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: with the local dealers, who were his regular customers, and those good relations depended in part on the successful passage of title from those dealers to their customers. Id. at 711-12, 109 S.Ct. 1443. As a result, the mailing of the title applications was an incident of a “scheme which did not reach fruition until the retail dealers resold the cars and effected the transfer of title,” id. at 712, 109 S.Ct. 1443, because only then did Schmuck’s customers, the car dealers, have customers satisfied with Schmuck’s cars. That is to say, the Schmuck mailings, while not directly contributing to the “duping of either the retail dealers or the customers,” were nonetheless “incidental to an essential part of the scheme.” Id. (citing United States v. Shryock, 537 F.2d 207, 208-09 (5th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>)). In upholding the convictions, the Schmuck Options: A. recognizing that in 1982 kentucky converted to a new title system for motor vehicles under which the secured creditor must perfect its security interest by noting the lien on the certificate of title to the motor vehicle B. holding that the statutory definition of motor vehicle is not controlling C. holding that a local motor vehicle departments mailing of title applications to state headquarters furthered a dealers odometertampering scheme D. holding that the sensible and popular understanding of what a motor vehicle accident entails necessarily involves the motor vehicle being operated as a motor vehicle E. holding that plaintiff who slipped and fell on ice while securing cars on his employers motor vehicle carrier preparing to travel was very close to the vehicle and engaged in a task related to the vehicle and therefore was an occupier of a motor vehicle

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a local motor vehicle departments mailing of title applications to state headquarters furthered a dealers odometertampering scheme
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: removal purposes. Instead, for complete preemption to apply, the cause of action not only must be preempted by ERISA but also must fall within the scope of the civil enforcement provisions of ERISA § 502(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a). See Aetna Health, 542 U.S. at 209, 124 S.Ct. 2488 (“[A]ny state-law cause of action that duplicates, supplements, or supplants the ERISA civil enforcement remedy conflicts with the clear congressional intent to make the ERISA remedy exclusive and is therefore preempted. The preemptive force of ERISA § 502(a) is still stronger.... Hence, causes of action within the scope of the civil enforcement provisions of § 502(a) [are] removable to federal court.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); Metro. Life Ins. Co., 481 U.S. at 62-63, 67, 107 S.Ct. 1542 (<HOLDING>); Da-Ponte v. Manfredi Motors Inc., 157 Fed. Options: A. holding that action to recover erisa benefits under the subject plan are legal in nature and that plaintiff is constitutionally entitled to trial by jury on any claim raised under 1132a1b B. holding that erisa permits suits to recover benefits only against the plan as an entity and thus the beneficiary had erred by suing her exhusbands employer and plan administrator when proper party would have been the benefits plan itself C. holding that because an erisa plan is not a participant beneficiary or fiduciary subject matter jurisdiction did not exist under 502e of erisa over a suit brought by such a plan D. holding that just because a claim implicates a federal issue or involves construction of federal law does not necessarily give rise to a federal question and confer removal jurisdiction on a federal court E. holding that suit by a beneficiary to recover benefits from a covered plan falls directly under 502a1b of erisa and therefore was necessarily federal in character and subject to removal to federal court

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that suit by a beneficiary to recover benefits from a covered plan falls directly under 502a1b of erisa and therefore was necessarily federal in character and subject to removal to federal court
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: with the Supreme Court’s own characterization of the same language in Burrage. And, by stating that its interpretation is tethered to the “plain language” of the statute, the majority is most assuredly at odds with its decision to.then “[bjroaden [its] analytical lens” and look beyond the statutory language for other signs of Congressional intent. Id. at 615. Generally, speaking, only ambiguity or the possibility of an odd result compels a court to look beyond the language of the statute it is interpreting. E.g., Zuni Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 89 v. Dep’t of Educ., 550 U.S. 81, 99, 127 S.Ct. 1534, 167 L.Ed.2d 449 (2007) (concluding that statutory language was susceptible to more than one meaning); Public Citizen v. Dep’t of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 454, 109 S.Ct. 2558, 105 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989) (<HOLDING>). In looking beyond the statutory' language, Options: A. recognizing a court must look beyond the plain language of a statute when the literal interpretation would lead to an absurd result B. holding when ordinance language is clear courts must give language its plain meaning C. holding that a court can look beyond the statutory language when plain meaning would compel an odd result D. holding that if statutory language is plain and unambiguous this court will not look beyond the same to divine legislative intent E. holding that we may look beyond text of statute or rule where plain language is unambiguous but would lead to an absurd result that drafters cannot have intended

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a court can look beyond the statutory language when plain meaning would compel an odd result
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: ¶ 4. The jury convicted defendant of DWI, third or subsequent offense. At the sentencing hearing, the trial judge expressed his belief that there had been perjured testimony at the trial. Defendant’s attorney did not respond to this comment. Before imposing sentence, the court noted that defendant had continued to drive while intoxicated despite her previous DWI convictions, and then commented as follows: “In addition, there was clearly perjured testimony at this trial. And perjured testimony doesn’t come about by itself. It comes about because the defendant invited it.” The court imposed a sentence of thirty months to five years, with the expectation that defendant would be placed in a rehabilitative program after one year in jail. The court also imposed the max 342-43 (199 1978) (<HOLDING>). The rationale of Dunnigan that a person who Options: A. holding in preguideline decision that it is one thing to say that a defendant may not be penalized for maintaining her innocence and putting the prosecution to its proof and quite another to sanction the fabrication of a defense B. holding a defendant is entitled to instructions relating to his theory of defense for which there is some foundation in the proof no matter how tenuous that defense may appear to the trial court C. holding that it may not D. holding burden of proof is on one asserting an affirmative defense E. holding that the appropriate sanction was to require the defendant to disclose the nature of the agreement with the witness

assistant: The best answer is A. holding in preguideline decision that it is one thing to say that a defendant may not be penalized for maintaining her innocence and putting the prosecution to its proof and quite another to sanction the fabrication of a defense
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: environment, a university may, as debt collection tactic, refuse to provide a transcript upon request, is not necessarily grounds for relief from the automatic stay as a matter of law. Rather, under the Hernandez approach, the determination whether relief from stay in favor of the university is appropriate is, like other contested matters under § 362(d), a fact-driven decision left largely to the discretion of the bankruptcy court. See generally In re Porter, 371 B.R. 739, 744-45 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.2007) (citing In re Wilson, 116 F.3d 87, 89 (3d Cir.1997); Matter of Holtkamp, 669 F.2d 505 (7th Cir.1982); In re Shariyf, 68 B.R. 604 (E.D.Pa.1986)). 29 . In chapter 13 cases, query whether this factor implicates 11 U.S.C. § 1322(a)(3). Compare In re Mason, 300 B.R. 379 (Bankr.D.Kan.2003) (<HOLDING>); In re Bentley, 266 B.R. 229 (1st Cir. BAP Options: A. holding that priority claims can be paid concurrently with other creditors over the life of a chapter 13 plan B. holding that the fresh start was a legitimate interest to discriminate in a plan whereby the debtor proposed to pay the student loan in full while paying 15 of the other unsecured claims C. holding that because creditors claim was unsecured after application of section 506a and because section 1325a5 does not apply to unsecured claims creditors lien could properly be avoided D. holding that a 56month chapter 13 plan that proposed to pay 17 of the anticipated dividend to student loan creditors while making no distribution to other unsecured creditors unfairly discriminates and could not be confirmed E. holding that plan proposing and payment of nondischargeable student loan in full outside plan according to its terms for 54 months and 79 payment to unsecured creditors over 36 months did not discriminate unfairly among unsecured class

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a 56month chapter 13 plan that proposed to pay 17 of the anticipated dividend to student loan creditors while making no distribution to other unsecured creditors unfairly discriminates and could not be confirmed
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: not the Columbia County Probation and Parole Office — as a defendant, and avers that “Defendant Columbia County is a municipality within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that, at all times relevant hereto, operated the Columbia County Probation Department.” .App. 1220. However, Columbia County denied this claim in its answer, stating that “it is specifically denied that Columbia County operated the County Probation Department with respect to the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint,” and asserting that “Defendant Panetta was acting as an officer of the court, which is a branch of the state for purposes of the alleged claims.” App. 1288. This assertion'is sup ported by the rule this Court articulated in Benn v. First Judicial District of Pa., 426 F.3d 233, 241 (3d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>), which we underscored in Haybarger, 551 F.3d Options: A. holding that local school boards were not entitled to eleventh amendment immunity even though entitled to sovereign immunity in the same degree as the state itself from tort suits B. holding that judges have immunity from suit for judicial acts C. holding that school districts do not share in the commonwealth of pennsylvanias eleventh amendment sovereign immunity because they are not alter egos of the commonwealth D. holding that pennsylvanias judicial districts are entitled to immunity from suit under the eleventh amendment E. holding that the department of corrections was entitled to eleventh amendment immunity from suit under section 1981

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that pennsylvanias judicial districts are entitled to immunity from suit under the eleventh amendment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: 11. Unless and until I am released in writing by an authorized representative of the Department of Homeland Security (if permissible for the particular category of information), I understand that all conditions and obligations imposed upon me by this Agreement apply during the time that I am granted conditional access, and at all times thereafter.

assistant: Yes
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 Department of Labor policy expressed in 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1, which states: “The claims procedures of a plan that provides disability benefits will be deemed to be reasonable only if ... the claims procedures do not contain any provision, and are not administered in a way, that requires a claimant to file more than two appeals of an adverse benefit determination prior to bringing a civil action under section 502(a) of the Act.” 29 C.F.R. §§ 2560.503-l(c)(2)-(d). According to the Secretary, reasonable claim procedures “do not contain any provision, and are not administered in any way, that unduly inhibits or hampers the initiation or processing of claims for benefits.” 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503 — 1(b)(3); see Menz v. Procter & Gamble Health Care Plan, 520 F.3d 865 (8th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). “A primary goal of ERISA was to provide a Options: A. holding that procedural irregularity resulting in more than two appeals during processing of erisa participants medical benefits claim and stemming from confusion as to which of two claims processors was re sponsible for administering claim and which plan attempted to remedy by giving participant an additional appeal did not warrant less deferential standard of review in erisa benefits denial case B. 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 C. holding that a plaintiff in an erisa denial of benefits case bears the burden of proving her entitlement to contractual benefits D. holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant E. holding that erisa benefits are not property of the estate

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that procedural irregularity resulting in more than two appeals during processing of erisa participants medical benefits claim and stemming from confusion as to which of two claims processors was re sponsible for administering claim and which plan attempted to remedy by giving participant an additional appeal did not warrant less deferential standard of review in erisa benefits denial case
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: USPQ2d 1936, 1938 (Fed.Cir.1993) (“It is improper for a court to add ‘extraneous’ limitations to a claim, that is, limitations added wholly apart from any need to interpret what the patentee meant by particular words or phrases in the claim.”) (quoting E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433, 7 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed.Cir.1988)); see also Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 987, 6 USPQ2d 1601, 1605 (Fed.Cir.1988) (“Where a specification does not require a limitation, that limitation should not be read from the specification into the claims.”) (citing Lemelson v. United States, 752 F.2d 1538, 1551-52, 224 USPQ 526, 534 (Fed.Cir.1985)); cf. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1065 (Fed.Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). The other clear point provided by these two Options: A. recognizing that the court must give meaning to all the words in the claims B. recognizing that we must give meaning to all the words in the claims C. holding that limitations from the specification should not be read into the claims D. holding that the written description provided no evidence to indicate that limitations must be imported into the claims to give meaning to disputed terms E. holding that courts must generally give effect to the plain meaning of a statute because that is the best evidence of the legislatures intent

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the written description provided no evidence to indicate that limitations must be imported into the claims to give meaning to disputed 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: Executive further declares and represents that no promise, inducement, or agreement not herein expressed or referred to has been made to him. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement, this instrument (including the exhibits hereto) constitutes the entire agreement between Executive and the Companies and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, written or oral, including, without limitation the Severance Plan and the Offer Letter. This Agreement may not be changed unless the change is in writing and signed by Executive and an authorized representative of each of Holdings and The Hertz Corporation. Parol evidence will be inadmissible to show agreement by and between the parties to any term or condition contrary to or in addition to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. This Agreement may be executed in separate counterparts, each of which is deemed to be an original and all of which together constitute one and the same agreement, whether delivered in person, by mail, by e-mail or by facsimile. For avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Agreement shall limit the application of the Company’s Compensation Recovery Policy (or any successor or replacement policy) to any compensation, payments or benefits payable or paid to Executive pursuant to this Agreement or any other arrangement, agreement or plan.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: So long as the Discharge of First Lien Obligations has not occurred, the First Lien Collateral Agent and the other First Lien Secured Parties shall have the exclusive right, subject to the rights of the Grantors under the First Lien Loan Documents, to settle and adjust claims in respect of Collateral under policies of insurance covering Collateral and to approve any award granted in any condemnation or similar proceeding, or any deed in lieu of condemnation, in respect of the Collateral. All proceeds of any such policy and any such award, or any payments with respect to a deed in lieu of condemnation, shall (a) first, prior to the Discharge of First Lien Obligations and subject to the rights of the Grantors under the First Lien Loan Documents, be paid to the First Lien Collateral Agent for the benefit of First Lien Secured Parties pursuant to the terms of the First Lien Loan Documents, (b) second, after the Discharge of First Lien Obligations and subject to the rights of the Grantors under the Second Lien Loan Documents, be paid to the Second Lien Collateral Agent for the benefit of the Second Lien Secured Parties pursuant to the terms of the Second Lien Loan Documents, (c) third, after the Discharge of First Lien Obligations and if no Second Lien Obligations are outstanding, paid to the First Lien Collateral Agent in respect of any Excess First Lien Obligations, and (d) fourth, if no Second Lien Obligations are outstanding, be paid to the owner of the subject Property, such other Person as may be entitled thereto or as a court of competent jurisdiction may otherwise direct. Until the Discharge of First Lien Obligations has occurred, if the Second Lien Collateral Agent or any other Second Lien Secured Party shall, at any time, receive any proceeds of any such insurance policy or any such award or payment, it shall transfer and pay over such proceeds to the First Lien Collateral Agent in accordance with Section 4.02 .

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: database has been exempted pursuant to exemption (j)(2). See Cunningham Decl. ¶¶ 21-22. Nevertheless, this Court agrees with my colleague’s reasoning in Gordon, and finds that the documents identified in the email archive were properly withheld as this database is not a “system of records” within the meaning of the Privacy Act and is therefore not subject to the disclosure provisions therein. See Gordon, 118 F.Supp.3d at 291, 2015 WL 4602588, at *9; 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(5) (defining “system of records” as “a group of any records under the control of any agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual”); see also Mobley v. CIA, 924 F.Supp.2d 24, 56 (D.D.C.2013) .(<HOLDING>). In sum, I conclude that defendant met its Options: A. holding that users have reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages despite advance warning that the messages could be read B. holding that email messages stored on a computer but not yet read were in electronic storage C. holding that daily reports prepared by agency investigator were not records within a system of records since they were retrievable by the investigators identifier and not accessed by plaintiffs name D. holding that a database of email messages is not a system of records under the privacy act because it is not indexed by personal identifier E. holding that it is not

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a database of email messages is not a system of records under the privacy act because it is not indexed by personal identifier
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 supreme court conveyed its view on a very similar set of facts: Once a customer has parted with his money, he is dependent upon the financial responsibility, business ability, integrity, expertise and market advice of appellant and, unknown to him, third parties who participate in appellant’s commodity trading. It is the essential managerial efforts of those other than the investor which affect the failure or success of the enterprise. Investors are not required to, and they do not, exert any significant efforts in order to make a profit on their investment. For all practical purposes, the critical managerial decisions affecting the investor’s funds are solely within the control of the appellant. Searsy, 560 S.W.2d at Financial Concepts, Inc., 196 F.3d 1195, 1201 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Securities & Exchange Comm’n v. Infinity Options: A. holding that regardless of other factors as to harms a movants likelihood of success must carry at least a fair chance of success on the merits in order to warrant interim relief internal quotation omitted B. holding that the standard for permanent injunction is the same as that for preliminary injunction with the one exception being that the plaintiff must show actual success on the merits rather than likelihood of success C. holding investment program tied to success of appellants ponzi scheme was investment contract D. holding that whether the contract was abandoned by movant was inextricably tied up with the merits of the underlying arbitrable dispute regarding the adequacy of the movants contract performance E. holding that mailing of titleregistration forms satisfied mailing requirement because they contributed to success of the scheme

assistant: The best answer is C. holding investment program tied to success of appellants ponzi scheme was investment contract
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) The Outstanding Principal Balance of any Series of Notes which may be authenticated and delivered from time to time under this Indenture shall not exceed the initial Outstanding Principal Balance set forth for such Series of Notes, in the case of the Initial Notes, in the definition of the Initial Series A Notes or the Initial Series B Notes, as applicable, or, with respect to any Refinancing Notes, as authorized in a Trustee Resolution. All Initial Notes shall be issued at the same time and no additional Notes shall be issued under this Indenture; provided that Refinancing Notes may be issued in connection with a Refinancing of the Initial Notes or a refinancing of any previously issued Refinancing Notes and any Refinancing Notes may be reopened, without the consent of any Holder, for the issuance of additional Refinancing Notes, subject in all cases to Sections 2.10 and 5.02 and any other applicable provision of this Indenture; provided that at no time may the Outstanding Principal Balance of any Series of Refinancing Notes issued in connection with a Refinancing exceed the Redemption Price of the Series of Notes being refinanced thereby plus Refinancing Expenses relating thereto.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to the District Court’s application of AEDPA to petitioner’s constitutional claims and ask whether that resolution was debatable amongst jurists of reason.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 336. The district court determined that petitioner procedurally defaulted the first three of the five claims listed above by failing to properly appeal them to the OCCA. Petitioner raised these claims for the first time in his state application for post-conviction relief. When the trial court denied the application, petitioner attempted to appeal it to the OCCA, but he failed to foll ural default through a showing of cause and prejudice, and the district court concluded that his showing of actual innocence was not sufficient. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991) (<HOLDING>); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 321, 115 S.Ct. Options: A. holding that the convention claim was procedurally defaulted B. holding that courts may only review claims for fundamental miscarriage of justice C. holding that fundamental miscarriage of justice standard requires petitioner to make threshold showing of actual innocence D. holding that an argument not raised before the district court is procedurally defaulted E. holding that federal court cannot review claim procedurally defaulted in state court absent showing of either cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that federal court cannot review claim procedurally defaulted in state court absent showing of either cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice
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: Since the date of the Company’s incorporation, (i) the Company has conducted the Business in material compliance with all Laws relating to the operation and conduct of the Business or any of its properties or facilities; and (ii) the Company has not received notice (whether material or not) of any violation or alleged violation, or non- written notice of a material violation or alleged violation. No event has occurred, and no condition exists, that would reasonably be expected to (with or without notice or lapse of time) constitute or result directly or indirectly in a material violation by the Company of, or a material failure on the part of the Company to comply with, any Law relating to the operation and conduct of the Business or any of its properties or facilities. The Company is in possession of all material authorizations, licenses, permits, certificates, approvals and clearances of any Governmental or Regulatory Authority necessary for the Company to own, lease and operate its properties or to conduct the Business consistent with past practice (collectively, the “Permits”). All applications for or renewals of all such Permits have been timely filed and made and no such Permit will expire or be terminated as a result of the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Documents. All of such Permits are in full force and effect and will remain in full force and effect immediately following the Closing, and the Company is in compliance with the foregoing without any conflict with the valid rights of others.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Following the occurrence of any Event of Default, in any suit, proceeding or action brought by any Secured Party under any Account or Contract for any sum owing thereunder, or to enforce any provisions of any Account or Contract, the Debtor will save, indemnify and keep the Secured Parties harmless from and against all expense, loss or damage suffered by reason of any defense, setoff, counterclaim, recoupment or reduction or liability whatsoever of the account debtor or obligor thereunder, arising out of a breach by the Debtor of any obligation thereunder or arising out of any other agreement, indebtedness or liability at any time owing to or in favor of such account debtor or obligor or its successors from the Debtor.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if any provision of this agreement is found to be unenforceable or invalid , that provision shall be limited or eliminated to the minimum extent necessary so that this agreement shall otherwise remain in full force and effect and enforceable .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute one agreement, and any of the parties hereto may execute this Agreement by signing any such counterpart. Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page of this Agreement by facsimile or other electronic method of transmission shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed original counterpart of this Agreement.

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: Supreme Court subsequently vacated our judgment and remanded for further consideration in light of its decision in Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union No. 6, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 424, 107 L.Ed.2d 388 (1989), a case that addressed the issue of whether hiring hall discrimination constituted “discipline” within the meaning of sections 101(a)(5) and 609 of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 411(a)(5), 529. We, in turn, remanded to the district court for further proceedings in light of Breininger, to the extent that Breininger affected our panel’s prior opinion. Guidry, 902 F.2d 335 (1990). Of course, for the reasons explained in our prior opinion, a remand to the district court was necessary, in any event, to reassess Guidry’s damages. See Guidry, 882 F.2d at 941-45 (<HOLDING>)'. Guidry now petitions this court for panel Options: A. holding without discussion of the punitive damages issue that judgment for embezzlement which included actual and punitive damages was nondischargeable B. holding a court may not award punitive damages C. holding that actual and punitive damages based on guidrys lmrda claims should be reassessed under a oneyear limitations period D. holding that punitive damages may be awarded for egregious violations of the lmrda E. holding that punitive damages could not be granted because punitive damages are a matter of substantive law and substantive state law must yield to federal limitations

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that actual and punitive damages based on guidrys lmrda claims should be reassessed under a oneyear limitations period
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 an element of a claim or defense as to which State law supplies the rule of decision, the privilege of a witness, person, government, State or political subdivision thereof shall be determined in accordance with state law.” Fed. Evid. Rule 501. The state of Arizona recognizes the physician-patient privilege. Duquette v. Superior Court, 161 Ariz. 269, 778 P.2d 634 (Ariz.App.1989). III. Discussion By its motion in limine, Defendant seeks to interview Plaintiffs treating physician ex parte in advance of the treating physician’s deposition. The government argues that courts have held that federal common law permits ex parte contact with treating physicians, and it asks this Court to follow the reasoning of those courts. See Sipes v. United States, 111 F.R.D. 59, 61 (S.D.Cal.1986) (<HOLDING>); Filz v. Mayo Foundation, 136 F.R.D. 165 Options: A. holding that a request for admission is a tool of discovery subject to discovery cutoff dates B. holding that ex parte young exception to states sovereign immunity applies only where violation of federal law is ongoing not where federal law was violated only in the past C. holding that federal common law allows ex parte interviews as discovery tool and controls even when state law supplies the rule of decision D. holding that minnesota law prohibiting ex parte interviews was not integral to its privilege law but was merely procedural rule and therefore not controlling in diversity action and the federal rules allow ex parte interviews as method of informal discovery E. holding that preservation of the integrity of maine privilege law limits defendant to formal mechanisms of discovery provided by federal rules which do not allow ex parte interviews absent consent

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that federal common law allows ex parte interviews as discovery tool and controls even when state law supplies the rule of decision
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 agrees to reimburse the Administrative Agent for its reasonable out-of-pocket expenses in connection with the Loan Documents (including the preparation of this Amendment), including the reasonable fees, charges and disbursements of Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the public employer is not liable if it demonstrates that it would have taken the same adverse action even absent the protected speech. Mandell, 316 F.3d at 382-83; Cobb, 363 F.3d at 102. With these principles in mind, I turn to Anemone’s allegations. 1. Relationship of Anemone’s Speech to Matter of Public Concern “As a general rule, speech on ‘any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community’ is protected by the First Amendment.” Morris, 196 F.3d at 110 (quoting Connick, 461 U.S. at 146, 103 S.Ct. 1684). Speech relating to public corruption and/or a public entity’s failure to adequately or properly investigate such corruption lies comfortably within these categories of protected expression. See, e.g., Vasbinder v. Ambach, 926 F.2d 1333, 1340, 1341 (2d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Rookard v. Health & Hosps. Corp., 710 F.2d Options: A. recognizing a public employees first amendment right to address matters of legitimate public concern B. holding that employees contact with fbi regarding defendants potential fraud theft and misallocation of public funds was a matter of public concern C. holding public employees conduct and expression in internal investigation of employees at county prosecutors office to expose potential wrongdoing constituted matter of public concern D. holding that employees voluntary testimony is also inherently a matter of public concern E. holding that the absence of a motivating desire to address a matter of public concern was not dispositive as to whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that employees contact with fbi regarding defendants potential fraud theft and misallocation of public funds was a matter of public concern
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Amendment may be executed simultaneously in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the Employment Agreement remains in full force and effect and is the legal and binding obligation of the parties thereto.

assistant: Miscellaneous
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: under Ind. Code § 31-33-3-1. See Deasy-Leas v. Leas, 693 N.E.2d 90, 97 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied. 3 . In her brief. Mother has supported her argument with traditional Fourth Amendment analysis. Although she makes a passing reference to the Indiana Constitution, she has not set forth separate argument or authority that the search was violative of Article I, § 11 of the Indiana Constitution. Thus, Mother has waived any argument that she is entitled to relief on state constitutional grounds. See Fair v. State, 627 N.E.2d 427, 430 n. 1 (Ind.1993). 4 . In her reply brief, Mother argues that the order/warrant was defective because it may not have been supported by an affidavit as required by Ind.Code § 35-33-5-2(a). See Holtel v. State, 155 Ind.App. 1, 290 N.E.2d 775, 779 (1972) (<HOLDING>). Even if it were established that no affidavit Options: A. holding that a search warrant is invalid if not based on an affidavit B. holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant C. holding that falsification of information in a search warrant affidavit was a matter of public concern D. holding that an affidavit did not provide probable cause sufficient to validate a warrant where the affidavit stated an incorrect date uncontradicted by any other specific fact in the affidavit E. holding that observations made a during prior illegal search should not have been included in the affidavit for the search warrant

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a search warrant is invalid if not based on an affidavit
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of the purchase price owed under the contract was not excused. Question 4 included no grounds for excusing Bartush’s failure to comply with the agreement except the existence of a prior material breach by Cimco; other grounds for excusing Bartush’s failure to comply were submitted in question 5, and the jury answered no to that question also. See, e.g., Tex. Standard Oil & Gas, L.P. v. Frankel Offshore Energy, Inc., 394 S.W.3d 753, 779 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.) (refusing to construe jury’s answer to excuse question as finding that party’s first-occurring breach was immaterial when excuse question combined prior-material-breach ground with other excuse grounds); Miller v. Kennedy & Minshew, Prof'l Corp., 142 S.W.3d 325, 341 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, although the court’s charge Options: A. recognizing that where a plaintiff failed to perform because of the defendants breach the plaintiff could recover damages caused by the defendants breach B. holding unchallenged jury finding that defendants subsequentlyoccurring breach was not excused by plaintiffs prior material breach required defendant to pay plaintiff per the terms of the agreement C. holding immaterial breach did not constitute breach of contract D. holding plaintiff not required to perform its residual contract obligations after defendants material breach E. holding that after jury findings of dual breach unchallenged finding that defendants breach was not excused based on prior material breach of plaintiff constituted implicit finding that there was no material breach by plaintiff

assistant: The best answer is B. holding unchallenged jury finding that defendants subsequentlyoccurring breach was not excused by plaintiffs prior material breach required defendant to pay plaintiff per the terms of 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: an application to compel arbitration only if it is “made under Section 171.021 [of the TAA]....” The TAA does not authorize an interlocutory appeal when the subject arbitration agreement is governed by Colorado law or the UAA. Therefore, J.D. Edwards is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, without hearing oral argument, we conditionally grant the writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to order that Doskocil’s fraudulent inducement claim proceed to arbitration. Our writ will issue only if the trial court fails to do so. 1 . Doskocil also sued Grant Thornton L.L.P., but that company is not a party to this original proceeding. 2 . 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. 3 . In re FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d 749, 753 (Tex.2001). 4 . Id ., 514 U.S. 52, 64, 115 S.Ct. 1212, 131 L.Ed.2d 76 (1995) (<HOLDING>). 28 . 9 U.S.C. § 2. 29 . Tex Civ. Prac. & Options: A. holding that tort law and the law of punitive damages are not controlled by the contract choice of law provision B. holding that new york law did not preclude an arbitrators award of punitive damages despite a new york choice of law provision because there was no indication in the contract that the parties intended to limit their remedies in arbitration C. holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership D. holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york E. holding that the implied consent to new york law manifest in the parties briefs was sufficient to establish choice of law

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that new york law did not preclude an arbitrators award of punitive damages despite a new york choice of law provision because there was no indication in the contract that the parties intended to limit their remedies in arbitration
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: objective.’ Poe, 282 F.3d at 139 (quoting County of Sacramento, 523 U.S. at 845-46, 118 S.Ct. 1708). I find that plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to show a constitutional violation. Dr. Tan did not violate plaintiffs Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment rights by performing a brief examination of plaintiff in the presence of his cellmate so as to plan an appropriate course of treatment. Under these circumstances, the examination did not seriously deprive plaintiff of “a basic human need.” Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392. The Eighth Amendment’s right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment does not guarantee that plaintiff will receive any and all medical care in total privacy. See Vergara v. Vogliano, No. 95 Civ. 4513, 1997 WL 86388, *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.28, 1997) (<HOLDING>). Clearly, prisoner’s have the right to Options: A. holding that plaintiff failed to state a 1983 claim based on the eighth amendment when he refused to be treated medically in the presence of corrections officers on the grounds that he was not entitled to receive medical treatment in complete privacy B. holding that even though the plaintiff failed to prove that he suffered a meaningful injury he was nevertheless entitled to nominal damages for the defendants violation of his first amendment rights C. holding that allegations of several instances of flawed medical treatment state a claim under eighth amendment D. holding that the defendant objected to the evidence on only one ground thus he failed to preserve the additional grounds presented on appeal E. holding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that plaintiff failed to state a 1983 claim based on the eighth amendment when he refused to be treated medically in the presence of corrections officers on the grounds that he was not entitled to receive medical treatment in complete privacy
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and all questions regarding its validity or interpretation, or the breach or performance of this Agreement, shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware, without reference to conflict of law principles. The U.N. Convention on the Sale of Goods shall not apply to this Agreement.

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: The parties to each assignment shall execute and deliver to the Administrative Agent an Assignment and Acceptance, together with a processing and recordation fee of $5,000; provided that the Administrative Agent may, in its sole discretion, elect to waive such processing and recordation fee in the case of any assignment. The assignee, if it is not a Lender, shall deliver to the Administrative Agent an Administrative Questionnaire.

assistant: Assignments