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: citizenship. Id. at 80-81, 99 S.Ct. at 1596. C. In light of Ambach, we think that, in September of 1986, it did not violate any clearly established federal constitutional right for an education official to terminate a teacher’s employment in conformity with a statute barring aliens from holding teaching positions. While it is at least arguable that the Puerto Rico statute has a somewhat broader reach than its New York counterpart, approved in Ambach, the Court has not hesitated to uphold statutes that barred aliens totally from serving in certain government positions. See, e.g., Cabell, 454 U.S. at 441-42, 102 S.Ct. at 741 (deputy probation officers); Foley, 435 U.S. at 299-300, 98 S.Ct. at 1072-73 (state troopers); see also Cervantes v. Guerra, 651 F.2d 974, 981-82 (5th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>); cf. Campos v. FCC, 650 F.2d 890, 893-94 (7th Options: A. holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection B. holding a similar peer review confidentiality statute did not deny the plaintiffs equal protection C. holding that a community action agencys bylaws excluding aliens from service on the board of directors did not deny equal protection D. holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection E. holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a community action agencys bylaws excluding aliens from service on the board of directors did not deny equal protection
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: so severe as to alter plaintiffs working conditions. Plaintiffs deposition testimony and other evidence in the record indicates that his working environment prior to this incident was generally amicable. See Def.’s Mot., Ex. A, Jones Dep. at 52 (stating that the emp ances, including the plaintiffs and Mr. Wallace’s working relationship over the prior two years, plaintiffs failure to ever voice any complaints to management that Mr. Wallace’s behavior allegedly made plaintiff uncomfortable, and the fact that the conditions of plaintiffs working environment were not altered, there being nothing in the record indicating that prior to or after this incident plaintiff was unable to perform efficiently in his work environment due to Mr. Wallace’s conduct, see Lee-Crespo, 354 F.3d 34, 45-46 (<HOLDING>), the Court grants summary judgment to the Options: A. holding single incident of sexual harassment was neither sufficiently pervasive nor severe to constitute a hostile work environment B. holding that harassing conduct not sufficiently severe and pervasive where conduct would not have affected the work environment of a reasonable person C. holding that a claim of constructive discharge requires a showing of harassment that is more severe and pervasive than that required to show a hostile work environment D. holding that no hostile work environment existed where the conduct in question consists of isolated events that were not physically threatening or humiliating and in some cases were not even directed at plaintiff E. holding that plaintiff did not establish a severe or pervasive hostile work environment where the complained of conduct was episodic but not so frequent as to become pervasive was never severe was never physically threatening though occasionally discomforting or mildly humiliating and significantly was never according to the record an impediment to the plaintiffs work performance

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that plaintiff did not establish a severe or pervasive hostile work environment where the complained of conduct was episodic but not so frequent as to become pervasive was never severe was never physically threatening though occasionally discomforting or mildly humiliating and significantly was never according to the record an impediment to the plaintiffs work performance
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 805, 810 (7th Cir.2000). For his unreasonable seizure claim, Cady argues that the district court erred in concluding that the officers had a rea- sonable basis on which to approach him and that his actions, appearance, and calls from residents did not constitute enough suspicion for a permissible Terry-stop. We agree with the district court, however, that permissible encounters between police officers and citizens are not limited to situations involving possible criminal activity, but also include situations in which persons may need help or are in danger of harming themselves or others. See, e.g., Terry, 392 U.S. at 14 n. 9 (noting that police encounters are often initiated for reasons other than prosecuting crime, such as helping an intoxicated person find his way home). h Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Because the possibility that a citizen is Options: A. holding that 20minute stop was not unreasonable where the suspects actions contributed to delay about which he complained B. holding warrant check not unreasonable where detention not extended solely for that purpose C. holding that 20minute detention was not unreasonable where suspect gave misleading answers D. holding that the facts that the vehicle described in the tip was parked outside the home that allen gave inconsistent answers to officers questioning and that in addition the defendant fit the physical description of the suspect were sufficient to support the officers reasonable inference that the defendant was actually the suspect and therefore that there was probable cause to arrest him E. holding seizure unreasonable due to length of detention of property

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that 20minute detention was not unreasonable where suspect gave misleading answers
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: support a finding of nonobviousness. See Perfect Web, 587 F.3d at 1332 (rejecting a nonobviousness position that was “merely attorney argument lacking evidentiary support”). Thus, we find that the district court’s reliance, in finding nonobviousness, on the amount of time and money that both parties had spent on developing formless systems was misplaced. Moreover, weak secondary considerations generally do not overcome a strong prima facie case of obviousness. See Media Techs. Licensing, LLC v. Upper Deck Co., 596 F.3d 1334, (Fed.Cir.2010), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 305, 178 L.Ed.2d 144 (2010) (“Even if [the patentee] could establish the required nexus, a highly successful product alone would not overcome the strong showing of obviousness.”); Leapfrog Enters., 485 F.3d at 1162 (<HOLDING>). Here, where the inventions represented no Options: A. holding that success on a motion to sever requires a strong showing of prejudice B. holding that counsels success was not extraordinary in light of the evidence presented at trial and the noncomplexity of the case C. holding that the objective considerations of nonobviousness presented including substantial evidence of commercial success praise and longfelt need were inadequate to overcome a strong showing of primary considerations that rendered the claims at issue invalid D. holding that once a plaintiff has met its burden in showing that an injunction is necessary no delay in the issuance of that injunction is appropriate absent extraordinary considerations here there are no extraordinary circumstances or considerations only the relatively standard posttrial motions E. holding that under the sliding scale approach a petitioner had made a sufficiently strong showing of likely success on the merits where he presented a case which raises serious legal questions or has a reasonable probability or fair prospect of success

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the objective considerations of nonobviousness presented including substantial evidence of commercial success praise and longfelt need were inadequate to overcome a strong showing of primary considerations that rendered the claims at issue invalid
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: Fifth, *** the truth of one must necessarily preclude the truth of the other.” Department of Transportation v. Coe, 112 Ill. App. 3d 506, 509-10 (1983). We do not believe that judicial estoppel is applicable in the instant case. Despite the plaintiffs contentions to the contrary, nothing in the record suggests the defendant maintained before the Commission that this plaintiff was covered under the Jones Act. Instead, the record reveals that defendant simply challenged whether the plaintiffs injury “arose out of and in the course of employment.” Moreover, both parties have petitioned the Commission for a review of the arbitrator’s decision, and thus the Commission’s determination is not final. See Buroff v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners, 248 Ill. App. 3d 626, 629 (1993) (<HOLDING>). Before a proceeding can have a preclusive Options: A. holding that petitioner could not collaterally attack his state court conviction on a petition for review of an agency decision B. holding an agency decision is not final during the time the agency considers a petition for review C. holding that the power of any administrative agency to reconsider its final decision exists only where the statutory provisions creating the agency indicate a legislative intent to permit the agency to carry into effect such power D. holding that the supreme court has final appellate review of agency decisions E. recognizing that courts accord significant deference to an agency decision where agency expertise is involved

assistant: The best answer is B. holding an agency decision is not final during the time the agency considers a petition for review
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: guests and hosts agree that we may seek additional amounts from you in the event that the taxes collected and/or remitted are insufficient to fully discharge your obligations to the tax authority , and agree that your sole remedy for occupancy taxes collected is a refund of occupancy taxes collected by airbnb from the applicable tax authority in accordance with applicable procedures set by that tax authority .

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you release us , our affiliates , and our and their directors , officers , employees , partners , agents , successors and assigns ( together , the `` masquerade parties '' ) from any claim , complaint , cause of action , controversy , or dispute ( together , `` claim '' ) and damages , known and unknown , relating to , arising out of , or in any way connected with any such claim you have against any of our users or other third parties .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The provisions of the Agreement (including Exhibit A) are severable and the validity or unenforceability of any provision shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision, with the following exception. If a court rules in an action to which you are party that the provisions of Section I (2) regarding the agreement to waive the right to have Severance Claims or Employment Claims decided by judge or jury are unenforceable, any and all rights created by Section I (2) of the Agreement and Exhibit A to the Agreement will be voided retroactively, and the proceeds of any arbitration award involving you and AKS must be returned to the party from which they originated.

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: The representations and warranties made by the Company in Section 3 hereof shall be true and correct when made and at the Closing. The Company’s business and assets shall not have been adversely affected in any material way prior to the Closing. The Company shall have performed in all material respects all obligations and conditions herein required to be performed or observed by it on or prior to the Closing.

assistant: Representations
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: similar questioning of the other occupants “lasted barely 40 seconds”—and there was no evidence that any other matter was discussed. In addition, the patrol car was unlocked, so Aponte was able to open the door and leave, as he did when he needed to vomit. And, while Aponte spoke in broken English, the district court credited Christen’s testimony that he and Aponte had no trouble communicating with each other. Aponte disputes that finding, but we find nothing in the video evidence that shows that the district court clearly erred. Finally, Christen returned Aponte’s license before asking for his consent to search the vehicle, which, in other circumstances, we have found relevant to whether an encounter is consensual. Cf. United States v. Ramirez, 476 F.3d 1231, 1239-40 (11th Cir. 2007) (<HOLDING>). Taken together, the circumstances show that, Options: A. recognizing that once a completed traffic stop evolves into a consensual encounter there is no seizure and the fourth amendment is not implicated B. holding that an encounter was consensual where the defendant was comfortable during the encounter chose not to leave and acquiesced to the officers request to answer questions C. holding that the encounter between an officer and the defendant did not rise to the level of a terry stop until the defendant gave the officer his license and the officer informed the defendant that he was going to be given a patdown D. holding questions about a drivers purpose for traveling were reasonably related to a traffic stop for speeding E. holding that the return of a defendants drivers license after a traffic stop can convert what was a brief seizure into a consensual encounter even where the officer questions the defendant about criminal activity immediately thereafter

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the return of a defendants drivers license after a traffic stop can convert what was a brief seizure into a consensual encounter even where the officer questions the defendant about criminal activity immediately thereafter
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 does not have, and has never had, any Subsidiary or any equity or ownership interest (or any interest convertible or exchangeable or exercisable for any equity or ownership interest), whether direct or indirect, in any Person and is not, and has never been, a participant in any joint venture, partnership or similar arrangement and the Company is not obligated to make nor is it bound by any Contract to make any investment in or capital contribution in or on behalf of any other Person.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices, approvals and other communications required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be validly served or given if delivered in person, electronically (with read receipt acknowledgment), mailed by first class mail (registered or certified, return receipt requested), or overnight air courier with proof of delivery (i) if to the Company, at its principal corporate offices addressed to the attention of the Chief Human Resources Officer, and (ii) if to you, at your home address as such address may appear on the records of the Company, or to such other address as such party may hereafter specify in written notice to the other party.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Defaulting Lender shall be entitled to receive fees payable under Sections 2.09(a) for any period during which that Lender is a Defaulting Lender only to extent allocable to the outstanding principal amount of the Revolving Loans funded by it. With respect to any fee payable under Section 2.09(a) not required to be paid to any Defaulting Lender pursuant to the immediately preceding sentence, the Borrower shall (x) pay to each Non-Defaulting Lender that portion of any such fee otherwise payable to such Defaulting Lender with respect to such Defaulting Lender’s participation in Swing Line Loans that has been reallocated to such Non-Defaulting Lender pursuant to clause (iv) below, (y) pay to the Swing Line Lender, as applicable, the amount of any such fee otherwise payable to such Defaulting Lender to the extent allocable to the Swing Line Lender’s Fronting Exposure to such Defaulting Lender, and (z) not be required to pay the remaining amount of any such fee.

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: Each of the parties hereto hereby irrevocably and unconditionally submits, for itself and its property, to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey sitting in Mercer County and of the United States District Court of the District of New Jersey, and any appellate court from any thereof, in any action or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or for recognition or enforcement of any judgment, and each of the parties hereto hereby irrevocably and unconditionally agrees that all claims in respect of any such action or proceeding may be heard and determined in the State of New Jersey or, to the extent permitted by law, in such Federal court. Each of the parties hereto agrees that a final judgment in any such action or proceeding shall be conclusive and may be enforced in other jurisdictions by suit on the judgment or in any other manner provided by law. Nothing in this Agreement shall affect any right that any Investor may otherwise have to bring any action or proceeding relating to this Agreement against the Company and its subsidiaries or their respective properties in the courts of any jurisdiction or any right that the Company may otherwise have to bring any action or proceeding relating to this Agreement against any Investor or its properties in the courts of any jurisdiction. Each party hereto irrevocably waives, to the fullest extent permitted by law, any objection that it may now or hereafter have to the laying of venue of any such proceeding brought in such a court referred to in the first sentence of this Section 15(j) and any claim that any such proceeding brought in such a court has been brought in an inconvenient forum.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: You will be eligible for a maximum of three (3) weeks of paid vacation per calendar year to be taken at such times as may be appro v ed in advance by the Company, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. The number of vacation days for which you are eligible shall accrue at the rate of 1 . 25 days per month that you are employed during such calendar year . Pursuant to Company policy, vacation time cannot be carried over from year to year.

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

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 376 U.S. 354 84 S.Ct. 763 11 L.Ed.2d 753 E. Newbold SMITHv.PENNSYLVANIA. No. 561. Supreme Court of the United States March 9, 1964 William T. Coleman, Jr., for petitioner. Frank P. Lawley, Deputy Atty. Gen. of Pennsylvania, for respondent. Solicitor General Cox, for the United States. Melvin L. Wulf, for American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Philadelphia Branch, and othe s, as amici curiae. PER CURIAM. 1 Prior to commencement of petitioner's trial for assault and battery upon state police officers, he served upon the local office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation a subpoena duces tecum calling for the production of '(s) tatements of all witnesses, diagrams, sketches and photographs taken in connection with' the FBI's investigation of the incident which formed the basis for the criminal prosecution. The FBI had made the investigation in response to a complaint filed by petitioner with the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, charging a deprivation of his civil rights by the actions of the police officers whom he allegedly assaulted. An Assistant United States Attorney appeared on the day set for trial and moved to quash the subpoena, claiming that the file contained confidential material subject to a federal privilege of nondisclosure. The subpoena was quashed by the trial court for that reason and for noncompliance with local rules of practice. 2 Petitioner formally requested the court, both before and after they testified, to issue a subpoena duces tecum for statements taken by the FBI from two witnesses for the prosecution, stating that the statements were needed for purposes of impeachment. The trial court denied the requests because it felt that petitioner would receive the same information from material which the state authorities had promised to make available. Following petitioner's conviction, the trial court denied his motion for a new trial which was based in part on the failure to issue the requested subpoena, stating that the Federal Government had already indicated that it would not honor such a subpoena. The judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (412 Pa. 1, 192 A.2d 671), the court stating inter alia, that the FBI, not the Commonwealth, had denied petitioner access to the information in question. 3 In response to an inquiry from this Court, the Solicitor General has indicated that the claim of confidential privilege was concerned solely with the initial broad-based demand for virtually the entire FBI file on the matter and that the Department of Justice was not informed of, and did not refuse to comply with, the subsequent specific requests for statements given by the two witnesses. 4 We grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and remand the case to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, for reconsideration of petitioner's requests in light of the representations of the Solicitor General. 5 Remanded.

assistant: 1
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All payments to be made by Borrower shall be made free and clear of and without condition or deduction for any counterclaim, defense, recoupment or setoff. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, all payments by Borrower hereunder shall be made to Administrative Agent, for the account of the respective Lenders to which such payment is owed, at the Administrative Agent’s Office in Dollars and in immediately available funds not later than 2:00 p.m. on the date specified herein. Administrative Agent will promptly distribute to each Lender its Applicable Percentage (or other applicable share as provided herein) of such payment in like funds as received by wire transfer to such Lender’s Lending Office. All payments received by Administrative Agent after 2:00 p.m. shall be deemed received on the next succeeding Business Day and any applicable interest or fee shall continue to accrue. If any payment to be made by Borrower shall come due on a day other than a Business Day, payment shall be made on the next following Business Day, and such extension of time shall be reflected in computing interest or fees, as the case may be.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Assignment and Assumption Agreement (i) shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns, (ii) may be executed in counterparts (including by electronic transmission), each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all together shall be deemed to be one and the same agreement, and (iii) may be modified or amended only by written agreement executed by each of the parties hereto. Signatures provided by facsimile transmission or by electronic delivery in . pdf or similar electronic format shall be deemed to be original signatures.

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: then has either (a) been convicted of an aggravated felony, or (b) not resided in the United States for seven continuous years. Id at § 1182(h). Petitioner argues that he is entitled to seek relief under § 1182(h) because denying him eligibility under this section would violate the equal protection component in the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Specifically, Petitioner argues that the statute makes an impermissible distinction because it treats lawful permanent residents and non-lawful permanent residents differently without a rational basis for its decision. Respondents argue that there is no equal protection violation because lawful permanent residents and non-lawful permanent residents are not similarly situated. See Jankowski-Burczyk v. INS, 291 F.3d 172, 176 (2d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). While neither party mentioned so in their Options: A. holding that since congress created separate classifications for lawful permanent residents lprs and nonlawful permanent residents nlprs and treated each class differently throughout the immigration statutes lprs and nonlprs are not similarly situated and different treatment of them does not violate the equal protection component of the due process clause B. holding that defendants are not similarly situated for sentencing purposes where one defendant accepts responsibility but the other does not C. holding that dawful permanent residents and nonlawful permanent residents are not similarly situated D. holding that black residents failed to state an equal protection claim where they did not allege the existence of a similarly situated group of white residents who were treated differently E. holding that potential class members are similarly situated to the named plaintiffs if they are similarly situated with respect to their job requirements and pay provisions

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that dawful permanent residents and nonlawful permanent residents are not similarly situated
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 373 U.S. 375 83 S.Ct. 1311 10 L.Ed.2d 420 John Thomas AVENT et al., petitioners,v.STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. 11. Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 1962. May 20, 1963 Jack Greenberg, New York City, for petitioners. Ralph Moody, Raleigh, N. C., for respondent. Solicitor General Archibald Cox, for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court. On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of North Carolina for consideration in the light of Peterson v. City of Greenville, 373 U.S. 244, 83 S.Ct. 1119. Patterson v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 600, 55 S.Ct. 575, 79 L.Ed. 1082. 2 [For opinion of MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, see 373 U.S. 248, 83 S.Ct. 1133.]

assistant: 2
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 amended from time to time by a written amendment duly executed and delivered by the parties hereto, with the written consent of the Owner Trustee but without the consent of the Securityholders, for the purpose of adding any provisions to or changing in any manner or eliminating any of the provisions of this Agreement or of modifying in any manner the rights of the Securityholders; provided, that such amendment will not materially and adversely affect any Noteholder. An amendment shall be deemed not to materially and adversely affect the Noteholders if (i) the Rating Agency Condition is satisfied with respect to such amendment, or (ii) the Administrative Agent or the Depositor delivers an Officer’s Certificate to the Indenture Trustee stating that such amendment will not materially and adversely affect the Noteholders. This Agreement may also be amended by the parties hereto with the written consent of the Owner Trustee and (a) the holders of Notes evidencing at least a majority of the Outstanding Amount, or (b) in the case of any amendment that does not materially and adversely affect the Noteholders, the holders of Trust Certificates evidencing at least a majority of the Certificate Balance, for the purpose of adding any provisions to or changing in any manner or eliminating any of the provisions of this Agreement or of modifying in any manner the rights of Securityholders; provided however, that no such amendment may (i) increase or reduce in any manner the amount of, or accelerate or delay the timing of, collections of payments on the 2017-B Leases or distributions that are required to be made for the benefit of the Securityholders, or (ii) reduce the aforesaid percentage of the holders of Notes and Trust Certificates which are required to consent to any such amendment, without the consent of the holders of all outstanding Notes and Trust Certificates. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Administrative Agent may not amend this Agreement without the permission of the Depositor, which permission shall not be unreasonably withheld.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Urena, 162 S.W,3d at 551. There may be more than one proximate cause of an occurrence. Del Lago, 307 S.W.3d at 774. Unlike a negligent activity' claim, a premises defect claim is not based on the defendant’s malfeasance, but on its non-feasance. Id. at 776. That is, “a premises defect claim is based on the property itself being unsafe,” not on the defendant’s activity. ShumaJce, 199 S.W.3d at 284 (emphasis added). Negligence in the premises defect context thus means “failure to use ordinary care to reduce or eliminate an unreasonable risk of harm created by a premises condition which the owner or occupier [of land] knows about or in the exercise of ordinary care should know about.” Timberwalk, 972 S.W.2d at 753 (quoting Keetch, 845 S.W.2d at 264); see Del Lago, 307 S.W.3d at 787-88 (<HOLDING>). In such circumstances, the property owner has Options: A. holding the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the premises owner when the evidence showed no one had been injured by the condition in question and the premises owner had received no complaints about the condition in question during a tenyear period B. holding that premises owner had duty to use degree of care in performing activities that owner of ordinary prudence would use under same or similar circumstances C. holding that negligence in premises defect context generally means failure to use ordinary care to reduce or eliminate unreasonable risk of harm created by premises condition about which owner or occupier of land is aware D. holding police officer who was shot by occupier of premises could not recover from premises owner for injuries the officer should have reasonably expected to sustain while engaged in the line of duty E. holding that a business owner has a duty to use reasonable care to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition for patrons

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that negligence in premises defect context generally means failure to use ordinary care to reduce or eliminate unreasonable risk of harm created by premises condition about which owner or occupier of land is aware
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: connection test” of Rule 701 requires that the opinion or inference is one that a normal person would form on the basis of the observed facts. Carton v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 303 Ark. 568, 571-72, 798 S.W.2d 674, 675 (1990). We will not reverse a court’s decision to admit relevant evidence absent an abuse of discretion. Moore v. State, 323 Ark. 529, 549, 915 S.W.2d 284, 295 (1996). We cannot say that the court abused its discretion in permitting Dr. Doland to testify without first requiring DHS to qualify her as an expert witness. In our view, Dr. Doland’s opinion that someone would have more extensive burns if they fell into a bathtub of scalding water is an opinion that a normal person could form on the basis of the observed facts. See Carton, 303 Ark. at 572, 798 S.W.2d at 676 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, appellant cross-examined Dr. Doland Options: A. holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment B. holding that opinion that fuel oil on her shoes caused her to fall is one which a normal person would form on the basis of observed facts C. holding that a wifes net worth of approximately 62000 demonstrated her ability to pay her own attorneys fees notwithstanding her objection that her assets were illiquid in the form of home equity and a state retirement account D. holding that an experts opinion must be based on facts in evidence or within his or her knowledge and that the admission of an experts opinion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion E. holding that the plaintiffs claim of being startled by a child on a slide did not prevent summary judgment in her case because t he simple fact wa s that the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the hazard which caused her fall prior to encountering it

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that opinion that fuel oil on her shoes caused her to fall is one which a normal person would form on the basis of observed facts
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: ground.” 6 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 11.2(a) (4th ed.2004); see also Chavez-Valencia, 116 F.3d at 132 (noting that most courts adhere to the waiver approach). But courts have not always applied this rule consistently. Some courts have been willing to review suppression claims for plain error despite a defendant’s noncompliance with Rule 12. In United States v. Buchanon, for instance, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals characterized Rule 12(f) as a mere “forfeiture” provision despite the Rule’s use of the term “waiver,” and thus held that a suppression argument forfeited under Rule 12(f) could be reviewed for plain error under Rule 52(b). 72 F.3d 1217, 1227 (6th Cir.1995). But see United States v. Vincent, 20 F.3d 229, 234 (6th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, the Eleventh Circuit Court in Options: A. holding that a party may not raise an issue for the first time on appeal B. holding that defendant was procedurally barred from raising issue on appeal where issue was listed as grounds in motion for new trial C. holding that the plaintiff was precluded from raising the issue for the first time on appeal D. holding that defendant was precluded from raising suppres sion issue for the first time on appeal E. holding that the court bars a party from raising an issue on remand that was not raised on appeal

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that defendant was precluded from raising suppres sion issue for the first time on appeal
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 applicable law, Executive will be provided indemnification to the maximum extent permitted by the Company’s bylaws and Articles of Incorporation, with such indemnification to be on terms determined by the Board or any of its committees, but on terms no less favorable than provided to any other Company officer or director and subject to the terms of any separate written indemnification agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: CURIAM: On September 16, 2013, this Court filed an opinion affirming the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Richard M. Berman, Judge), which dismissed the plaintiffs’ state-law claims against defendants JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Bank of New York Mellon Corporation as precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”), 15 U.S.C. § 78bb(f). In re Herald, Primeo, and Thema, 730 F.3d 112 (2d Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>). Simultaneously, this Court filed a summary Options: A. holding that slusa precludes statelaw class action claims against these banks because the claims are predicated on the banks involvement with the fraudulent securities transactions of bernard l madoff investment securities madoff securities B. recognizing defense in securities case C. holding that variable insurance policies are covered securities under slusa D. holding that morrison precludes securities claims brought by us investors who purchase securities on a foreign exchange even where those securities are also listed on a us exchange E. holding that variable annuities are covered securities under slusa because they are securities and the subaccounts are registered with the sec under the investment company act

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that slusa precludes statelaw class action claims against these banks because the claims are predicated on the banks involvement with the fraudulent securities transactions of bernard l madoff investment securities madoff securities
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: claim for violation of any rights secured under the United States Constitution.” Abeyta v. Cha-ma Valley Indep. Sch. DisT., 77 F.3d 1253, 1255 (10th Cir.1996) (quotation omitted). Kaul has the burden of showing with particularity facts and law establishing the inference that Stephan violated a constitutional right. Id. We do not reach the issue of qualified immunity if Kaul’s claim is not actionable. Id. A. Probable cause supporting the warrants The Fourth Amendment provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oat le Indian Reservation, 447 U.S. 134, 159, 161-62, 100 S.Ct. 2069, 2084, 65 L.Ed.2d 10 (1980) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, federal law does not excuse Kaul Options: A. holding that montana could require indians who sold cigarettes to nontribal members to add the states tax to the sale price of the cigarettes and thereby aid the states collection and enforcement of the tax B. holding that based on kansas exercise of criminal jurisdiction over an indian on reservation pursuant to kansas act and ksa 793321 state had jurisdiction in rem to seize contraband cigarettes from his store on reservation C. holding that the district court may exercise jurisdiction over an indian tribe when the tribe is engaged in activity off of the reservation as an unincorporated association registered and authorized to do business in this state and is sued in that capacity for breach of a written contract D. holding that states have authority to tax sales of cigarettes to nonmembers of the tribe E. holding that state could require indian tribe to affix tax stamps purchased from the state to individual packages of cigarettes prior to the time of sale to nonmembers of the tribe and that state has power off the reservation to seize unstamped cigarettes as contraband

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that state could require indian tribe to affix tax stamps purchased from the state to individual packages of cigarettes prior to the time of sale to nonmembers of the tribe and that state has power off the reservation to seize unstamped cigarettes as contraband
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 Note shall, at the election of the Company, be subject to payment in common stock of the Company, par value $0.0001 per share (the “ Common Stock ”), as provided and subject to the requirements of Sections 3.6.3 through 3.6.12 of that certain Sponsored Research Agreement, dated [____________, 2018], by and between the Company and the Broad Institute, Inc. (the “ Agreement ”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company shall have no obligation to make such election to issue Note Shares (as defined in the Agreement) as payment for this Note.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: for ERISA preemption to extend to state-law tort claims brought against an independent insurance agent. Perkins v. Time Ins. Co., 898 F.2d 470, 473 (5th Cir.1990). In Perkins, the plaintiff alleged that an independent insurance agent had fraudulently induced him to forfeit an insurance policy that covered his daughter’s condition for one that did not. Id. The Court held that “a state law claim of that genre, which does not affect the relations among the principal ERISA entities (the employer, the plan fiduciaries, the plan, and the beneficiaries) as such, is not preempted by ERISA.” Id. (emphasis added). “[A] claim that an insurance agent fraudulently induced an insured to surrender coverage under an existing policy, to participate in an ERISA plan which did not provi th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Instead of seeking insurance proceeds under Options: A. holding negligent misrepresentation claim was not preempted because it neither sought benefits under plan nor alleged improper processing of benefits B. holding that claims for misrepresentation fraud and texas dtpa violations brought pursuant to article 2121 of the texas insurance code were completely preempted by erisa even if the result left the plaintiff with no adequate remedy for fraud C. holding plaintiffs statelaw claims alleging common law misrepresentation and statutory misrepresentation under the texas insurance code art 2121 not preempted because they were not dependent on the right to recover benefits under the erisa plan D. holding that claims for misrepresentation under texas insurance code were preempted because the plaintiffs sought to recover benefits under an erisa plan E. holding that erisa did not preempt hospitals claims against erisa plan administrator for misrepresentation under texas insurance code because hospitals claims were not dependent on or derived from the beneficiarys right to recover benefits under the plan

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that claims for misrepresentation under texas insurance code were preempted because the plaintiffs sought to recover benefits under an erisa plan
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: in the event that you are a `` standard end user , '' you will have the right , but not the obligation , to terminate the service , or be provided with a `` game time adjustment '' to your account in the event that the service is suspended or interrupted for more than three consecutive days ( 72 hours ) without blizzard entertainment providing prior notice of the suspension of service as set forth above , unless the suspension or interruption in the service is due to one of the following events : ( 1 ) a `` force majeure '' event , as defined in article xvi , section 9 .

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 by one or more of the parties to this Agreement on any number of separate counterparts (including by electronic means), and all of such counterparts taken together shall be deemed to constitute one and the same instrument. A set of the copies of this Agreement signed by all the parties shall be delivered to the Borrower and the Administrative Agent.

assistant: Counterparts