Obligation of such Loan Party, except for such approvals or consents which have been obtained and are in full force and effect.

assistant: No Conflicts
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 fraud on nearly a dozen occasions). The allegations of an enterprise also are sufficiently distinct from the pattern of racketeering activity. A discrete set of facts is not necessary, since “proof used to establish these separate elements may in particular cases coalesce.” Turkette, 452 U.S. at 583, 101 S.Ct. 2524; see also Ouwinga v. Benistar 419 Plan Servs., Inc., 694 F.3d 783, 794 (6th Cir.2012) (stating that “the evidence used to prove the pattern of racketeering activity and the evidence establishing an enterprise ‘may in particular cases coalesce’ ”) (quoting Boyle, 556 U.S. at 947, 129 S.Ct. 2237). The Supreme Court has held that evidence of the pattern of activity may itself support the inference of an association-in-fact enterprise. Boyle, 556 U.S. at 952, 129 S.Ct. 2237 (<HOLDING>). Here, the complaint describes the defendants’ Options: A. recognizing that it is difficult to understand how a corporation can acquire or maintain an interest in itself through a pattern of racketeering activity and that 1962b may require that the person and enterprise be distinct entities B. recognizing that by accepting bribes in exchange for allowing violations of a collective bargaining agreement the defendant was conducting the rico enterprise local union through racketeering activity even though the union was harmed by the racketeering activity C. holding that instructions allowing a jury to find an enterprise from evidence of its activity as opposed to its structure properly conveyed the holding in turkette that proof of a pattern of racketeering activity may be sufficient in a particular case to permit a jury to infer the existence of an associationinfact enterprise D. holding that to state a 1962a claim plaintiff must allege that the defendants received income derived from a pattern of racketeering activity and invested it in the acquisition of any interest in or the establishment or operation of a rico enterprise E. holding that to prevail under civil rico plaintiff must prove that defendants participated in the conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that instructions allowing a jury to find an enterprise from evidence of its activity as opposed to its structure properly conveyed the holding in turkette that proof of a pattern of racketeering activity may be sufficient in a particular case to permit a jury to infer the existence of an associationinfact enterprise
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: Each Investor, on the one hand, and the Company, on the other hand, acknowledges and agrees that irreparable injury to the other Parties hereto would occur in the event any of the provisions of this Agreement were not performed in accordance with their specific terms or were otherwise breached and that such injury would not be adequately compensable by the remedies available at law (including the payment of money damages). It is accordingly agreed that each Investor, on the one hand, and the Company, on the other hand (the “ Moving Party ”), shall be entitled to specific enforcement of, and injunctive relief to prevent any violation of, the terms hereof, and the other Parties hereto will not take action, directly or indirectly, in opposition to the Moving Party seeking such relief on the grounds that any other remedy or relief is available at law or in equity. This Section 8 is not the exclusive remedy for any violation of this Agreement.

assistant: Specific Performance
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 shall become effective when it shall have been executed by each Borrower and each Guarantor named on the signature pages hereto and the Administrative Agent shall have been notified by each Initial Lender that such Initial Lender has executed it and thereafter shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Borrowers and the Guarantors named on the signature pages hereto and each Agent and each Lender and their respective successors and assigns, except that none of the Borrowers nor any other Loan Party shall have the right to assign its rights hereunder or any interest herein without the prior written consent of Lenders.

assistant: Binding Effects
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: court's decision to deny Mora's motion to withdraw his guilty plea because any error committed by the trial court was harmless. Rule 30 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that any error "which does not affect the substantial rights of a party shall be disregarded." Utah R.Crim. P. 30(@). In this case, we decline to determine whether the harmless error doctrine applies to rule 11 violations. During the plea colloquy, the trial court failed to inform Mora that, if he chose to go to trial, the State carried the burden of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The right to require the State to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is guaranteed by the due process clauses of the Utah and the United States Constitutions. See State v. Lopes, 1999 UT 24, ¶ 13, 980 P.2d 191 (<HOLDING>). "It is well established under Utah law that Options: A. holding that the due process clause requires that the prosecution bear the burden of proving every essential element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt and evidentiary presumptions in a jury charge that have the effect of relieving the government of that burden are therefore unconstitutional B. holding state must prove every element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt and a scheme that shifts the burden of proof to the defendant by presuming a fact upon proof of the other elements of the offense violates due process C. holding that as both a state and federal constitutional matter we conclude that due process requires that the prosecution prove every element of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt citing utah const art i 7 us const amends v xiv other citations omitted D. holding due process clause requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements included in the definition of the charged offense and new york law that requires the defendant in a second degree murder prosecution to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance in order to reduce the crime to manslaughter when no element of the charged offense is presumed does not violate the due process clause E. holding that me const art 1 5 does not require the state to prove probable cause for a search beyond a reasonable doubt

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that as both a state and federal constitutional matter we conclude that due process requires that the prosecution prove every element of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt citing utah const art i 7 us const amends v xiv other citations omitted