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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: simply not be available until after BLM issues leases and the lessees determine where, when and how they propose to conduct their field activities. (Fed. Defs.’ Mem. in Opp’n to Pis.’ Mot. for Partial Summ. J. on Counts II-IY and VII-VIII of the First Am. Compl. & in Supp. of Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. (“Defs.’ Opp’n & Mem. in Supp.”) at 20.) Where an agency administering oil and gas leasing on federal lands “chooses not to retain the authority to preclude all surface disturbing activities, then an EIS assessing the full environmental consequences of leasing must be prepared at the point of commitment — when the leases are issued.” Sierra Club v. Peterson, 717 F.2d 1409, 1415 (D.C.Cir.1983); see also Wyoming Outdoor Council v. United States Forest Service, 165 F.3d 43, 49 (D.C.Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Bob Marshall Alliance v. Hodel, 852 F.2d Options: A. holding under pre1994 law that statute of limitations does not allow party to avoid obligation to comply with previous order B. holding nonparty department of mental health had standing to appeal commitment order regarding person found not guilty by reason of insanity because department had direct interest that was affected by commitment order and because employees of the department conceivably could be held in contempt of court for failing to comply with the order C. holding that point of irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources and concomitant obligation to fully comply with nepa do not mature until leases are issued D. holding that the fact that the sale may not be fully consummated does not prevent a determination that the appeal is moot because section 363m does not require the purchaser to take irreversible steps consummating the sale before the absence of a stay will render an appeal moot E. holding that plan did not comply

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that point of irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources and concomitant obligation to fully comply with nepa do not mature until leases are issued
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: Liability for the indemnities of Seller and/or Purchaser made in this Agreement shall survive the execution and delivery of this Agreement, the termination of this Agreement prior to Closing if applicable, the breach of this Agreement by one or more of the parties, the Closing and the delivery of the Closing documents, and/or the lapse of this Agreement without a Closing, except as otherwise specifically agreed to herein.

assistant: Survival
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 and the Executive covenant and agree that during the Term and following termination of the Term, neither party shall make any disparaging, false or abusive remarks or communications, written or oral, regarding the Executive, on the part of the Company, or the Company, the Company’s products, brands, trademarks, directors, officers, employees, consultants, advisors, licensors, licensees, customers, vendors or others with which it has a business relationship, on the part of the Executive.

assistant: Non-Disparagement
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 full payment and performance of the Obligations (excluding only any liabilities which might arise in the future under the Environmental Indemnity), this Collateral Assignment shall become and be void and of no effect and, in that event, upon the request of Assignor, Agent covenants to execute and deliver to Assignor instruments effective to evidence the termination of this Collateral Assignment and the reassignment (without recourse) to Assignor of the Assigned Contracts and Permits and the rights, title, interest, power and authority assigned herein; provided, however, that any affidavit, certificate or other written statement of any officer of Agent stating that any part of said indebtedness remains unpaid shall be and constitute conclusive evidence of the then validity, effectiveness and continuing force of this Collateral Assignment and any person, firm, or corporation receiving any such affidavit, certificate or statement may, and is hereby authorized to rely thereon.

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: correctly point out, “do not meet the specificity requirement of Federal Rule 56.” Posadas de Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Radin, 856 F.2d 399, 401 (1st Cir.1988); see also, e.g., Cordero-Soto v. Island Fin., Inc., 418 F.3d 114, 120 (1st Cir.2005). This is especially true here because Rivera’s affidavit conveniently omits defining these “geographical and topographical areas.” But even putting those flaws aside, Rivera’s opinion, which of course represents Flo-vac’s opinion, is insufficient as a matter of law to establish a proposed relevant product market. See Flegel v. Christian Hosp., 4 F.3d 682, 690 n. 7 (8th Cir.1993) (“The plaintiffs’ perspective on the market has no bearing.”); accord Winter Hill Frozen Foods & Servs., Inc. v. Haagen-Dazs Co., 691 F.Supp. 539, 546 n. 12 (D.Mass.1988) (<HOLDING>), Second, and in a clear attempt to provide Options: A. holding that facts alleged in an employees affidavit were insufficient to raise an issue of fact for the purposes of defeating a summary judgment where the affidavit contradicted the employees earlier deposition statements B. holding that officers possession of affidavit at searched premises without leaving a copy with the occupant was insufficient to allow for consideration of the affidavit in evaluating the constitutionality of the warrant C. holding the plaintiffs general claim that both parties market their products over the internet was insufficient to establish that they used similar marketing channels D. holding in dicta that affidavit of plaintiffs principal was insufficient to establish a distinct market for super premium ice cream E. holding that interested partys affidavit opposed to motion for summary judgment and governments deposition to explore facts asserted in affidavit do not constitute distinct proceedings

assistant: The best answer is D. holding in dicta that affidavit of plaintiffs principal was insufficient to establish a distinct market for super premium ice cream
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: claims, that the statute of limitations bars all Plaintiffs’ claims, and that the equitable doctrines of fraud, unclean hands, and laches should bar recovery. 1. Standing Under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4007(c), the deadline for objecting to discharge in this case was August 27, 2013. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on August 26, the day be-, fore the deadline ran. But as Whitting-ton points out and Plaintiffs do not dispute, Texas law does not permit claims such as this to be brought by individual limited partners. See, e.g., Nauslar v. Coors Brewing Co., 170 S.W.3d 242, 250 (TexApp.-Dallas 2005, no pet.) (“[D]am-ages for loss in value of the partnership interest ... are subsumed in the partnership’s causes of action.”); Wingate v. Hajdik, 795 S.W.2d 717, 719-20 (Tex.1990) (<HOLDING>); Hall v. Douglas, 380 S.W.3d 860, 872-74 Options: A. holding that unless a shareholder can show personal cause of action and personal injury claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty belong to the corporation and not the shareholder B. holding under pennsylvania law that where fraud mismanagement or other wrong damages a corporations assets a shareholder does not have a direct cause of action however a corporation can suffer an injury unto itself and any claim it asserts to recover for that injury is independent and separate from the claims of shareholders creditors and others C. holding that shareholder could not prevail on breachoffiduciaryduty claim against other shareholder because alleged mishandling of funds did not result in any injury to the corporation D. holding under maryland law that a breach of fiduciary duty claim alleging loss in share value shareholder must allege an injury distinct from an injury to the corporation E. holding that sole shareholder could recover on behalf of company but not in individual capacity for former shareholder and officers misappropriation of corporate assets

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that unless a shareholder can show personal cause of action and personal injury claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty belong to the corporation and not the shareholder
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: Without derogating from the provisions of Section 6.01 , in the event of any stock split (bonus shares), consolidation, share dividend (including any dividend or distribution of securities convertible into share capital), reorganization, reclassification, combination, recapitalization or other like change with respect to the Company Shares occurring after the date hereof and prior to the Closing, all references in this Agreement to numbers of shares and all calculations provided for that are based upon numbers affected thereby, shall be equitably adjusted to the extent necessary to provide the parties the same economic effect as contemplated by this Agreement prior to such event.

assistant: Adjustments
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: to make ... antitrust claims ... inappropriate for arbitration.” American Safety Equipment Corp. v. J.P. Maguire & Co., 391 F.2d 821, 827-28 (2d Cir.1968). Since that time the foundations of the American Safety doctrine have been significantly eroded. Gemco Latinoamerica, Inc. v. Seiko Time Corp., 671 F.Supp. 972 (S.D.N.Y.1987), adhered to, in part, dismissed, in part, on reconsideration, 685 F.Supp. 400 (S.D.N.Y.1988). The Supreme Court has held that nothing in the federal antitrust laws prohibits parties from agreeing to arbitrate antitrust claims arising out of international commercial transactions. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 105 S.Ct. 3346, 87 L.Ed.2d 444 (1985). Finding it “unneces U.S. 220, 107 S.Ct. 2332, 96 L.Ed.2d 185 (1987) (<HOLDING>). The federal policy in favor of arbitration Options: A. holding that claims under the securities act of 1933 are arbitrable B. holding that claims under 10b of the securities exchange act of 1934 were arbitrable under a predispute arbitration agreement C. holding that claims under the securities act of 1934 and the rico statutes are arbitrable D. holding that claims brought under section 10b of the securities exchange act and rico claims were arbitrable E. holding that claims under the securities act of 1933 were arbitrable under a predispute arbitration agreement

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that claims under the securities act of 1934 and the rico statutes are arbitrable
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 photograph of Smith’s car is also relevant, as it provides context for the photos of the drugs found inside. The probative value of this evidence in proving Smith’s knowledge and lack of mistake or accident in the possession of the contraband seized from his house was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. In addition, the district court’s instructions to the jury properly limited the scope of their consideration of the evidence. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting it. Likewise, the district court committed no plain error in admitting the actual bags of methamphetamine. IV Finally, Smith argued that the district court erred in imposing a 60-month mandatory minimum sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), to run d 348 (2010) Options: A. holding that the statute is mandatory B. holding that dismissed drug counts are not more serious if their effect on the total sentence is less than the 924c fiveyear mandatory consecutive sentence C. holding that a sentence was based on a mandatory statutory minimum sentence even though it was lowered under another statute D. holding that a defendant is subject to a mandatory consecutive sentence for a 924c conviction and is not spared from that sentence by virtue of receiving a higher mandatory minimum on a different count of conviction E. holding a mandatory sentence is still subject to constitutional scrutiny

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a defendant is subject to a mandatory consecutive sentence for a 924c conviction and is not spared from that sentence by virtue of receiving a higher mandatory minimum on a different count of conviction
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: Second, 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a) includes as enumerated offenses under the IMCA “murder, manslaughter, ... [and] felony child abuse or neglect.” 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a). Given that 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a) discusses both manslaughter, and felony child abuse or neglect, it is difficult to say that 18 U.S.C. § 1112(a) qualifies as defining both manslaughter and felony child abuse or neglect. A court should strive to give both of these words in the IMCA operative effect when interpreting the statute. See United States v. Nordic Vill., Inc., 503-U.S. at 35, 112 S.Ct. 1011. Allowing involuntary manslaughter under 18 U.S.C. § 1112(a) to define both manslaughter, and felony child abuse or neglect, would run contrary to this canon of construction. See United States v. Other Medicine, 596 F.3d at 680-81 (<HOLDING>). Consequently, the Court declines to adopt Options: A. recognizing that 18 usc 113a5 could not serve as more than one enumerated crime under the imca specifically both an assault against an individual who has not attained the age of 16 years and felony child abuse or neglect B. holding that the categorical approach applies to the identical definition of crime of violence in 18 usc 16 C. holding that sexual assault of a child qualified as crime of violence under 18 usc 16 D. holding dui causing serious bodily injury is not a crime of violence under 18 usc 16 E. holding that a conviction for simple assault under pennsylvania law does not qualify under 18 usc 16b by way of 11 usc 1101a43 as an aggravated felony

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that 18 usc 113a5 could not serve as more than one enumerated crime under the imca specifically both an assault against an individual who has not attained the age of 16 years and felony child abuse or neglect
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: Neither the execution and delivery of the Credit Documents, nor the consummation of the transactions contemplated therein, nor performance of and compliance with the terms and provisions thereof by such Credit Party will (a) violate or conflict with any provision of its Organization Documents, (b) violate, contravene or materially conflict with any Law (including Regulation T, U or X), order, writ, judgment, injunction, decree or permit applicable to it, which, in the case of any violation, contravention or conflict with any order, writ, judgment, injunction, decree or permit, could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, (c) violate, contravene or conflict with contractual provisions of, or cause an event of default under, any indenture, loan agreement, mortgage, deed of trust, contract or other agreement or instrument to which it is a party or by which it may be bound, the violation, contravention or conflict of which, or event of default under, could be reasonably expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, or (d) result in or require the creation of any Lien (other than those contemplated in or created in connection with the Credit Documents) upon or with respect to its properties.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: betterpoints.uk is also not responsible or liable for any reputational goodwill damage or loss to you through being associated with betterpoints.uk by being a member , partner , merchant or any other involvement with betterpoints.uk .

assistant: Limitation of liability
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: Should the Company fail to require strict compliance with any term or condition of this Agreement, such failure shall not be deemed a waiver of such terms or conditions, nor shall the Party’s failure to enforce any right it may have preclude it from thereafter enforcing its rights under this Agreement.

assistant: No Waivers
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: During the term of this Agreement, Executive shall receive an annualized base salary of $250,000 (the “ Base Salary ”), which Base Salary (a) shall be reviewed at least annually by the Board (or a committee thereof) and (b) may be (but shall not be required to be) increased from time to time in the sole discretion of the Board (or a committee thereof). Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement, the Company may decrease Executive’s Base Salary by up to 10% as part of similar reductions of the base salaries applicable to all of the Company’s or Parent’s executive officers. Executive’s Base Salary shall be paid in substantially equal installments in accordance with the Company’s standard policy regarding payment of compensation to executives as in effect from time to time but no less frequently than monthly.

assistant: Base Salary
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: As a participant in the Company’s long-term incentive compensation program for the __________ Performance Period which covers the fiscal years beginning __________ and __________ (the “Performance Period”), you were granted a long-term incentive award that will be payable following the end of the Performance Period, provided the performance goals set by the Compensation and Management Resources Committee (the “Compensation Committee”) of the Board of Directors of the Company on ________ for the Performance Period are achieved. The award is payable as follows: 25 percent of the award is payable in cash under the Long-Term Incentive Compensation Plan (the “LTIP”), and 75 percent of the award is payable in restricted stock units (“RSUs”) under the Plan as provided herein. The RSUs are intended to constitute “Other Stock-Based Awards” under the Plan. Each RSU represents the right to receive one share of the Company’s Common Stock, par value $.01 per share (“Common Stock”), upon the satisfaction of the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement and the Plan.

assistant: General
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: 439 U.S. 461 99 S.Ct. 710 58 L.Ed.2d 736 Vincent X. LEEv.State of MISSOURI. Eugene MINOR v. State of MISSOURI. William ARRINGTON v. State of MISSOURI. Herbert BURNFIN v. State of MISSOURI. Clifford R. COMBS v. State of MISSOURI. Nos. 77-6066, 77-6068, 77-6553, 77-6701, and 77-7012. Jan. 15, 1979. PER CURIAM. 1 The motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. In each of these cases, the trial court denied a timely motion to quash the petit jury panel. On appeal, the convictions were affirmed on the basis of State v. Duren, 556 S.W.2d 11 (Mo.1977). State v. Lee, 556 S.W.2d 25 (Mo.1977); State v. Minor, 556 S.W.2d 35 (Mo.1977); State v. Arrington, 559 S.W.2d 749 (Mo.1978); State v. Burnfin, 560 S.W.2d 283 (Mo.App.1977); State v. Combs, 564 S.W.2d 328 (Mo.App.1978). 2 We reversed the decision below in Duren because of inconsistency with the principles enunciated in Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975). 439 U.S. 357, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579. The State of Missouri has urged that our decision in Duren not be applied retroactively to petitioners or appellants other than Duren himself. However, because that decision does not announce any "new standards" of constitutional law not evident from the decision in Taylor v. Louisiana, the considerations that have led us in other cases to depart from full retroactive application of constitutional holdings, see, e. g., Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 297, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 1970, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), are inapplicable to juries sworn after the decision in Taylor v. Louisiana. Compare Daniel v. Louisiana, 420 U.S. 31, 95 S.Ct. 704, 42 L.Ed.2d 790 (1975), holding Taylor v. Louisiana inapplicable to cases in which the jury was sworn prior to the date of that decision. 3 We note that in any case in which a jury was sworn subsequent to Taylor v. Louisiana and the fair-cross-section claim based on exclusion of women was rejected on direct review or in state collateral proceedings because of the defendant's failure to assert the claim in timely fashion, relief is unavailable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unless the petitioner can show cause for having failed to raise his claim properly in the state courts. See Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977). 4 The petitions for certiorari in Nos. 77-6066, 77-6068, 77-6701, and 77-7012 are granted. The judgments below in those cases, together with that in No. 77-6553, are vacated, and the cases are remanded for reconsideration in light of Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579. 5 So ordered. 6 Mr. Justice REHNQUIST dissents.

assistant: 1
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 with respect to a Registration Default, the parties hereto acknowledge that there would be no adequate remedy at law if the Issuers fail to perform any of their obligations hereunder and that the Purchasers and the holders from time to time of the Registrable Securities may be irreparably harmed by any such failure, and accordingly agree that the Purchasers and such holders, in addition to any other remedy to which they may be entitled at law or in equity, shall be entitled to compel specific performance of the obligations of the Issuers under this Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, in any court of the United States or any State thereof having jurisdiction.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: days. We have held that an insurer or self-insured employer’s failure to serve the denial on a claimant’s attorney may be such “good cause.” See, e.g., Freres Lumber Co. v. Jegglie, 106 Or App 27, 806 P2d 164 (1991); Cowart v. SAIF, 94 Or App 288, 765 P2d 226 (1988). See also ORS 656.331(l)(b) (setting forth situations in which insurers and self-insured employers may not contact claimants without also contacting their attorneys); OAR 436-060-0015 (same). The legislature has not created any similar mechanism with respect to ORS 656.295(8). If a petition for judicial review is not filed before the order becomes final, we lack the authority to consider why the petition was not timely. Cf. Pease v. National Council on Comp. Ins., 113 Or App 26, 29, 830 P2d 605, rev den 314 Or 391 (1992) (<HOLDING>). 10 Because of that “slippage” between the Options: A. holding that the notice of appeal filed after the district court entered judgment as to one defendant but before the court dismissed the claims against the other defendants would have become effective when those defendants were later dismissed B. holding that agency properly dismissed appeal not filed within statutory time limit where the legislature has not chosen to provide a way around the limitation for those who were unable to meet it for some reason C. holding that this court has jurisdiction when the appellant has filed a docketing statement indicating an intent to appeal a particular order within the time for filing an appeal D. holding that tenday time limit to appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional and an appellate court has no jurisdiction over an untimely filed appeal E. holding that a statutory right is a creature of the legislature and does not exist where the legislature has not acted

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that agency properly dismissed appeal not filed within statutory time limit where the legislature has not chosen to provide a way around the limitation for those who were unable to meet it for some reason
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 will have the right at all times to assign any of its rights or obligations under this Indenture to a direct or indirect wholly owned Subsidiary of the Company, provided that, in the event of any such assignment, the Company will remain liable for all such obligations. Subject to the foregoing, this Indenture is binding upon and inures to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. This Indenture may not otherwise be assigned by the parties hereto.

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: see also Karouni v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1163, 1171 n. 11 (9th Cir.2005) (stating that if the INS departed from a guidance memorandum or rule without reason, such action could be viewed as arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion). It is undisputed that Landin married his wife after she adjusted to lawful permanent resident status; therefore, Landin does not qualify as a grandfathered alien under established INS rules and policies, which we view as persuasive. Indeed, if grandfathered aliens who adjusted to lawful permanent resident status could impart grandfathered status to relatives acquired after the adjustment occurred, then § 1255(i)’s filing cut-off date would be nullified with respect to those individuals. Cf. Balam-Chuc v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1044, 1049-1050 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). If we were to accept Landin’s interpretation Options: A. holding that provision has the characteristics of a statute of repose B. holding 1255is april 30 2001 sunset provision was a fixed deadline and that 1255i is a statute of repose not subject to equitable tolling C. holding the timeliness provision in the habeas corpus statute is subject to equitable tolling D. holding that the filing deadline under title vii is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in federal court but a requirement that like a statute of limitations is subject to waiver estoppel and equitable tolling E. holding title vii subject to equitable tolling

assistant: The best answer is B. holding 1255is april 30 2001 sunset provision was a fixed deadline and that 1255i is a statute of repose not subject to equitable tolling
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: Subject to the termination provisions of Section 7 below, the term of this Agreement (“Term”) shall commence on the Effective Date and end on December 31, 2020 (“Termination Date”). This Agreement shall automatically be extended for additional one year terms beyond the Termination Date (the “Extended Termination Date”) or the then current Extended Termination Date unless at least six months prior to the Termination Date or the then current Extended Termination Date, Executive or the Company shall have given written notice that he or it does not wish to extend the Agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, notice of the Company’s intention not to extend the Agreement shall not be deemed to be a termination of Executive without Cause.

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: The Borrower and each other Obligor has, and has caused all of their respective Subsidiaries to have, (a) all insurance policies sufficient for the compliance by each of them with all material Governmental Requirements and all material agreements and (b) insurance coverage in at least amounts and against such risk (including, without limitation, public liability) that are usually insured against by companies similarly situated and engaged in the same or a similar business for the assets and operations of the Obligors or their respective Subsidiaries. The Administrative Agent and the Lenders have been named as additional insureds in respect of such liability insurance policies and the Administrative Agent has been named as loss payee with respect to property loss insurance.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: determination is whether the state law relied upon in the well-pleaded complaint “relates to” an employee benefit plan. Ingersoll-Rand, 498 U.S. at 138, 111 S.Ct. at 482; Cefalu v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 871 F.2d 1290, 1292 (5th Cir.1989). A state law “relates to” an employee benefit plan “if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan.” Shaw, 463 U.S. at 96-97, 103 S.Ct. at 2899-2900. Therefore, a state law may “relate to” an employee benefit plan even if the law is not designed to affect the plan or does so even in an indirect manner. Pilot Life, 481 U.S. at 47,107 S.Ct. at 1552-53. Nevertheless, the reach of ERISA preemption is not limitless. See, e.g., Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Serv., Inc., 486 U.S. 825, 841, 108 S.Ct. 2182, 2191-92, 100 L.Ed.2d 836 (1988) (<HOLDING>); Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. Options: A. holding that erisa did not preempt a states general garnishment statute even when applied to collect judgments against plan participants B. holding that erisa does not preempt section 22213b7 C. holding that erisa did not preempt hospitals claims against erisa plan administrator for misrepresentation under texas insurance code because hospitals claims were not dependent on or derived from the beneficiarys right to recover benefits under the plan D. holding that erisa does not preempt professional malpractice claims E. holding that erisa does not preempt the plaintiffs claim that the erisa plan administrator is liable for medical malpractice where the plaintiff premised the claim solely on state law and did not invoke the erisa plan

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that erisa did not preempt a states general garnishment statute even when applied to collect judgments against plan participants
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 rest. In such instances, only items seized under the invalid portions of the warrant must be suppressed.” United States v. Krasaway, 881 F.2d 550, 553 (8th Cir.1989) (citations omitted). See also United States v. Timley, 443 F.3d 615, 622 (8th Cir.2006) (“[W]here the warrant is invalid only in part, the warrant is ‘severa-ble,’ and items seized pursuant to valid portions of the warrant need not be suppressed”). Here, no computer hard drives, disks or stored data were seized. See Gov’t Ex. 2, Attachment A, Bates Stamp Nos. 000024-27. As such, even if this portion of the warrant were severed, the evidence seized from the residence would clearly fall within valid portions of warrant, and suppression of the evidence seized in this case is not required. See Krasaway, 881 F.2d at 553 (<HOLDING>). Nyberg’s particularity argument is rejected. Options: A. holding that defendants motion to suppress was properly denied because the actual items seized fell within the valid portions of the warrant B. holding the trial court properly denied the defendants motion to suppress where the totality of the circumstances supported a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot C. holding that where the trial court implicitly denied the defendants motion to suppress but neither expressly denied the motion nor explained its ruling claim of error could not be reviewed D. holding that a warrant lacking a description of items to be seized was not facially invalid and finding in the alternative that even if the warrant were found to be deficient the seized evidence was admissible under the good faith exception E. holding that the defendants motion for discharge was premature and thus properly denied by the trial court

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that defendants motion to suppress was properly denied because the actual items seized fell within the valid portions of the warrant
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: Ed Schory & Sons, 662 N.E.2d at 1082-83 (emphasis added). Saverin’s ar guments revolve around the fact that Wendy’s opposition to a receivership was central to the purpose of the Forbearance Agreement. But the terms of the Forbearance Agreement and the surrounding-circumstances make clear that the potential for SPCP or another creditor to renew or initiate receivership proceedings was of utmost concern to both Saverin and Wendy’s at the time the agreement was negotiated. We are thus unpersuaded by Saverin’s argument that Wendy’s actions in connection with future receivership proceedings could not have been contemplated at the time of drafting. See id.; Agilysys Inc. v. Gordon, No. 1:06-CV-1665, 2008 WL 5188278, at *4-5, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99553, at *14-15 (N.D.Ohio Dec. 10, 2008) (<HOLDING>); U.S. Construction Corp. v. Harbor Bay Options: A. holding that nonsignatories to a contract have no rights under the contract and thus no standing to assert claims under the contract B. holding that it was improper when prosecutor posed questions to defense counsel that could have been read as posed only to the defendant and whose answers could only have been provided by the defendant C. recognizing that the declaratory judgment act is only procedural and does not create substantive rights internal quotation marks and citations omitted D. holding that expenses incurred under construction contract were direct damages because they were contemplated in contract provision that required defendant to reimburse plaintiff for damage occurring during work on project and that were caused by negligence or fault of defendant or its agents E. holding that the defendant cannot create contract rights that could have been contemplated but were omitted from the agreement

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the defendant cannot create contract rights that could have been contemplated but were omitted from the 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Credit Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, constitutes the legal, valid and binding obligation of such Credit Party enforceable in accordance with its terms, subject to applicable Debtor Relief Laws or other laws affecting creditors’ rights generally and subject to general principles of equity, regardless of whether considered in a proceeding in equity or at law.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Assuming the receipt of all applicable consents and approvals in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby and the waiver of, or compliance with, all Linn Preferential Purchase Rights applicable to the transactions contemplated hereby, the execution, delivery and performance by Linn of this Agreement, the Transaction Documents to which it is a party and the consummation of the transactions contemplated herein and therein will not (a) conflict with or result in a breach of any provisions of the organizational documents of Linn, (b) result in a default or the creation of any Encumbrance on the Linn Assets (other than a Linn Permitted Encumbrance) or give rise to any right of termination, cancellation or acceleration under any of the terms, conditions or provisions of any note, bond, mortgage, indenture, license or Linn Contract, or (c) violate any Law applicable to Linn or any of the Linn Assets, except, in the case of clause (b), where such default, termination, cancellation, or acceleration would not have a material adverse effect upon the Linn Assets or the ability of Linn to consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.

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: that the defendant [or a witness]: (1) speaks only or primarily a language other than the English language; and (2) this fact inhibits their comprehension of the proceedings or communication with counsel.” United States v. Black, 369 F.3d 1171, 1174 (10th Cir.2004) (citing United States v. Johnson, 248 F.3d 655, 661 (7th Cir.2001)), cert. denied. Once a court is put on notice that there may exist a “significant language difficulty,” it must make a determination as to whether an interpreter is needed. Luna v. Black, 772 F.2d 448, 451 (8th Cir.1985). Federal district courts are given wide discretion in appointing an interpreter. Id. Courts are to base their decision whether to appoint an interpreter on factors such as the d tute; Diaz v. State, 491 S.W.2d 166, 167-68 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) (<HOLDING>). Also, states similarly base the appointment Options: A. holding that it was not error for a trial court to have failed to provide sua sponte a competent interpreter where counsel did not request one prior to trial and defendant spoke and understood english well enough to conversantly discuss the crime with a police officer and had no trouble answering questions at the sentencing hearing B. holding that it was not plain error for the court not to give a self defense jury instruction where the defendant did not request one C. holding that once counsel was appointed defendant spoke to the court through counsel and thus the court was not required to respond to defendants request for a speedy trial D. holding that the trial court was under no obligation to appoint an interpreter where defendant did not request one and spoke english reasonably well E. holding that trial court need not appoint an interpreter where counsel indicated that he could communicate with defendant and that defendant could understand questions and answers

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the trial court was under no obligation to appoint an interpreter where defendant did not request one and spoke english reasonably well
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: its services in commerce. See OBH, 86 F.Supp.2d at 186; Planned Parenthood, 1997 WL 133313 at *3. The court considers each of Plaintiffs assertions in turn. 1. Hyperlinks The use of a plaintiffs trademark as the domain name for a website satisfies the “commercial use” requirement if the website contains a hyperlink that connects users to another of a defendant’s websites if it operates for “commercial purposes.” See OBH, 86 F.Supp.2d at 185-86. However, where a “website contain[s] no commercial links, but rather contain[s] links to a [website], which in turn contain[s] advertising” or has a commercial purpose, this does not satisfy the “commercial use requirement of the statute.” See Bosley Medical, 403 F.3d at 678; see also TMI, Inc. v. Maxwell, 368 F.3d 433, 435, 438 (5th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); see also Taubman Co. v. Webfeats, 319 F.3d Options: A. holding but for requirement not satisfied where investigation had no unique special factual features that but for the requirement of the act would have permitted a quick termination if the investigation were conducted outside the act B. holding that there is nothing improper with defendants purchase of sponsored links when defendants actually sell plaintiffs products on their website C. holding that a competitive commercial purpose is not of itself improper D. holding that challenge to oneyear residency requirement for divorce action was not moot even though plaintiff had since satisfied requirement E. holding that the commercial use requirement is not satisfied where defendants site itself had no outside links

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the commercial use requirement is not satisfied where defendants site itself had no outside links
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: District of California. Before turning to the relative merits of these venues, the court addresses two disputed legal issues between the parties: whether the venue provision of Title VII commands greater deference to a plaintiffs choice of forum and affects the section 1404(a) analysis, and whether the venue provision impl 3 (5th Cir. 2003) (applying section 1404(a) to a Title VII action); Harrison v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 807 F.Supp. 1513, 1516-17 (D.Or.1992) (same); Dean v. Handysoft Corp., 2005 WL titled to greater deference where a case arises under Title VII. Congress expanded the available fora to plaintiffs grieving civil rights violations, thereby expressing intent to broaden a Title VII plaintiffs choice of forum. See Passantino, 212 F.3d at 504 (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). Where venue is governed Options: A. holding that congress intended for idea to be interpreted consistent with fee provisions of statutes such as title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 B. recognizing right to petition for redress of grievances under established prison grievance system C. holding that title viis broad venue provision was necessary to support the desire of congress to afford citizens full and easy redress of civil rights grievances D. recognizing that most other courts apply title vii principles to title ix cases but refusing to apply title viis knew or should have known standard to a title ix claim E. recognizing that it is important that the judicial remedy be full and complete and stating because a vast majority of the victims of civil rights violations cannot afford legal counsel they are unable to present their cases to the courts

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that title viis broad venue provision was necessary to support the desire of congress to afford citizens full and easy redress of civil rights grievances
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All representations, warranties and covenants of Purchaser in this Agreement shall expire and be of no further force and effect as of the last day of the Survival Period except to the extent, and only to the extent, if any, that Seller shall have given Purchaser written notice during the Survival Period of any claim hereunder; provided, that (x) Purchaser shall not be liable for any breach of a representation or warranty discovered after the Closing unless the aggregate of all amounts payable by Purchaser as a result of any such breach exceeds the amount of the Basket Limitation, in which event Purchaser’s liability shall be from the first dollar and (y) in no event shall Purchaser have any liability for any breach of a representation or warranty discovered after the Closing in excess of the amount of the Cap Limitation (in the aggregate for all claims, including court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees for enforcement, in the aggregate); provided, that Purchaser’ obligations under Article IV , Section 14.1 and Section 16.21 shall not be subject to and not applied to the Basket Limitation or the Cap Limitation. The terms of this Section shall only apply if the Closing occurs and shall not limit Seller’s rights under this Agreement for any breach or default by Purchaser occurring prior to the Closing.

assistant: Survival
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 Guarantors shall jointly and severally pay on demand all out-of-pocket expenses (including attorneys’ fees and expenses) incurred by the Lender and each other Secured Party to the extent the Borrower would be required to do so pursuant to Section 9.3 of the Credit Agreement, including any incurred during any “workout” or restructuring in respect of the Guaranteed Obligations and any incurred in the preservation, protection or enforcement of any rights of a Secured Party in any proceeding with respect to any Debtor Relief Laws. The obligations of each Guarantor under this paragraph shall survive the payment in full of the Guaranteed Obligations and termination of this Guaranty.

assistant: Expenses