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: traceable to the shock or disturbing effect on the nerves of the patient, and that in turn, the irritation of the nerves caused functional disorders, and, that whether the disability resulted from nervous reaction or from auto-suggestion set in motion by memory of the accident, the result was the same to the injured person. Id. at 209, 13 S.E.2d at 293. The Supreme Court pointed out in Burlington Mills Corp. that the claimant’s disability was occasioned by an injury which “may be fairly traced” to a risk which arose out of and in the course of her employment. There was a direct causal relation between the electric flash and the irritated condition of her nervous system. Id. at 210, 13 S.E.2d at 293; see also E.C. Womack, Inc. v. Ellis, 209 Va. 588, 592-93, 166 S.E.2d 265, 268-69 (1969) (<HOLDING>); Imperial Trash Service v. Dotson, 18 Va.App. Options: A. holding that psychological conditions resulting from workrelated trauma are compensable B. holding injuries suffered on trip for business and pleasure were compensable C. holding that rico claims were personal and plaintiffs were therefore entitled to sue on their own because their injuries were distinct from the injuries to creditors in general resulting from the diversion of corporate assets D. holding that psychiatric symptoms resulting in disability from work flowed from injuries received in primary accident and were compensable E. holding that special damages must be shown to be reasonable and necessarily resulting from accident

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that psychiatric symptoms resulting in disability from work flowed from injuries received in primary accident and were compensable
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 question before us is whether the officers’ entry into Yvette Sugura’s apartment, upon which they discovered evidence tending to incriminate Mr. Miles, was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment despite the absence of a search warrant. The government argues that the search was justified by the officers’ objectively reasonable belief that Mr. Miles was both living in and present in the apartment at the time of the search. Aplee Br. at 6-12; see also Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 603, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980) (“[A]n arrest warrant founded on probable case implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within.”); Valdez v. McPheters, 172 F.3d 1220, 1224-25 (10th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). In the alternative, the government argues Options: A. holding that there was sufficient probable cause to search a defendants residence after evidence of drug dealing was found in his car during a traffic stop that was conducted when the defendant was coming from his residence and noting that under such circumstances a practical commonsense conclusion could be made that the drugs and money had been at the defendants residence a short time before the stop B. holding that the officers had sufficient evidence to believe that the defendant was inside the residence to execute the arrest warrant because the officers relied on the anonymous tip given to the defendants parole officer the drivers identification of the defendant as meaty in a photograph and his assertion that meaty was in the residence at that time selling drugs C. holding that payton does not require that the arrestee actually reside in the residence searched provided that the officers had a reasonable basis for believing that the arrestee both 1 lived in the residence and 2 could be found within at the time of entry D. holding residence means legal residence for will probate E. holding that a warrant authorizing the search of a residence vehicles at the residence and all persons found in the residence was not overly broad given that search was limited to places were drugs or weapons might be found

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that payton does not require that the arrestee actually reside in the residence searched provided that the officers had a reasonable basis for believing that the arrestee both 1 lived in the residence and 2 could be found within at the time of entry
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 New York legislature, without expressly saying so, intended plans with such features to be outside the reach of § 5205(c)(1). There is good reason to question the proposition that § 5205(c)’s “conclusive presumption” controls the issue of whether an express “trust” exists within the meaning of § 541(c)(2). See Wimmer, 129 B.R. at 567 (For purposes of § 541(c)(2), the “Illinois [legislature] cannot define a spendthrift trust any way it pleases.”); In re Templeton, 146 B.R. 757, 763 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1992) (“declining to give effect to an Illinois statute similar to § 5205(c), and opining that the Illinois legislature may not employ the sophistry of a conclusive presumption to” transform an IRA into “a traditional spendthrift trust”); VanMeter, 137 B.R. at 912; Kazi, 125 B.R. at 986 (<HOLDING>); Wimmer, 121 B.R. at 543 (same, and Options: A. holding an illinois statute and regulation that conflicted with the social security act invalid under the supremacy clause B. recognizing that the supremacy clause is not a source of any federal rights C. holding the provisions of a new york welfare program that conflicted with federal regulations under the social security act invalid under the supremacy clause D. holding the illinois statute at issue in templeton invalid under the supremacy clause E. holding a california regulation that conflicted with the social security act invalid under the supremacy clause

assistant: The best answer is D. holding the illinois statute at issue in templeton invalid under the supremacy clause
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: rather than the probate division of the common pleas court, R.C. 2311.04, rather than 2101.31, would have governed the proceedings at trial and would have mandated that the factual issues be tried to a jury. We are not persuaded, however, that R.C. 2311.04 would have conferred upon appellants a right to a jury trial on the factual issues presented in the complaint and in their counterclaims. As we noted above, R.C. 2721.10 and 2311.04 mandate a jury trial of factual issues arising in a declaratory judgment action instituted in the general division of the common pleas court if the action is construed to be “for the recovery of money only, or specific real or personal property.” The right to a jury trial thereby (1983), 12 Ohio App.3d 113, 114, 12 OBR 420, 421, 467 N.E.2d 564, 566 (<HOLDING>). In its complaint, FNB sought declaratory Options: A. holding that a cross claim or counterclaim for affirmative relief must be filed before the statute of limitations expires because a claim is not stripped of its character as an independent action by acquiring the label counterclaim B. holding that the due process clause confers a right to direct a childs education C. holding that a jury trial was not required when the money demand although specific was incidental and ancillary to the equitable relief requested and would ripen only if equitable relief were granted D. holding that rc 231104 confers a right to a jury trial on a legal counterclaim that if true would extinguish the original equitable claim but confers no right on a legal counterclaim that is incidental or ancillary to the original claim E. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in considering merits of state law counterclaim that formed part of the same case as federal counterclaim even though court had dismissed federal counterclaim quoting 28 usc 1367a

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that rc 231104 confers a right to a jury trial on a legal counterclaim that if true would extinguish the original equitable claim but confers no right on a legal counterclaim that is incidental or ancillary to the original claim
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: Rentschler shall obtain and maintain all governmental licenses and permits necessary to establish and operate the Facility for performance hereunder, including but not limited to those required by the FDA or any Government Authority in any jurisdiction. Rentschler shall operate the Facility in compliance with all Applicable Laws and Rentschler shall promptly notify Customer in writing if any applicable regulatory agency or Government Authority issues a finding that materially affects Rentschler’s ability to perform under this Contract.

assistant: Consents
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: cases that discuss the difference between maintenance and design under the CGIA: The CGIA waives immunity in an action to recover injuries caused by breach of the state's duty to maintain; it does not waive immunity in an action to recover for injuries solely attributable to design. As we noted earlier, "maintain" means to keep a road i .3d 1266, 1268 (Colo.App.2000) ("[The failure to keep a facility free of obstacles even if such obstacles were not part of the original design-may lead to liability on the part of a governmental entity."). In contrast, an injury results solely from the inadequate design of a road when the dangerous condition causing the injury is inherent in the design itself and is allowed to persist to the time of the injury. See, e.g., Swieckowski, 934 P.2d at 1386 (<HOLDING>). Determining whether a dangerous condition of Options: A. holding that rico claims were personal and plaintiffs were therefore entitled to sue on their own because their injuries were distinct from the injuries to creditors in general resulting from the diversion of corporate assets B. holding that the plaintiffs injuries were attributable solely to design and therefore finding that there had been no waiver of immunity under the cgia where it was undisputed that the roadway causing the plaintiffs injuries was in the same condition as when it was originally constructed C. holding hospital employees testimony regarding victims previous injuries was inadmissible under the common scheme or plan exception because there was no clear and convincing evidence defendant inflicted the injuries D. holding that injuries covered by the act are not limited to external traumatic injuries E. holding that there was no waiver of immunity under the cgia where the plaintiffs injuries resulted from a sharp dip in the roadway that was part of the initial design and construction of the intersection

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the plaintiffs injuries were attributable solely to design and therefore finding that there had been no waiver of immunity under the cgia where it was undisputed that the roadway causing the plaintiffs injuries was in the same condition as when it was originally constructed
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: Deliver to Agent copies of each of the financial statements, reports, and other items set forth on Schedule 6.1 no later than the times specified therein. In addition, each Borrower agrees that no Subsidiary of a Borrower will have a fiscal year different from that of Borrowers. Each Loan Party agrees to maintain a system of accounting that enables such Loan Party to produce financial statements in accordance with GAAP. Each Loan Party shall also (a) keep a reporting system that shows all additions, sales, claims, returns, and allowances with respect to the sales of such Loan Party and its Subsidiaries, and (b) maintain its billing systems/practices substantially as in effect as of the Closing Date or otherwise consistent with past practices and shall only make material modifications thereto following prior notice to Agent.

assistant: Financial Statements
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 Plan shall be governed and construed in accordance with ERISA and any other applicable federal law and, to the extent not preempted by federal law, the laws of the State of Texas. Except as otherwise mandated by applicable law, exclusive jurisdiction over all disputes and actions arising under, or directly or indirectly relating to the Plan, shall be in Houston, Texas.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Other than as a result of the filing of the CHC Cases, the distribution of the Rights, and, subject to entry of the Confirmation Order and consummation of the Plan, the sale, issuance and delivery of the Notes, the consummation of the Rights Offering by the Company, the sale, issuance and delivery of the Unsubscribed Notes pursuant to the terms hereof, and the execution and delivery (or, with respect to the Plan, the filing with the Bankruptcy Court) by the Company of this Agreement, the Transaction Agreements and the Plan and compliance by it with all of the provisions hereof and thereof and the consummation of the Restructuring (including compliance by the Investors with their respective obligations hereunder and thereunder): (i) will not conflict with or result in a breach or violation of, any of the terms or provisions of, or constitute a default under (with or without notice or lapse of time, or both), or result, except to the extent expressly provided in or contemplated by the Plan, in the acceleration of, or the creation of any Lien under, any indenture, mortgage, deed of trust, loan agreement or other agreement or instrument to which any Debtor is a party or by which any Debtor is bound or to which any of its properties or assets is subject; (ii) will not result in any violation of the provisions of the organizational documents of the Company or its subsidiaries; and (iii) assuming the accuracy of the Investors’ representations and warranties in Section 4, will not result in any violation of, or any termination or material impairment of any rights under, any law, statute, subject to compliance with Antitrust laws, or any license, authorization, injunction, judgment, order, decree, rule or regulation of any court or governmental agency or body having jurisdiction over any Debtor or any of its properties, except in any such case described in clause (i) or clause (iii), as would not, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: long recognized that the writ is available to those who suffer such a curtailment of liberty as to render them “in custody” for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). See, Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 239-40, 83 S.Ct. 373, 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963); Williamson v. Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180, 1182 (9th Cir.1998); and Williams v. INS, 795 F.2d 738, 744 n. 3 (9th Cir.1986). In Williams, 795 F.2d at 744, the Ninth Circuit made clear that the Supreme Court’s expansion of “custody” in the criminal context applies to habeas petitions in the immigration context. In the present case, neither party seems to contend this point. What is in contention is whether Petitioner — who is subject to removal orders and the government’s Intensive Supervised Appearance Program (‘ISAP’) — h Cir. Aug. 11, 2000) (<HOLDING>) Aguilera v. Kirkpatrick, 241 F.3d 1286, 1291 Options: A. holding a final deportation order places an alien constructively in custody1 because of the specialized meaning those words have in the context of an immigrationrelated habeas petition B. holding that the time limit for filing a petition for review of a final order of deportation is jurisdictional C. holding that a collateral challenge to the use of a deportation proceeding as an element of a criminal offense must be permitted where the deportation proceeding effectively eliminates the right of the alien to obtain judicial review but declining to enumerate which procedural errors are so fundamental that they may functionally deprive the alien of judicial review D. holding that habeas review is for any alien held in custody pursuant to an order of deportation E. holding that so long as the petitioner is subject to a final order of deportation an alien is deemed to be in custody1 for purposes of the ina

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that so long as the petitioner is subject to a final order of deportation an alien is deemed to be in custody1 for purposes of the ina
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: In the event any provision of this Agreement is found to be unenforceable by an arbitrator or court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed modified to the extent necessary to allow enforceability of the provision as so limited, it being intended that the parties shall receive the benefit contemplated herein to the fullest extent permitted by law. If a deemed modification is not satisfactory in the judgment of such arbitrator or court, the unenforceable provision shall be deemed deleted, and the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected thereby.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: So long as no Event of Default exists under this Agreement or any other Loan Documents, and so long as no event has occurred that, with the passage of time, the giving of notice, or both, would constitute an Event of Default under this Agreement or any other Loan Documents, the Borrowers shall have the option to request a renewal of the Revolving Loan Commitment and extension of the Revolving Loan Maturity Date for two (2) additional six (6) month periods. To make such request, Borrowers shall give written notice to Lender of Borrowers’ request to renew the Revolving Loan Commitment and extend the Revolving Loan Maturity Date for an additional six (6) month period on or before a date that is thirty (30) days prior to the then scheduled Revolving Loan Maturity Date. If an Event of Default exists under this Agreement or any other Loan Documents, or if an event has occurred that, with the passage of time, the giving of notice, or both would constitute an Event of Default under this Agreement or any other Loan Document, Lender may elect to reject Borrowers’ request for a renewal of the Revolving Loan Commitment and extension of the Revolving Loan Maturity Date in its sole and absolute discretion, and any acceptance may be conditioned upon additional obligations, terms and conditions, including an increase in the percentage used to calculate the amount of Mandatory Principal Repayment Amount.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As a condition to the receipt of the Severance Payment, the payments contemplated in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 (and any portion thereof), and accelerated or continued vesting of equity-based compensation awards contemplated in Section 2.3, (a) Executive must execute and deliver the Release to the Company on or before the Release Expiration Date and (b) the revocation period under the Release must fully expire without revocation of the Release by Executive.

assistant: Releases
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 HERETO HEREBY 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, UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OF THE OTHER LOAN DOCUMENTS. EACH PARTY HERETO (A) CERTIFIES THAT 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 AND (B) ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT AND THE OTHER PARTIES HERETO HAVE BEEN INDUCED TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT AND THE OTHER LOAN DOCUMENTS, AS APPLICABLE, BY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE MUTUAL WAIVERS AND CERTIFICATIONS IN THIS SECTION 9.11.

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: 12, February 13, and (Monday) February 16. Each time, she said only that she was “ill” and “wouldn’t be in today.” It was not until February 17 that she left a copy of her ER discharge with someone at Hyre (assuming for now that this might have been adequate notice). We can find no meaningful difference between the facts of this case and those of Aubuchon, discussed above. Just as the plaintiff in Aubuchon had an obligation to tell his employer that his wife was having pregnancy complications in order to make his employer aware that he needed FMLA leave, Stevenson had an obligation to tell Hyre something more than that she was out sick for a day — something that might have been explained by a mundane 24-hour upset stomach. See Burnett v. LFW Inc., 472 F.3d 471, 479 (7th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Stevenson contends that Hyre’s letter to Options: A. holding conjecture that additional investigation might have yielded valuable information is insufficient to establish prejudice for ineffective assistance claim B. holding that calling in sick while providing no additional information is insufficient for the fmla C. holding that general allegations of a need for additional discovery will not suffice the person presenting such a claim must show what discovery has been obtained why it is inadequate and the what additional information he expects to obtain from additional discovery D. holding that an additional remedy does not constitute an additional requirement E. holding that entry of summary judgment while a motion for additional discovery was pending should be construed as an implicit denial of the motion for additional discovery

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that calling in sick while providing no additional information is insufficient for the fmla
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: Sublessee will carry and maintain at its expense such insurance as required to be carried by Sublessor under the Prime Lease naming Sublessor and the Additional Insured as additional insured and Sublessor and the Loss Payees as loss payees, except that all policies and subsequent policies taken out by Sublessee in accordance with Section 11.2 of the Prime Lease will have deductibles which do not exceed, per occurrence, the deductible amount provided in the Prime Lease, and will continue such insurance for such period of time after Sublessee's return of the Aircraft to Sublessor in accordance with the Return Condition Requirements as is equal to the period of time for which Sublessor is required to maintain insurance in favor of Primer Lessor under the terms of the Prime Lease. Sublessee will deliver such certificates of insurance and letters of undertaking when and as required under the Prime Lease.

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: ruling, plaintiffs moved for certification of interlocutory appeal of the December 9 Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). As a threshold matter, the Eleventh Circuit has characterized § 1292(b) interlocutory appeals as a “rare exception” to the premise that the great bulk of appellate review must be conducted after final judgment. McFarlin v. Conseco Services, LLC, 381 F.3d 1251, 1264 (11th Cir.2004); see also OFS Fitel, LLC v. Epstein, Becker and Green, P.C., 549 F.3d 1344, 1359 (11th Cir.2008) (pointing out that “ § 1292(b) sets a high threshold for certification to prevent piecemeal appeals” and that “[m]ost interlocutory orders do not meet this test”); United States v. One Parcel of Real Property With Bldgs., Appurtenances & Improvements, 767 F.2d 1495, 1498 (11th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); Camacho v. Puerto Rico Ports Authority, 369 Options: A. recognizing that the strong presumption against protective orders necessitates a balancing of interests B. recognizing a strong presumption favoring arbitrability C. recognizing presumption D. recognizing strong presumption against interlocutory appeals E. recognizing this presumption

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing strong presumption against interlocutory appeals
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: standard. OPEN contends that “[i]f citizens must exercise the right of referendum perfectly, it amounts to no right at all.” Under the circumstances, we disagree. ¶ 13 The provisions of section 19-101(A) regarding insertion of the referendum description obviously serve to ensure that petition signers are informed about the document they are signing and the measure being referred. By requiring circulators to include a brief description of the referred measure in the petition itself, rather than by stapling it to the front, the legislature ensures that cir-culators cannot abuse the referendum process by later removing the stapled description and attaching a different description to the signatures. See Direct Sellers Ass’n v. McBrayer, 109 Ariz. 3, 6, 503 P.2d 951, 954 (1972) (<HOLDING>). Even without allegations of such fraudulent Options: A. holding that there is both a statutory and a constitutional right to a jury trial under erisa because congress lacks constitutional authority to limit right to a jury B. recognizing the right to trial by jury is a constitutional right to be given the same protections as other constitutional rights C. recognizing legislatures authority to safeguard peoples right to referendum by enacting legislation that supplements constitutional referendum provisions D. recognizing constitutional right to effective counsel E. recognizing a presumption against retroactive legislation

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing legislatures authority to safeguard peoples right to referendum by enacting legislation that supplements constitutional referendum provisions
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: (2013) (ex plaining the FDA’s view that “promoting a drug for an off-label use is a violation” of the FDCA’s misbranding provisions). Based on this view, the FDA has recovered millions of dollars in settlements from drug manufacturers that have engaged in off-label promotion. See, e.g., id. at 232 (citing Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Department Announces Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in Its History, (Sept. 2, 2009) (trumpeting a mul-ti-billion dollar fine imposed against a drug company that promoted its drugs for uses and dosages that the FDA specifically declined to approve)). The FDA’s informal interpretation of a statute it administers is entitled to some deference from courts. See Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944) (<HOLDING>). But courts have not always agreed with the Options: A. holding that where statute is ambiguous deference is appropriately accorded to agencys interpretation B. holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference C. holding that deference is owed to state agencys interpretation of state law D. holding that an agencys informal interpretation of a statute it administers is entitled to deference to the extent it has the power to persuade E. holding that agency interpretation which is reasonable is entitled to deference

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that an agencys informal interpretation of a statute it administers is entitled to deference to the extent it has the power to persuade
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 be responsible for the payment of any placement agent’s fees, financial advisory fees, transfer agent fees, DTC (as defined below) fees or broker’s commissions (other than for Persons engaged by any Buyer) relating to or arising out of the transactions contemplated hereby (including, without limitation, any fees or commissions payable to the Placement Agent, who is the Company’s sole placement agent in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Agreement). Except as otherwise set forth in the Transaction Documents, each party to this Agreement shall bear its own expenses in connection with the sale of the Securities to the Buyers.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Borrowers shall provide to Lender, on or before the 20 th day of each month, (a) a detailed aged trial balance of all Accounts as of the end of the preceding month, specifying each Account's Account Debtor name and address, amount, and such other information as Lender may reasonably request, including without limitation, invoice date and due date, showing any discount, allowance, credit, authorized return or dispute; and (b) a monthly roll forward report of all Accounts from the previous month. If Accounts in an aggregate face amount of $50,000 or more cease to be Eligible Accounts, Borrowers shall notify Lender of such occurrence promptly (and in any event within one (1) Business Day) after Borrower has knowledge thereof.

assistant: Records
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: activity of the manufacture and design of a pleasure boat. See Roane v. Greenwich Swim Committee, 330 F.Supp.2d 306, 314-15 & n. 4 (“The proper design and manufacture of a [non-commercial] vessel intended for use on navigable waters bears a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity.”); see also Hassinger v. Tideland Elec. Membership Corp., 781 F.2d 1022 (4th Cir.1986) (admiralty jurisdiction over negligence claim by pleasure boat sailors against boat manufacturer, marketer, supplier, and seller) (“[0]ne of the purposes of admiralty law is to protect [recreational] sailors from defective equipment while they are engaged in maritime activity.”); see generally East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858, 865, 106 S.Ct. 2295, 90 L.Ed.2d 865 (1986) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, this Court may exercise its Options: A. recognizing products liability and products actions based on negligence as part of the general maritime law B. holding that although the district court recognized confusion based on similarity of products it failed to give proper weight to the virtual identity of the parties products C. recognizing products liability concepts as part of general maritime law D. recognizing that substantial change is a defense to a products liability claim E. recognizing the significance of control in strict products liability

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing products liability and products actions based on negligence as part of the general maritime law
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: you irrevocably waive all rights to seek injunctive or other equitable relief , or to enjoin or restrain the operation of the service or any supercell game , exploitation of any advertising or other materials issued in connection therewith , or exploitation of the service or any content or other material used or displayed through the service and agree to limit your claims to claims for monetary damages , limited by section 7 ( if any ) .

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: Each party hereto hereby acknowledges and agrees that except as expressly provided in this Amendment, nothing in this Amendment shall be construed as a waiver of any provision of the Note by any party hereto, nor shall it in any way affect the validity of, or the right of any party hereto to enforce the provisions of the Note.

assistant: Agreements
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 constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, whether written or oral, relating to the subject matter of this Agreement. The parties acknowledge and agree that the Employment Agreement hereby is terminated and is of no further force and effect, except with respect to the terms thereof that specifically survive termination of the Employment Agreement or that are incorporated herein under Section 7. Contractor acknowledges and agrees that he has freely determined to terminate the Employment Agreement and to waive any and all benefits to which employees of the Company are entitled.

assistant: Entire Agreements
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: Tejeda-Mata allows for justifications for the delay in submitting an issue. Tejeda-Mata, 626 F.2d at 726. Considering that Parisi was decided on November 8,1995, eight days before the appeal by Plaintiff to the Appeals Council, and the ALJ hearing was months before this, it seems excusable that this case was excluded from earlier administrative proceedings. While Tejeda-Mata doesn’t outline what particular justifications might be reasonable, in view of the Parisi time line, the court feels this delay was within an acceptable range. V.SHOULD THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED UNDER RULE 19? Whether an action should be dismissed under Rule 19 involves a two step process: (1) the court must decide whether the absent party should be joined as a necessary party under R F.2d 1030, 1045 (9th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). Defendant makes this motion to dismiss under Options: A. holding that collateral estoppel precludes future litigation between the same parties of ultimate facts that have been determined by valid and final judgments B. holding that speculation about occurrence of future event ordinarily does not render all parties potentially affected by that future event necessary or indispensable parties C. holding that all property owners affected by a residential use permit are necessary parties D. holding that no claim of mutual mistake can be stated on the basis of disappointed expectations as to a future event which amount to mere conjecture not an existing fact E. holding that a defendant is not entitled to relief where he has been given affirmative misadvice regarding the possible sentenceenhancing consequences of a plea in the event that the defendant commits a new crime in the future

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that speculation about occurrence of future event ordinarily does not render all parties potentially affected by that future event necessary or indispensable parties
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 Patent Security Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all such separate counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument. In proving this Patent Security Agreement or any other Note Document in any judicial proceedings, it shall not be necessary to produce or account for more than one such counterpart signed by the party against whom such enforcement is sought. Any signatures delivered by a party by facsimile transmission or by e-mail transmission shall be deemed an original signature hereto.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: States v. Green, 560 F.3d 853, 856 (8th Cir. 2009) (noting the presence of four other people in the house in addition to the defendant and that the defendant was only located after the officers began the protective sweep); United States v. Cash, 378 F.3d 745, 746-47 (8th Cir. 2004) (affirming the protective sweep when the evidence showed that on the day the defendant was arrested inside her house on outstanding warrants, an informant had told the officers that the defendant possessed a large quantity of drugs, the informant had seen drags in the house, and the officers had testified that the defendant had exhibited extremely nervous behavior toward them and that she attempted to conceal a shopping bag located in plain view); United States v. Smith, 131 F.3d 1392, 1396 (10th Cir. 1997) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Patrick, 959 F.2d 991, 994, Options: A. holding that the officers were entitled to conduct a protective sweep because they located the defendant in the house there were other people present and the defendant was actively trying to conceal drags B. holding that officers were not justified in conducting a protective sweep incident to the defendants arrest despite the defendants alleged involvement with narcotics and possession of weapons because the defendant did not resist and there was no noise or other evidence suggesting anyone else was present in the house C. holding that protective sweep was justified incident to arrest outside residence where officers had reasonable suspicion that dangerous individuals were in apartment D. holding that the officers were justified in conducting a protective sweep incident to the defendants arrest on outstanding warrants because the officers had information that the defendant was suspected of running a methamphetamine operation on the premises other people were living there and assisting the defendant and at the time the sweep began the defendant had not yet been located E. holding a protective sweep unconstitutional where officers had no information that any other persons were in the apartment

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the officers were justified in conducting a protective sweep incident to the defendants arrest on outstanding warrants because the officers had information that the defendant was suspected of running a methamphetamine operation on the premises other people were living there and assisting the defendant and at the time the sweep began the defendant had not yet been located
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: we find it unnecessary to decide whether the errors in computation, under these circumstances, are enough on their own to render the regression analysis inadmissible. 310 . See Daniel L. Rubinfeld, Reference Guide on Multiple Regression, in REFERENCE MANUAL ON SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE 179, 181 (Federal Judicial Center 2000). Professor Rubinfeld notes that the failure to include “a major explanatory variable that is correlated with the variable of interest may cause an included variable to be credited with an effect that actually is caused by the excluded variable” and that this flaw in methodology may lead to "inferences made from regression analyses that do not assist the trier of fact.” Id. at 188. 311 . Judge Scheindlin cited Bickerstaff v. Vassay College, 196 F.3d 435, 450 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Smith v. Xerox Corp., 196 F.3d 358, 370-71 Options: A. holding that a challenge for cause for actual bias essentially requires a determination of credibility B. holding that defendants right to crossexamine a witness for bias or motivation to lie is not grounds for reversal where the jury had enough information despite the limits placed on otherwise permitted crossexamination to assess the defense theory of bias or improper motive C. holding the bias analysis insufficient to support its decisions D. recognizing that statutes mandating recusal for actual bias have constitutional bases unlike those that require recusal for a mere appearance of bias or prejudice E. holding that assumption that race bias tainted professors course evaluation scores is untenable without attempting to control for oth er causes for low score

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that assumption that race bias tainted professors course evaluation scores is untenable without attempting to control for oth er causes for low score
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: violations noted by the officers after the incident — were sufficient to deny the defendants’ motion to suppress. See Hartwell, 67 F.Supp.2d at 790 (“Accordingly, the initial parking violation relied upon by the government did not provide the troopers with probable cause to stop defendant Hartwell’s vehicle. Nevertheless, the government now urges this Court to consider other additional violations allegedly committed by defendant Hartwell.”). In particular, the ■ government argued that in parking the vehicle as they did, the defendants necessarily obstructed traffic and drove on the wrong side of the road. On appeal, the defendants argue that the government is precluded from advancing additional bases for probable cause with the benefit of hindsight. See Ferguson, 8 F.3d at 391-92 (<HOLDING>). The government counters that Whren provides Options: A. holding that probable cause determinations turn on what the officer knew at the time he made the stop B. holding that the subjective intent of the officer is no longer determinative wjhen applying the objective test generally the only determination to be made is whether probable cause existed for the stop in question and that per whren a violation of traffic law provided sufficient probable cause to make the subsequent search and seizure reasonable C. holding that a conclusion that reasonable suspicion supported the stop of a vehicle was subsumed within the trial courts ruling that the officer had probable cause for the stop D. holding arrest was valid because there was probable cause of cdw even though officer incorrectly believed at the time that he had probable cause of ppw E. holding that there is no probable cause when an officer makes a stop based on a mistake of law

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that probable cause determinations turn on what the officer knew at the time he made the stop
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 exceptions described in this Agreement, any controversy, dispute or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement or any breach of it (each a " Claim "), shall be settled by binding arbitration in accordance with the Employment Dispute Resolution Procedures of the selected arbitration group such as ADR, JAMS or American Arbitration Association (" AAA "). The Claims covered by this Agreement include, but are not limited to, claims for wages and other compensation, claims for breach of contract (express or implied), tort claims, claims for discrimination (including, but not limited to, race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, age, marital status, medical condition, and disability), harassment (including, but not limited to race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, age, marital status, medical condition, and disability), and claims for violation of any federal, state, or other government law, statute, regulation, or ordinance. This provision shall not apply, however, to claims for workers' compensation or unemployment insurance benefits, or claims; nor shall it restrict Executive's right to submit claims to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, as appropriate. In addition, this agreement to arbitrate disputes set forth in this Section 11.1 does not prevent Executive from filing a charge or claim with any other governmental administrative agency as permitted by applicable law.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any representation or warranty of the Borrower made herein shall be false or misleading in any material respect when made and the breach of which has (or with the passage of time will have) a material adverse effect on the rights of the Holder with respect to this Debenture.

assistant: Warranties