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: Upon the occurrence of any Event of Default and at any time thereafter during the continuance of such Event of Default, Noteholder may at its option, (a) declare the entire principal amount of this Note, together with all accrued interest thereon, the Permitted Shortfall Amount and all other amounts payable hereunder, immediately due and payable; and/or (b) exercise any or all of its rights, powers or remedies under applicable Law; provided , however that, if an Event of Default under Section 7.7 shall occur, the principal of and accrued interest on this Note together with the Permitted Shortfall Amount shall become immediately due and payable without any notice, declaration or other act on the part of Noteholder.

assistant: Remedies
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: 254 S.W.2d at 1011. Though DeToto’s affidavit does not explicitly state that Roberts refused to provide an affidavit, we believe the affidavit implicitly makes this contention through DeToto’s statement that he had spoken with Roberts and that Roberts had denied making the statements. 36 . Because we have found, based on the reasoning already discussed in this section, that appellant’s affidavits are not deficient, we need not address whether appellant’s affidavits are sufficient on some other basis. More specifically, we need not consider whether Roberts’ alleged statements to Clinton are admissible through Clinton because they constitute an admission by party-opponent. See Tex.R. Evid. 801(e)(2); Rodela v. Stale, 829 S.W.2d 845, 847-50 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist] 1992, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>); see generally Randolph N. Jonakait, The Options: A. holding that the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment is not violated by the admission of hearsay statements under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule where the defendant was able to confront and crossexamine the witness who claimed that the statements at issue were made B. holding that a police officers notes were relevant as prior and possibly inconsistent statements made and recorded by the witness C. holding that federal rule of evidence 8034 the hearsay exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment does not apply to statements made by doctors D. holding that a witness could testify about statements made to him by a police department investigator because the statements were an admission by partyopponent and were thus not excluded by the hearsay rule E. holding that the sixth amendment confrontation clause was not violated by the admission of hearsay statements under a georgia statute permitting an exception for statements by coconspirators where there was sufficient indicia of reliability supporting the truth of the statements

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a witness could testify about statements made to him by a police department investigator because the statements were an admission by partyopponent and were thus not excluded by the hearsay rule
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: the spotify services that may be accessed after payment are currently referred to as the `` premium service '' and the `` unlimited service '' ( together , the `` paid subscriptions '' ) .

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: This Agreement shall become effective as of the Effective Date and, unless earlier terminated pursuant to this ARTICLE 12, shall continue in full force and effect as long as Company continues to Exploit the Compounds or the Products in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement (the “ Term ”) .

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: by ERISA (MTD at 24-25); again, for the reasons given in the preceding section, the Court rejects that contention. The elements of a DTPA claim are (1) the plaintiff is a consumer; (2) the defendant committed a false, misleading, or deceptive act; and (3) the act caused the consumer’s damages. Tex. Bus. & Com.Code Ann. §§ 17.45(4), 17.50(a); see also Brown & Brown of Tex., Inc. v. Omni Metals, Inc., 317 S.W.3d 361, 387 (Tex.App.2010) (“Under the DTPA, a consumer may bring an action when he has relied to his detriment on a false or misleading representation, and the reliance is a producing cause of damages.”). The question of consumer status under the DTPA is question of law for the court to decide. Lukasik v. San Antonio Blue Haven Pools, Inc., 21 S.W.3d 394, 40 , (5th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Because Plaintiff was an intended third-party Options: A. holding where condemnation of a temporary easement in an airport parking garage was primarily designed for economic benefit to gain control of the garage at a discounted price the taking was not for public use and therefore was an unconstitutional taking B. holding that defendants adult son who was living on defendants property had equal control over use of premises and had authority to consent to a search C. holding that son of woman who bought garage door opener was a consumer because primary purpose of the purchase and installation into home was to benefit son D. holding that an attached garage is part of the home for payton purposes even when the garage door is open E. holding that son had no homestead interest in property even though he resided upon it with his fathers consent because son had neither title nor a present right to possess land nor right to demand partition from father who was his cotenant

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that son of woman who bought garage door opener was a consumer because primary purpose of the purchase and installation into home was to benefit son
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 PARTY ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT ANY CONTROVERSY WHICH MAY ARISE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT IS LIKELY TO INVOLVE COMPLICATED AND DIFFICULT ISSUES, AND THEREFORE IT HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY WAIVES, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, ANY RIGHT IT MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN RESPECT OF ANY LITIGATION DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT AND ANY OF THE AGREEMENTS DELIVERED IN CONNECTION HEREWITH OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY OR THEREBY. EACH PARTY CERTIFIES AND ACKNOWLEDGES THAT (A) NO REPRESENTATIVE, AGENT OR ATTORNEY OF ANY OTHER PARTY HAS REPRESENTED, EXPRESSLY OR OTHERWISE, THAT SUCH OTHER PARTY WOULD NOT, IN THE EVENT OF LITIGATION, SEEK TO ENFORCE THE FOREGOING WAIVER, (B) IT UNDERSTANDS AND HAS CONSIDERED THE IMPLICATIONS OF SUCH WAIVER, (C) IT MAKES SUCH WAIVER VOLUNTARILY AND (D) IT HAS BEEN INDUCED TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT BY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE MUTUAL WAIVER AND CERTIFICATIONS IN THIS SECTION 8.09 .

assistant: Waiver Of Jury Trials
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: seen Rider threaten Lemons or Edens. 7 . Appellees incorrectly assert that Edens failed to claim in the district court that Schultz did not adequately cross-examine Rider, and that Edens raises this issue for the first time on appeal. Edens' memorandum in support of his petition in the district court clearly raised the issue of Schultz’ failure to cross-examining Rider. R.O.A., Vol. I, Doc. 2, at 10. Thus, there is no bar to our review of the issue here. 8 .Appellees assert, as they did before the district court, that Edens’ claim that Schultz failed to adequately cross-examine Leisek was not raised in the state court proceedings and thus should not be reviewed for the first time in a federal habeas corpus action. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982) (<HOLDING>). We agree, however, with the district court's Options: A. holding that a district court must dismiss habeas petitions containing any claims that have not been exhausted in state court B. holding that administrative remedies must be exhausted prior to filing a claim in court C. holding that second and third state habeas petitions that were dismissed as impermissible successive petitions were properly filed D. holding that habeas corpus petitions are premature until administrative remedies have been exhausted E. holding that a district court faced with a mixed petition should dismiss only the unexhausted claims in the habeas petition and stay further proceedings on the remaining portion until the petitioner has exhausted hisher remedies in state court

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a district court must dismiss habeas petitions containing any claims that have not been exhausted 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: Any provision of this Agreement or of any other Loan Document which is prohibited, unenforceable or not authorized in any jurisdiction shall, as to such jurisdiction, be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition, unenforceability or non-authorization without invalidating the remaining provisions hereof or thereof or affecting the validity, enforceability or legality of any such provision in any other jurisdiction.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: differs. This is contrary to the TAA’s plain language as well as its mandate — that we construe it “to effect its purpose and make uniform the construction of other states’ law applicable to an arbitration.” Tex. Civ. PRAC. & Rem.Code § 171.003 (emphasis added); see also Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.028 (“A uniform act included in a code shall be construed to effect its general purpose to make uniform the law of those states that enact it.”). Texas, not federal, law governs this case, and that law is clear: a party may not appeal an order that grants rehearing. V. Section 171.098(a)(5) is uniformly interpreted to prohibit appeals when a rehearing is granted. The concurrence also argues that “subsection (5) allows an appeal when a re ., P.A., 34 Kan.App.2d 340, 118 P.3d 704, 706-08 (2005) (<HOLDING>); Crack Team, 128 S.W.3d at 583 (holding that Options: A. holding that a rehearing order is interlocutory and not appealable B. holding that there can be only one final appealable order C. holding that a rehearing order was not final or appealable D. holding order granting a new trial is not a final appealable order because it does not terminate the action or any of the claims or parties in the action E. holding that the ordering of a rehearing caused the judgment to not be final and appealable

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a rehearing order was not final or appealable
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 outstanding purchase right shall automatically be exercised, immediately prior to the effective date of any Change in Control, by applying the authorized payroll deductions of each Participant for the Purchase Interval in which such Change in Control occurs to the purchase of whole shares of Common Stock at the purchase price per share in effect for that Purchase Internal pursuant to the Purchase Price provisions of Paragraph C of this Article VII. However, the applicable limitation on the number of shares of Common Stock purchasable per Participant shall continue to apply to any such purchase.

assistant: Change In Control
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 entire contract if the nonmaritime obligations are merely incidental to the primary maritime nature of the contract. Second, if the nonmaritime obligations are substantial, admiralty may take jurisdiction over any maritime obligations that can be severed from the nonmari-time obligations and separately adjudicated without prejudice to the parties. Simon v. Intercontinental Transp. (ICT) B.V., 882 F.2d 1435, 1442 (9th Cir.1989) (citations omitted); see also La Reunion Francaise SA v. Barnes, 247 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir.2001). The Supreme Court’s later decision in Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Kirby, 543 U.S. 14, 125 S.Ct. 385, 160 L.Ed.2d 283, undercuts the continuing force of these two exceptions by our court. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899-900 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). The dispute in Norfolk centered on whether a Options: A. holding a threejudge panel may not reexamine normally controlling circuit precedent in the face of an intervening united states supreme court decision unless the reasoning or theory of our prior circuit authority is clearly irreconcilable with the reasoning or theory of intervening higher authority B. holding that where the relevant court of last resort has undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable then a threejudge panel of this court and district courts should consider themselves bound by the intervening higher authority and reject the prior opinion of this court as having been effectively overruled C. holding that a three judge panel is free to reexamine the holding of a prior panel when the supreme court has undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable D. holding that a three judge panel is not bound by prior circuit precedent if an intervening decision of a higher authority undercuts the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable E. holding that a threejudge panel may depart from circuit precedent that has not been expressly overruled when an intervening en banc or supreme court decision has undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a threejudge panel may depart from circuit precedent that has not been expressly overruled when an intervening en banc or supreme court decision has undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable
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: either of ncl or noe may transfer in its sole discretion the entire contractual relation with you under this agreement , or parts thereof , to the respective other affiliated nintendo company ) .

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: This majority rule is essentially the rule we have adopted for remarriage as explained in Taylor. Thus, it is entirely consistent with our current law and creates no disincentive to remarriage, a concern in states where remarriage results automatically in the termination of maintenance. We adopt the majority rule for cohabitation situations. ¶ 19. In doing so, we particularly note the cautionary words of the North Dakota Supreme Court in Cermak v. Cermak, 1997 ND 187, ¶ 10, 569 N.W.2d 280: The length of [the recipient spouse’s] relationship is unknown; it may last until her death, or may sour tomorrow. On this record, any support [she] may receive from her cohabitant is provided from his benevolence and comes with no reciprocal or continuing obligation. See also Gilman, 956 P.2d at 765 (<HOLDING>). As the Kentucky Supreme Court explained, we Options: A. recognizing that cohabitation may reduce the need for spousal support because sharing a household gives rise to economies of scale and more importantly the cohabitants income may be available to the recipient spouse B. recognizing that cohabitants owe no legal or financial support to one another C. recognizing that as with tax rates no one has a legal right to the maintenance of an existing rate or duty D. holding party must support argument with legal authority E. holding that a husband cannot be required to pay a support award that exceeds his financial ability

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that cohabitants owe no legal or financial support to one another
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: Except as otherwise specified herein, all notices and other communications required or permitted under this Award shall be in writing and, if mailed by prepaid first-class mail or certified mail, return receipt requested, shall be deemed to have been received on the earlier of the date shown on the receipt or three (3) business days after the postmarked date thereof. In addition, notices hereunder may be delivered by hand, facsimile transmission, or overnight courier, in which event the notice shall be deemed effective when delivered or transmitted. All notices and other communications under this Award shall be given to the parties hereto at the following addresses: to the Company (attention of the Secretary), at the principal office of the Company or at any other address as the Company, by notice to Participant, may designate in writing from time to time; and to Participant, at Participant’s address as shown on the records of the Company, or at any other address as Participant or, if applicable, the Participant’s Beneficiary, by notice to the Company, may designate in writing from time to time pursuant to provisions of this Section 9.

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: degree, is at least the equivalent of a college degree.” Paragraph 38: The sentence “I believe that I could easily have learned all the Microsoft appli cations mentioned, but was never given the chance to, because Mary Huber-Thompson hired Tara Elayer, a younger applicant for the job.” Paragraph II: The sentence “I believe that the decision to terminate me was only made when I was able to return to work in May of 1999 and requested that I be placed in the last job for which I was selected, namely the receiving clerk position.” Further, it is well established that Plaintiff cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment by making conclusory statements without evidentiary support. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989); see also Hansen v. U.S., 7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Steckl v. Motorola, Inc., 703 F.2d 392, 393 Options: A. recognizing wjhen the nonmoving party relies only on its own affidavits to oppose summary judgment it cannot rely on conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data to create an issue of material fact B. holding affidavits based on conclusory allegations insufficient at summary judgment C. holding that conclusory allegations in an affidavit have no probative value and a nonmoving party cannot rely on the eonclusory allegations to avoid summary judgment D. holding that affidavits that are conclusory and based on hearsay can not be used to oppose motion for summary judgment E. holding that unsupported allegations or denials are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for purposes of summary judgment

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing wjhen the nonmoving party relies only on its own affidavits to oppose summary judgment it cannot rely on conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data to create an issue of 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be binding upon, inure solely to the benefit of, and be enforceable by, the parties, the 3PBs and their successors and permitted assigns. VoteCo may not assign any rights or delegate any obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of CAC, CEOC, the Requisite Consenting Creditors (as defined in the Bank RSA) if the Amended 1L Bond RSA is entered into and, to the extent relating to Section 1.1 , CEC; CAC may not assign any rights or delegate any obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of VoteCo, CEOC and the Requisite Consenting Creditors (as defined in the Bank RSA) if the Amended 1L Bond RSA is entered into; and either such consent can be granted or denied in the sole, exclusive and non-appealable discretion of the party whose consent is sought. Any such purported assignment or delegation made in violation of the foregoing shall be null and void. VoteCo acknowledges this Agreement and all of the parties’ respective obligations hereunder shall survive and be fully enforceable in accordance with its terms notwithstanding the commencement and pendency of any CEC Chapter 11 Case.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: enhanced sentence under § 3559(c)(1)); United States v. Bradshaw, 281 F.3d 278, 294 (1st Cir.2002) (same); United States v. Weaver, 267 F.3d 231, 251 (3d Cir.2001) (same); United States v. Davis, 260 F.3d 965, 969 (8th Cir.2001) (same). To the extent Snype contends that, nevertheless, a jury had to find that his present and past robbery convictions qualified as serious violent felonies, his argument is similarly unconvincing for the simple reason that, in this case, the district court did not need to look beyond the judicial record and the statutory definitions of the crimes of conviction to find that Snype’s convictions fit the definition of serious violent felony stated in § 3559(c)(2)(F)(i). See Shepard v. United States, 544 S.Ct. at 24, 125 S.Ct. at 1262 (plurality opinion) (<HOLDING>). As we have already discussed, in the case of Options: A. holding that there is no sixth amendment right to jury sentencing B. holding that a sentencing court may determine the nature of a prior conviction without violating the sixth amendment C. holding that no sixth amendment concern arises when fact relating to prior conviction can be ascertained from judicial record and statutory definition D. holding that the fact of a prior conviction for sentencing purposes need not be proved to a jury or admitted by defendant to satisfy the sixth amendment E. holding that in determining whether a prior conviction is a violent felony a court generally must look only to the fact of conviction and the statutory definition of the prior offense

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that no sixth amendment concern arises when fact relating to prior conviction can be ascertained from judicial record and statutory definition
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: I agree with the majority’s statement that the word “the” can sometimes be read in the plural. In certain circumstances, singular terms can be construed in the plural. See 1 U.S.C. § 1 (“[U]nless the context indicates otherwise[,] words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things....”). “But obviously this rule is not one to be applied except where it is necessary to carry out the evident intent of the statute.” First Nat’l Bank in St. Louis v. Missouri, 263 U.S. 640, 657, 44 S.Ct. 213, 215, 68 L.Ed. 486 (1924) (interpreting the predecessor rule that “words importing the singular number may extend and be applied to several persons or things”); see also Toy Mfrs. of America, Inc. v. Consumer Prods. Safety Comm’n, 630 F.2d 70, 74 (2nd Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). AEDPA evinces no legislative intent to apply Options: A. holding that 1 usc 1 does not apply except where it is necessary to carry out the evident intent of the statute B. holding that any acts that evidence an intent to carry out the threats may form the basis for a 2a61bl enhancement C. holding the rule that the singular includes the plural obviously is not one to be applied except where it is necessary to carry out the evident intent of the statute D. recognizing equitable powers necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title E. holding grant of authority to an agency to adopt rules necessary to carry out this chapter clearly vested in the agency authority to interpret a statute

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that 1 usc 1 does not apply except where it is necessary to carry out the evident intent of the statute
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 Company shall indemnify the Executive in his capacity as an officer of the Company to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law against all debts, judgments, costs, charges or expenses whatsoever incurred or sustained by the Executive in connection with any action, suit or proceeding to which the Executive may be made a party by reason of his being or having been an officer of the Company, or because of actions taken by the Executive which were believed by the Executive to be in the best interests of the Company, and the Executive shall be entitled to be covered by any directors’ and officers’ liability insurance policies which the Company may maintain for the benefit of its directors and officers, subject to the limitations of any such policies. The Company shall have the right to assume, with legal counsel of its choice, the defense of the Executive in any such action, suit or proceeding for which the Company is providing indemnification to the Executive. Should the Executive determine to employ separate legal counsel in any such action, suit or proceeding, any costs and expenses of such separate legal counsel shall be the sole responsibility of the Executive. If the Company does not assume the defense of any such action, suit or other proceeding, the Company shall, upon request of the Executive, promptly advance or pay any amount for costs or expenses (including, without limitation, the reasonable legal fees and expenses of counsel retained by the Executive) incurred by the Executive in connection with any such action, suit or proceeding. The Company shall not indemnify the Executive against any actions that would be deemed illegal or contrary to the general indemnification provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law.

assistant: Indemnifications
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: indicated that courts should hesitate before " 'folio[wing]' " the judicial decisions issued by the intermediate appellate courts of sister Warsaw Convention signatories, such as those of Australia, where those nations' respective courts of last resort, such as the High Court of Australia, have yet to speak. That principle, however, does not apply to the instant appeal because we are not " 'follo[wing]’ ” the Court of Appeal’s decision in Georgeopoulos. Rath er, we have construed Article 17 in accordance with the ordinary canons of treaty interpretation and Georgeopoulos does no more than corroborate our understanding of that provision, further persuading us to adhere to a construction shared by our sister signatories. Cf. Tsui Yuan Tseng, 525 U.S. at 175-76 & n. 16, 119 S.Ct. 662 (<HOLDING>). 15 . In Morris, an unaccompanied minor Options: A. holding appellate courts must consider the trial courts jury charge as a whole B. holding that where both the appellate and trial courts are reviewing the paper record there is no reason for the appellate courts to defer to the trial courts finding C. recognizing the concessions made by the signatories to reach an agreement D. recognizing courts duty to reconcile opinions from the georgia supreme court E. recognizing that the opinions issued by inter alia the intermediate appellate and trial courts of sister signatories corroborated the supreme courts understanding of article 17 and were therefore entitled to some degree of consideration

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that the opinions issued by inter alia the intermediate appellate and trial courts of sister signatories corroborated the supreme courts understanding of article 17 and were therefore entitled to some degree of consideration
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: because there is no material fact in dispute and because Equivest is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the motion for summary judgment on the cross-claim will be granted. 1 Oral arguments on this motion were heard on January 21,2005. 2 Equivest is the successor by merger to Castle Acquisitions, Inc., [“CAI”] pursuant to a merger agreement dated October 15,2001. 3 GK’s agreement was originally with CAI. As its legal successor, Equivest was bound by CATs agreement with GK pursuant to paragraph 16 of the concession agreement, which provides that “covenants, conditions, and agreements made and entered into by the parties hereto are declared binding on their respective successors, representatives and assigns.” See Hillard v. Guidant Corp., 37 F. Supp. 2d 379, 381 (M.D. Pa. 1999) (<HOLDING>); American Legacy Foundation v. Lorillard Options: A. holding federal court is not bound by terms of plea agreement between defendant and state authorities B. holding that a successor was bound by an arbitration provision contained in a preexisting cba where the predecessor merged into the successor resulting in a wholesale transfer of the predecessors employees C. holding successor bound by contract of predecessor when successor accepted benefits of agreement D. holding that a court should decide whether the arbitration contract bound parties who did not sign the agreement E. holding that under 98 of restatement principal elected to ratify unauthorized act by accepting benefits of agreement with full knowledge of its terms and was therefore bound to terms of agreement

assistant: The best answer is C. holding successor bound by contract of predecessor when successor accepted benefits of agreement
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: of respondeat superior. Braddy v. Florida Dep’t of Labor and Employment Sec., 133 F.3d 797, 801 (11th Cir.1998). In some situations, the requisite casual connection may be established by alleging, and supervisors may be held liable for, failure to train and supervise their subordinates adequately. Dolihite v. Maughon, 74 F.3d 1027, 1052 (11th Cir.1996). Furthermore, “[t]he causal connection can be established when a history of widespread abuse puts the responsible supervisor on notice of the need to correct the deprivation, and he fails to do so.” Id. (quoting Cross v. State of Alabama Dep’t of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, 49 F.3d 1490, 1508 (11th Cir.1995)); see also Greason v. Kemp, 891 F.2d 829, 837 n. 18 (11th Cir.1990); Brown v. Crawford, 906 F.2d 667, 671 (11th Cir.1990)(<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 933, 111 S.Ct. 2056, Options: A. holding that causal connection can be established when a history of widespread abuse puts the responsible supervisor on notice of the need to correct the alleged deprivation and he fails to do so B. holding that a history of substance abuse is only a mitigating factor when a causal connection exists between the alcohol and drug abuse and the crime C. holding that there must be a causal connection between the advertising activity and the injury alleged in the underlying complaint D. holding that liability under 1983 can be established by showing that the defendants either personally participated in a deprivation of the plaintiffs rights or caused such a deprivation to occur E. holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that causal connection can be established when a history of widespread abuse puts the responsible supervisor on notice of the need to correct the alleged deprivation and he fails 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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: all claims arising out of or relating to these terms or the services will be litigated exclusively in the federal or state courts of santa clara county , california , usa , and you and google consent to personal jurisdiction in those courts .

assistant: Jurisdiction
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 action, and the defendants were not debtors or creditors.” In re DVI, Inc., 305 B.R. 414, 417 (Bankr.D.Del.2004) (discussing New Horizon of N.Y. LLC v. Jacobs, 231 F.3d 143 (4th Cir.2000). 54 . Def. Mem. at 9. 55 . 236 F.3d 117, 120-21 (2d Cir.2001). 56 . 74 F.3d 910, 913-16 (9th Cir.1996). The court "recognize[d] that preemption assertions are normally matters of defense and will not suffice to establish federal jurisdiction” but noted that the “complete preemption doctrine is often an exception to that rule.” Id. at 912 (citing Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392-93, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987). 57 . BGC acknowledges that "concealing assets and stealing from the bankruptcy estate (as well as from BGC, 2 U.S. 470, 470, 118 S.Ct. 921, 139 L.Ed.2d 912 (1998) (<HOLDING>). 61 . Parmalat I, 639 F.3d at 579. 62 . See, Options: A. holding that after removal of diversity case to federal court the federal court may grant summary judgment notwithstanding earlier denial of summary judgment motion by state court B. holding that a federal court litigant who is forced into state court under pullman may reserve a right to return to federal court in that the plaintiff can preserve the right to the federal forum for federal claims by informing the state court of his or her intention to return following litigation of the state claims in the state court C. holding that a state habeas proceeding decided on the merits precluded a section 1983 action in federal court D. holding that just because a claim implicates a federal issue or involves construction of federal law does not necessarily give rise to a federal question and confer removal jurisdiction on a federal court E. holding that removal was improper where a plaintiffs state cause of action was precluded by a prior federal judgment on a federal question because that is a defensive plea properly made in state court

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that removal was improper where a plaintiffs state cause of action was precluded by a prior federal judgment on a federal question because that is a defensive plea properly made 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: "[wle must defer to a trial court's findings of fact if those findings are supported by competent evidence in the record." People v. Pitts, 13 P.3d 1218, 1221 (Colo.2000); see also People v. Medina, 25 P.3d 1216, 1223 (Colo.2001). However, we must examine the trial court's legal conclusions de novo. See Medina, 25 P.3d at 1223. Like the trial court, we must review the totality of the cireumstances known to the police officers at the time of the encounter to determine whether the police had reasonable suspicion to conduct a search and seizure. Outlaw, 17 P.3d at 157. Therefore, we cxamine the encounter between Haley, Dunlap, Daniels and Officer Miller. First, as a preliminary matter, the police had justification to make the traffic stop. See People v. Ramos, 13 P.3d 295, 297 (Colo.2000)(<HOLDING>); People v. Rodriguez, 945 P.2d 1351, 1355 Options: A. holding that an officer has reasonable suspicion to conduct traffic stop even when his suspicion that a law has been violated is based on a reasonable mistake of law B. holding that a traffic stop is valid under the fourth amendment if the stop is based on an observed traffic violation or if the police officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that a traffic or equipment violation has occurred or is occurring C. holding that police officers are entitled to conduct an investigatory stop of a motorist if they have reasonable suspicion that the motorist has committed a traffic violation D. holding that where police officers had stopped a vehicle because they suspected that the motorist was intoxicated irrespective of whether the deputies were justified in detaining the motorist after he showed no signs of intoxication and even if they had not after approaching the motorist observed conditions raising a reasonable and articulable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot they were entitled to ask the motorist for permission to search his vehicle E. holding that circumstances created reasonable suspicion for investigatory stop

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that police officers are entitled to conduct an investigatory stop of a motorist if they have reasonable suspicion that the motorist has committed a traffic violation
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 Borrowers, the other Loan Parties and the Subsidiaries is in compliance with each Governmental Approval and all other Applicable Laws relating to it except for noncompliances which, and Governmental Approvals the failure to possess which, could not, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to cause a Default or Event of Default or have a Material Adverse Effect.

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: of comity. United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966); see also W.R. Grace & Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 896 F.2d 865, 871 (5th Cir.1990) (“Gibbs teaches that federal courts must refrain from unnecessary poaching upon a sovereign state’s jurisprudential turf.”). Particularly when, as here, the Court’s decision would have “widespread ramifications” for an important industry, the Court should refrain from making a needless Erie guess. See, e.g., Jesco Const. Corp. v. NationsBank Corp., 278 F.3d 444, 448 (5th Cir.2001). Federal and state jurisprudence appear to give opposing guidance on the question of whether the VPL applies to perils other than fire. Compare, e.g., Graham v. Milky Way Barge, Inc., 824 F.2d 376, 381 (5th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); and In re Consolidated Cos., 185 B.R. 223 Options: A. holding that crossdefault provisions in insurance policies were unenforceable because they would impermissibly restrict the debtors ability to assume some of the policies and reject others B. holding that an arbitration award involving the appellants challenge to the failure of the insurance company to ensure that he had read and understood a signed waiver and to attach the waiver to the insurance policy as contrary to public policy is not reviewable by the courts because there is no challenge to a provision or term of the policy the appellant never claimed that the waiver or policy language itself was contrary to the public policy of this commonwealth C. holding that household exclusion clauses in policies of automobile liability insurance are contrary to public policy D. holding that the language of the statute and the courts duty to apply the statute as written requires the court to interpret the statute to apply when the prisoner is sentenced without regard to the institution where the prisoner is incarcerated after the sentencing E. holding that the antitechnical language of section 22692 which applies to policies of fire insurance does not apply to a policy covering a capsized jack up vessel operating offshore and noting that biased upon the language of the statute itself the provision would appear to apply to fire policies only

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the antitechnical language of section 22692 which applies to policies of fire insurance does not apply to a policy covering a capsized jack up vessel operating offshore and noting that biased upon the language of the statute itself the provision would appear to apply to fire policies only
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 rights and obligations of this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the surviving corporation in any merger or consolidation in which the Employer is a party, or any assignee of all or substantially all of the Employer’s business and properties. The Executive’s rights and obligations under this Agreement may not be assigned by him, except that his right to receive accrued but unpaid compensation, unreimbursed expenses and other rights, if any, provided under this Agreement which survive termination of this Agreement shall pass after death to the personal representatives of his estate.

assistant: Successors
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: a breach of written contract action to which Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-56-111, a five-year statute of limitations, should apply. We need not decide which statute of limitations applies because under either the three- or five-year statute of limitations, the Committee’s claim is barred because more than five years have passed since this cause of action accrued. This action was filed on March 18, 2002; thus, the Committee’s claim is barred under either statute if it accrued prior to March 18, 1997. The Committee argues that the date on which the claim accrued was April 8, 2000: the date it became aware of Settlement II. We disagree. Generally, this court applies the discovery rule to determine when a claim accrues. Union Pacific R.R. v. Beckham, 138 F.3d 325, 330 (8th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). The discovery rule provides that “a Options: A. holding that the occurrence of damages determines when a medical malpractice action accrues B. holding that absent a contrary mandate from congress the discovery rule determines when a cause of action accrues in a federal question case C. holding cause of action accrues when some compensable damage occurs D. recognizing that under the discovery rule a cause of action accrues thereby triggering the limitations period when the patient discovers or should have discovered that he or she has a cause of action E. holding that cause of action for asbestosis accrues upon discovery of disease not at time of exposure to asbestos

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that absent a contrary mandate from congress the discovery rule determines when a cause of action accrues in a federal question case
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: of the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 548(d)(2)(A). Ms. Buchanan contends the transfers at issue satisfied an “antecedent debt” created by her fraud claim against HIA Inc. The Bankruptcy Code defines “debt” as “liability on a claim.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(12). According to the legislative history from both Houses of Congress, the terms “are coextensive: a creditor has a ‘claim’ against the debtor; the debtor owes a ‘debt’ to the creditor.” H.R.Rep. No. 595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 310, reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5963, 6267 and App. 2 Collier on Bankruptcy; S.Rep. No. 989, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 23, reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5787, 5809 and App. 3 Collier on Bankruptcy; see also Pennsylvania Dept. of Public Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U.S. 552, 558, 110 S.Ct. 2126, 2130-31, 109 L.Ed.2d 588 (1990) (<HOLDING>). Thus, a debtor receives “value” for a Options: A. recognizing congress intent to make the terms debt and claim coextensive B. holding that a debt collectors filing of a lawsuit on a debt that appears to be timebarred is an unfair and unconscionable means of collecting the debt C. holding that effect of discharge of debt under bankruptcy code is the same as it was under the 1898 bankruptcy act it is not an extinguishment of the debt but only a bar to enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation of the debt or D. recognizing that congress desired a broad definition of a claim E. holding that an equal protection claim was no more than a first amendment claim dressed in equal protection clothing and was thus subsumed by and coextensive with the first amendment claim

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing congress intent to make the terms debt and claim coextensive