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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if you chose to activate the `` sync.me search '' feature , you would be asked to explicitly warrant that you have all necessary permissions to share your contacts ' information , and that you have no knowledge of any objection , on the behalf of any of your respected contacts , to include their names and phone numbers in the phonebook directory , which is available for other registered users .

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 execution, delivery and performance by the Company of this Agreement and the other Transaction Documents to which it is a party, the issuance and sale of the Note and the consummation by it of the transactions contemplated hereby and thereby do not and will not (i) conflict with or violate any provision of the Company’s or any Subsidiary’s certificate or articles of incorporation, bylaws or other organizational or charter documents, or (ii) conflict with, or constitute a default (or an event that with notice or lapse of time or both would become a default) under, result in the creation of any Lien upon any of the properties or assets of the Company or any Subsidiary, or give to others any rights of termination, amendment, acceleration or cancellation (with or without notice, lapse of time or both) of, any agreement, credit facility, debt or other instrument (evidencing a Company or Subsidiary debt or otherwise) or other understanding to which the Company or any Subsidiary is a party or by which any property or asset of the Company or any Subsidiary is bound or affected, or (iii) subject to the Required Approvals, conflict with or result in a violation of any law, rule, regulation, order, judgment, injunction, decree or other restriction of any court or governmental authority to which the Company or a Subsidiary is subject (including federal and state securities laws and regulations), or by which any property or asset of the Company or a Subsidiary is bound or affected; except in the case of each of clauses (ii) and (iii), such as could not have or reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Employee shall be employed by the Company as the Company’s Chief Medical Officer and Executive Vice President of Discovery. During his employment, Employee shall perform the duties and bear the responsibilities commensurate with his position and shall serve the Company faithfully and to the best of his ability, under the direction of the Board of Directors . Employee shall devote his entire working time, attention and energies to the business of the Company. His actions shall at all times be such that they do not discredit the Company or its products and services. Employee shall not engage in any other business activity or activities that, in the judgment of the Board of Directors, may conflict with the proper performance of Employee’s duties hereunder, including constituting a conflict of interest between such activity and Company’s business.

assistant: Duties
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: Payments of vested accrued benefits to Pre-2005 Plan II Beneficiaries from the Trust shall be made in accordance with the distribution event specified by the Participant in the Deferral Election between the Company and the Participant (the “Distribution Event”). Except as otherwise expressly provided in the Participant’s Deferral Election and as set forth in Article VII below, no distribution shall be made or commenced prior to the time and manner as set forth in the Participant’s Deferral Election.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: we are not responsible or liable for ( and have no obligation to verify ) any wrong or misspelled email address or inaccurate or wrong ( mobile ) phone number or credit card number .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: person in danger of death or serious bodily injury.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2301 defines “serious bodily injury” as “[bjodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.” ¶ 15 In the case sub judice, Appellant punched Reverend Taylor, who was elderly, in the head and choked him. While fending off the attack, Reverend Taylor blocked his head with his arm and suffered torn ligaments to his right shoulder, for which surgery has been recommended. This was sufficient to demonstrate Appellant recklessly engaged in conduct which placed Reverend Taylor in danger of death or serious bodily injury. See Commonwealth v. Sanders, 339 Pa.Super. 373, 489 A.2d 207 (1985) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 16 Regarding Appellant’s conviction for Options: A. holding evidence insufficient to support kidnapping in four rapes in which 1 attacker held knife to victim and forced her into car where he raped her 2 assailants forced their way into victims home walked victim through dining room into kitchen put dish towel over her face and raped her 3 attackers forced way into victims apartment one pulled out gun took victim to couch for oral sex then took her into adjoining bathroom raped her and threatened to rip out phone and 4 assailants forced their way into victims apartment at gunpoint put hand over victims mouth walked her toward kitchen and then to bedroom checking first to see if anyone was present and then raped her B. holding the defendant was not entitled to a charge of involuntary manslaughter where there was no evidence that he involuntarily pulled his gun and shot the victim noting the act must be unintentional to constitute criminal negligence C. holding removal of victim from one room to another was not mere asportation but sufficient evidence of a separate and independent act D. holding evidence sufficient for recklessly endangering another person where the appellant grabbed the victim around the neck and pulled her into a room E. holding that defendants mother had common authority over defendants room in her house even though defendant paid rent and installed a lock in his room where he sought her permission to install the lock and gave her the only other key to the room

assistant: The best answer is D. holding evidence sufficient for recklessly endangering another person where the appellant grabbed the victim around the neck and pulled her into a room
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: all trademarks , service marks , logos , trade names , and any other source identifiers of airbnb used on or in connection with the airbnb platform and airbnb content are trademarks or registered trademarks of airbnb in the united states and abroad .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: add additional parties and additional claims. (See Pl.’s Proposed Am. Compl. ¶¶ 5, 7, 11, 21-37.) PBS Inc. ar gues that its proposed amendment “achieves substantial justice” and will not unduly prejudice CHF. (See Pl.’s Mot. to Am. Mem. at 2.) 1. Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a “court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). As the Second Circuit has explained, however, a district court “plainly has discretion ... to deny leave to amend where the motion is made after an inordinate delay, no satisfactory explanation is offered for the delay, and the amendment would prejudice the defendant.” Cresswell v. Sullivan & Cromwell, 922 F.2d 60, 72 (2d Cir.1990); see also Goss v. Revlon, 548 F.2d 405, 407 (2d Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>). When a “considerable period of time has Options: A. holding that where the party in seeking to add myriad new claims advances no reason for his extended and undue delay other than ignorance of the law such failure has been held an insufficient basis for leave to amend B. holding that court may refuse leave to amend because of undue delay C. holding leave to amend should be freely granted absent a showing of undue delay bad faith undue prejudice or futility D. holding district court abused discretion in denying leave to amend complaint to add claim when party opposing motion made no showing of prejudice from delay E. holding that though the court did not expressly state its reason for denying leave to amend it was apparent what delay and prejudice would be caused by plaintiffs motion which sought to add four new individual defendants as well as additional counts under two federal statutes and a statelaw claim

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that where the party in seeking to add myriad new claims advances no reason for his extended and undue delay other than ignorance of the law such failure has been held an insufficient basis for leave to amend
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: in Wolfeboro and a physical location in New Durham, Perry Hollow was conducting business in more than one town in the state, thereby relieving Yamaha of the duty to file a financing statement with anyone other than the Secretary of State. The bankruptcy court, however, found that Perry Hollow does business only in one town within New Hampshire. Given that the Wolfeboro address was only a mailing address, we cannot say that this finding was clearly erroneous. Therefore, under New Hampshire law, Yamaha had to file a financing statement with both the Secretary of State and the clerk of the town of New Durham to perfect its security interest. Relying on In re Circus Time, 641 F.2d 39 (1st Cir.1981), Yamaha further argues that even if it was obligated to file in New D (Bankr.D.N.H.1984) (<HOLDING>); see also N.H.Rev.Stat. Ann. 382-A:9-401, Options: A. holding that security interest was unperfected where creditor in addition to filing with the secretary of state mistakenly filed with the clerk of the town adjacent to where debtor conducted business B. holding courts must look to the law of the state in which the security interest was created to determine if creditor retains a purchase money security interest despite refinancing C. holding that security interest was not perfected since debtor conducted business only in one town in the state and creditor did not file financing statement in that town D. holding that creditor did not have actual knowledge of the bankruptcy filing where the debtor informed creditor of the possibility that a bankruptcy case would be filed E. holding that the debtor in possession could utilize the strongarm powers of the trustee to avoid an unperfected security interest even though the debtor knew of the interest prior to bankruptcy because the two are distinct entities and the debtor in possessions responsibility is to preserve the estates assets for the benefit of the creditors

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that security interest was unperfected where creditor in addition to filing with the secretary of state mistakenly filed with the clerk of the town adjacent to where debtor conducted business
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: and “sufficient, equitable, and consistent in application to a class of consumers”); Minn.Stat. § 216B.08 (“The commission is hereby vested with the powers, rights, functions, and ju whether exigent circumstances exist is not a question requiring application of the Commission’s technical knowledge because it is merely a question of basic arithmetic. The dissent’s conclusion is misguided. Minnesota Statutes § 216B.09, subd. 1, requiring the Commission to fix just and reasonable rates, and Minn.Stat. § 216B.16, subd. 3(b), requiring the Commission to determine whether exigent circumstances exist, mandate not only that the Commission identify the factors that impact the setting of rates and the questi t calls for application of the Commi Minn. 442, 448-49, 181 N.W.2d 696, 699-700 (1970) (<HOLDING>). The Commission discussed three “extraordinary Options: A. recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public B. holding that determination of public convenience and necessity by the public service commission was an issue of fact which warranted substantial judicial deference to the factfinding processes of the administrative agency C. holding the separate classification of one purported administrative convenience claim can never be reasonable and necessary for administrative convenience D. holding that the convenience of the witnesses has less relevance where the case involved judicial review of an administrative decision E. holding that a plaintiff was not obligated to apply for a certificate of convenience and necessity and submit to the administrative procedures incident thereto before bringing an action

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that determination of public convenience and necessity by the public service commission was an issue of fact which warranted substantial judicial deference to the factfinding processes of the administrative agency
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: mental condition at issue in a civil action waives the federal common law psychotherapist-patient privilege, and, if so, whether the privilege has been so waived here. We answer both questions in the affirmative. We find that a party waives the privilege by placing her mental condition at issue for several reasons. First, our Court, which recognized a qualified federal common law psychotherapist-patient privilege prior to Jaffee, see Mines v. City of Philadelphia, 158 F.R.D. 337 (E.D.Pa.1994); Siegfried v. City of Easton, 146 F.R.D. 98 (E.D.Pa.1992), has previously held that a litigant may waive the privilege in this manner. . See Topol v. Trustees of University of Pennsylvania, 160 F.R.D. 476, 477 (E.D.Pa.1995); see also Price v. County of San Diego, 165 F.R.D. 614, 622 (S.D.Cal.1996) (<HOLDING>). Second, the Supreme Court specifically Options: A. recognizing privilege under federal rules B. recognizing privilege C. holding privilege was waived only as to matters specifically at issue in court action D. recognizing application of federal deliberative process privilege to internal state communications E. recognizing federal common law privilege for psychotherapistpatient communications but holding that litigant waived privilege by raising issue as to her psychological state

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing federal common law privilege for psychotherapistpatient communications but holding that litigant waived privilege by raising issue as to her psychological state
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any dispute or controversy arising under or in connection with this Stock Option Agreement shall be settled by binding arbitration in Houston, Texas by one arbitrator appointed in the manner set forth by the American Arbitration Association. Any arbitration proceeding pursuant to this paragraph shall be conducted in accordance with the Employment Dispute Resolution Rules of the American Arbitration Association. Judgment may be entered on the arbitrators’ award in any court having jurisdiction.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: futile. Section 37-1-8, will not bar Plaintiffs claims against Corporation if the factors in Rule 1-015(C)(1) and (2) are satisfied. CONCLUSION {28} We reverse the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiffs action and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. {29} IT IS SO ORDERED. WE CONCUR: MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Chief Judge, and A. JOSEPH ALARID, Judge. 1 . It is not clear in the New Mexico law cited to us by the parties that a medical provider who commits negligence in the performance of professional duties, resulting in personal injury to a patient, cannot be sued individually for damages without joining the provider’s professional corporation. See Sanders, Bruin, Coll & Worley, P.A. v. McKay Oil Corp., 1997-NMSC-030, ¶ 9, 123 N.M. 457, 943 P.2d 104 Options: A. recognizing as a matter of federal law that an action to redress injuries to a corporation cannot be maintained by a shareholder in his own name but must be brought in the name of the corporation B. holding professional malpractice claim not contractual C. holding that as a general matter membership or shareholder status in a professional corporation does not shield an attorney from individual liability for his own mistakes or professional misdeeds D. holding that a professional owes no duty to third persons unless the professional had actual knowledge that those persons would rely on his rendering of professional services E. holding professional rules do not provide basis for civil liability

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that as a general matter membership or shareholder status in a professional corporation does not shield an attorney from individual liability for his own mistakes or professional misdeeds
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: on procedural grounds, Petitioner must demonstrate, inter alia, that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). “Where a plain procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Id. Petitioner does not contest that his ha-beas petition was filed outside the one-year limitations period. Thus, the threshold issue is whether the district court erred in denying Petition nt in order to cover up his misdeeds, see Fleming, 481 F.3d at 1255-57 (<HOLDING>). But a miscalculation or misinterpretation of Options: A. holding that petitioner was entitled to equitable tolling where former counsel actively deceived petitioner over several months into believing he was diligently pursuing petitioners legal remedies when in fact he was not B. holding that the petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling where he filed his habeas petition more than two months late C. holding that a petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling where he waited six months to file a federal petition after any state misconduct ended D. holding that a petitioner must act with due diligence when pursuing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to benefit from equitable tolling of deadlines E. holding petitioner cannot claim he was denied right to assistance of counsel when he knowingly and voluntarily decided to represent himself

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that petitioner was entitled to equitable tolling where former counsel actively deceived petitioner over several months into believing he was diligently pursuing petitioners legal remedies when in fact he was not
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: ANUBIS agrees (2) not to use the Confidential Information disclosed pursuant to this agreement for any purpose other than (to the extent necessary) to further the sale of and promotion of Products and 5.4 Each party agrees (iii) not to use any Confidential Information for any purpose except for the Business Purpose.

assistant: No
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: Agent represents and warrants that it is duly registered as a broker-dealer under FINRA, the Exchange Act and the applicable statutes and regulations of each state in which the Placement Shares will be offered and sold, except such states in which Agent is exempt from registration or such registration is not otherwise required. Agent shall continue, for the term of this Agreement, to be duly registered as a broker-dealer under FINRA, the Exchange Act and the applicable statutes and regulations of each state in which the Placement Shares will be offered and sold, except such states in which Agent is exempt from registration or such registration is not otherwise required, during the term of this Agreement. Agent will comply in all material respects with all applicable law and regulations in connection with the Placement Shares, including, but not limited to, Regulation M under the Securities Act.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: E ACH GRANTOR HEREBY IRREVOCABLY SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF ANY T EXAS STATE OR FEDERAL COURT SITTING IN H OUSTON , T EXAS IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS S ECURITY A GREEMENT OR THE OTHER C REDIT D OCUMENTS , AND EACH G RANTOR HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AGREES THAT ALL CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING MAY BE HEARD AND DETERMINED IN SUCH COURT . E ACH C REDIT P ARTY HEREBY UNCONDITIONALLY AND IRREVOCABLY WAIVES , TO THE FULLEST EXTENT IT MAY EFFECTIVELY DO SO , ANY RIGHT IT MAY HAVE TO THE DEFENSE OF AN INCONVENIENT FORUM TO THE MAINTENANCE OF SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING . E ACH G RANTOR HEREBY AGREES THAT SERVICE OF COPIES OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AND ANY OTHER PROCESS WHICH MAY BE SERVED IN ANY SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING MAY BE MADE BY MAILING OR DELIVERING A COPY OF SUCH PROCESS TO SUCH G RANTOR AT ITS ADDRESS SET FORTH IN THIS S ECURITY A GREEMENT . E ACH G RANTOR HEREBY 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 . N OTHING IN THIS S ECTION SHALL AFFECT THE RIGHTS OF ANY L ENDER TO SERVE LEGAL PROCESS IN ANY OTHER MANNER PERMITTED BY THE LAW OR AFFECT THE RIGHT OF ANY L ENDER TO BRING ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING AGAINST ANY G RANTOR OR ITS P ROPERTY IN THE COURTS OF ANY OTHER JURISDICTION .

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 319 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir.2003). In Mohammed, we decided that, “at least for purposes of considering the pending motion to lift the stay, ... Domond remains binding authority in this Circuit.” Mohammed, 309 F.3d at 103. And since the Mohammed decision, we have recognized that Domond remains good law. See Rankine, 319 F.3d at 100 (noting that “an alien who committed his crime prior to § 212(c)’s repeal, but was convicted after such relief became unavailable, could not claim an impermissible retroactive effect as to him because he had ‘no basis for claiming similar reliance’ to the alien in St. Cyr [v. INS, 229 F.3d 406 (2d Cir.2000), aff'd, 533 U.S. 289, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001)]”) (quoting Mohammed, 309 F.3d at 103); Beharry v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 51, 63-64 (2d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); see also Zgombic, 2003 WL 21243248, at *1 Options: A. holding that the defendant did not establish good faith as a matter of law B. recognizing that this court in rankine indicated that domond remains good law C. recognizing this rule D. recognizing this method E. recognizing this presumption

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that this court in rankine indicated that domond remains good law
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The headings contained in this Agreement or in any Schedule to this Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not affect in any way the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. All Schedules referred to in this Agreement are incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement as if set forth in full in this Agreement. Any capitalized terms used in any Schedule but not otherwise defined in such Schedule shall have the meaning as defined in this Agreement. When a reference is made in this Agreement to an Article, Section or Schedule, such reference shall be to an Article or Section of, or a Schedule to, this Agreement unless otherwise indicated. For all purposes hereof, the terms “include” and “including” shall be deemed followed by the words “without limitation”. The words “hereof”, “herein” and “hereunder” and words of similar import when used in this Agreement shall refer to this Agreement as a whole and not to any particular provision of this Agreement. No provision of this Agreement shall be interpreted or construed against any Party hereto solely because such Party or its legal representative drafted such provision.

assistant: Interpretations
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: Id. The district court excluded this portion of the expert’s testimony. Id. at 1397. Relying on Downing, the Third Circuit reversed. Id. at 1401. We agree that expert testimony on eyewitness identification may properly be admitted under Daubert in certain circumstances, but Stevens simply does not persuade us that the district court abused its discretion in the instant case. We note that here there were five eyewitness identifica tions, not one. Likewise, as counsel for the government pointed out at argument, there was also testimony that Mr. Smith changed his alibi. In this admittedly close case, we hold only that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony under the circumstances. See United States v. Blade, 811 F.2d 461, 465 (8th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Smith, 736 F.2d 1103, Options: A. holding admissible expert testimony concerning factors that may impair eyewitness identification and rejecting that concerning a particular eyewitness credibility and the statistical probability of eyewitness misidentification B. holding no abuse of discretion to exclude expert eyewitness identification testimony where governments case relied on more than eyewitness identification C. holding that the trial court did not err by failing to instruct the jury to consider certain additional factors in evaluating the validity of eyewitness identification testimony D. holding that a specific instruction was unnecessary because eyewitness was crossexamined and the eyewitness testimony was discussed in defense counsels opening statement E. holding exclusion of expert eyewitness identification testimony harmless error where governments case included three separate eyewitnesses and a palm print that discredited the defendants alibi

assistant: The best answer is B. holding no abuse of discretion to exclude expert eyewitness identification testimony where governments case relied on more than eyewitness identification
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Each of us may disclose the other's confidential information if required to comply with a court order or other government demand that has the force of law. Before doing so, each of us must seek the highest level of protection available and, when possible, give the other enough prior notice to provide a reasonable chance to seek a protective order.

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: that "even if the jur[ors] understood the instruction as directing them to 'nullify' their answers to the special issues, they still would have faced the ethical dilemma of violating their oath to render a ‘true verdict’ by providing false answers to the special issues in order to give effect to Bigby’s mitigating evidence and comply with the supplemental instruction"). 5 . Garcia also argues that his pedophilia may be considered mitigating of his moral culpability. We reject this argument. In contrast to the abuse Garcia himself suffered as a child, pedophilia is not a mitigating personal characteristic and does not meet even the low threshold of relevance set by Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 284-85, 124 S.Ct. 2562, 159 L.Ed.2d 384 (2004). 6 . See Abdul-Kabir, 127 S.Ct. at 1667-73 Options: A. recognizing the same rule in texas courts B. recognizing this texas rule C. recognizing limitations as stated in franklin v lynaugh 487 us 164 108 sct 2320 101 led2d 155 1988 graham v collins 506 us 461 113 sct 892 122 led2d 260 1993 johnson v texas 509 us 350 113 sct 2658 125 led2d 290 1993 D. holding that general jurisdiction did not exist where the defendant occasionally sold products to entities in texas that used the defendants products for projects in texas and the defendants employees made field visits to texas between december 1992 and december 1993 E. holding that where the entity was incorporated in texas and the shareholders reside in texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in texas texas law not arizona law should be applied

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing limitations as stated in franklin v lynaugh 487 us 164 108 sct 2320 101 led2d 155 1988 graham v collins 506 us 461 113 sct 892 122 led2d 260 1993 johnson v texas 509 us 350 113 sct 2658 125 led2d 290 1993
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: while our own staff is continually working to develop and evaluate our own product ideas and features , we pride ourselves on paying close attention to the interests , feedback , comments , and suggestions we receive from the user community .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in attorney fees and $126.20 in costs, and denied five post-judgment motions filed by Mr. Leo, including a motion for reconsideration of the district court’s March 22, 2011 order. Mr. Leo then filed two motions: (1) a motion for reconsideration of the district court’s April 15 order, which was itself a denial of his previous motion for reconsideration; and (2) a motion for reconsideration of the award of attorney fees. In an April 21, 2011, 2011 WL 1541291, memorandum and order that denied Mr. Leo’s motions, the di matter that his first appeal had not been resolved at the time Mr. Leo filed his second suit because under the federal law of claim preclusion, the district court’s order was final for res judicata purposes. See MACTEC, Inc. v. Gorelick, 427 F.3d 821, 832 (10th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>), citing 18A Charles Alan Wright et al., Options: A. holding that previous ordered entered with prejudice did not have preclusive effect B. holding that courts must look to the state that rendered the judgment to determine whether the courts of that state would afford the judgment preclusive effect C. holding that the appealability of a judgment does not hinder its preclusive effect D. holding that illinois federal court erred in giving preclusive effect to minnesota state courts dismissal of action on statute of limitations grounds based on minnesotas treatment of statutes of limitations as procedural in nature and without preclusive effect E. holding in a res judicata case that fjederal law determines the preclusive effect of a prior federal judgment

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the appealability of a judgment does not hinder its preclusive effect
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: a claim or the day suit is filed. Johnson & Higgins of Tex., Inc. v. Kenneco Energy, Inc., 962 S.W.2d 507, 531 (Tex.1998). However, how this rule applies to cases where damages accrue at times subsequent to either date is an issue that the Texas Supreme Court has not yet addressed. This court must predict how the Texas Supreme Court would decide this issue. In making an “Erie guess” in a diversity case, this court will “seek guidance by looking to the precedents established by intermediate state appellate courts only when the state supreme court has not spoken on an issue.” Webb v. City of Dallas, 314 F.3d 787, 795 (5th Cir.2002) (internal quotations and citations omitted). However, 147-CV, 2001 WL 893986, at *8 (Tex.App.—Dallas Aug.9, 2001, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>). These cases, however, do not factor into this Options: A. holding that prejudgment interest is based on the amount of the judgment not the total amount of damages awarded by the jury because nonsettling defendants have no control over settlement negotiations and should not be forced to pay prejudgment interest on settling defendants parts of a damages award B. holding that prejudgment interest should not be calculated based on a monthbymonth basis C. holding that prejudgment interest may include compound interest D. holding that prejudgment interest may inelude compound interest E. holding that prejudgment interest should not be calculated based on a paycheckbypaycheck basis

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that prejudgment interest should not be calculated based on a paycheckbypaycheck basis
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: BORROWER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ITS DIRECTORS, MEMBERS, SHAREHOLDERS, MANAGERS, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, PRINCIPALS, AFFILIATES, PREDECESSORS, HEIRS, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS (COLLECTIVELY, THE " INDEMNIFYING PARTIES "), HEREBY UNCONDITIONALLY AND IRREVOCABLY INDEMNIFIES AND HOLDS HARMLESS LENDER AND ITS OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, ATTORNEYS, AGENTS, DIRECTORS, SHAREHOLDERS, SUBSIDIARIES, PREDECESSORS, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS (COLLECTIVELY, THE " INDEMNIFIED PARTIES ") FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL COSTS, EXPENSES, CLAIMS, DEMANDS, DAMAGES, ACTIONS, CAUSES OF ACTION, LIABILITY OR SUITS AT LAW OR IN EQUITY, OF WHATEVER KIND OR NATURE, WHETHER ARISING UNDER STATE OR FEDERAL LAW, RULE OR REGULATION, WHETHER NOW EXISTING OR HEREAFTER ARISING, WHETHER KNOWN OR UNKNOWN OR ASSERTED OR UNASSERTED, THAT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN ANY WAY RELATE TO, ARE BASED UPON, OR ARISE OUT OF ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, EVENT, MATTER, OCCURRENCE, COURSE OF DEALING, TRANSACTION, FACT, ACT, OMISSION, OBLIGATION, DUTY, RESPONSIBILITY, WARRANTY, STATEMENT OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER RELATED IN ANY WAY TO (A) THE AGREEMENT, (B) THIS AMENDMENT, (C) ANY OTHER RELATED DOCUMENT OR (D) ANY DOCUMENTS OR INSTRUMENTS EXECUTED IN CONNECTION WITH OR IN EVIDENCE OF ANY INDEBTEDNESS BETWEEN BORROWER AND LENDER (ALL OF WHICH CLAIMS ARE REFERRED TO COLLECTIVELY AS THE " INDEMNIFIED CLAIMS "), INCLUDING, WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF THE ABOVE, INDEMNIFIED CLAIMS WHICH AROSE FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF AN INDEMNIFIED PARTY , PROVIDED THAT THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE INDEMNIFYING PARTIES UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE EXTENT AN INDEMNIFIED CLAIM AROSE FROM AN INDEMNIFIED PARTY'S GROSS NEGLIGENCE OR WILLFUL MISCONDUCT. EACH INDEMNIFYING PARTY HEREBY COVENANTS AND AGREES NOT TO IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER SUE ANY INDEMNIFIED PARTY IN ANY COURT OR TRIBUNAL OR BRING ANY ACTION, LAWSUIT OR CAUSE OF ACTION (WHETHER BY WAY OF DIRECT ACTION, COUNTERCLAIM, CROSSCLAIM OR INTERPLEADER) AGAINST ANY INDEMNIFIED PARTY IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER BASED UPON ANY MATTER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY RELATED TO ANY INDEMNIFIED CLAIM.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) Commitment Fee . The Borrower agrees to pay to the Administrative Agent, for the account of each Lender (other than a Defaulting Lender for such time as such Lender is a Defaulting Lender), a non-refundable commitment fee (the “ Commitment Fee ”) at a rate per annum equal to the Applicable Rate times the aggregate daily amount of such Lender’s Commitment during the period from January 19, 2018 through and including the earlier of (i) the Commitment Termination Date and (ii) the Effective Date, such Commitment Fee to be earned and payable in arrears quarterly on the last Business Day of each March, June, September and December. The Commitment Fee pursuant to this Section 2.09(a) shall be computed on the basis of a year of 360 days and shall be payable for the actual number of days elapsed (including the first day but excluding the last day).

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Clarke v. Bettenhausen (1921), 296 Ill. 373, 376, 129 N.E. 803; but see Hester v. Kamykowski (1958), 13 Ill. 2d 481, 489, 150 N.E.2d 196 (taking exception to Browning, holding that a petition for judicial review could name multiple defendants seeking different offices where the issues and judgment would be identical). Although petitioner sought review of four separate Board deci sions within a single pleading, the pleading includes five separate counts. Each count seeks separate review of a decision related to each candidate. The five counts are viewed as separate and distinct causes of action (see 735 ILCS 5/2 — 603, 2 — 613 (West 1994)), based upon similar factual allegations and the same issues. (See Ras v. Allan Anthony Electric Corp. (1965), 55 Ill. App. 2d 176, 204 N.E.2d 797 (<HOLDING>).) If originally filed as separate actions, it Options: A. holding that earlier suits different legal theory did not save the later action from the res judicata bar because the central factual issues are identical B. holding that only courts in the county where property was situated had jurisdiction to hear an action concerning the property C. holding the court had jurisdiction to hear a threecount complaint premised upon three separate causes of action naming three separate defendants where the counts involved identical factual allegations and legal issues D. holding the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal where the circuit court had the power to remand the agency decision for further proceedings E. holding that the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal on a restraining order and the district court retained jurisdiction to proceed with the trial

assistant: The best answer is C. holding the court had jurisdiction to hear a threecount complaint premised upon three separate causes of action naming three separate defendants where the counts involved identical factual allegations and legal issues
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 practice both parties followed previously.” Id. at 499. Moreover, in regard to the general practice in the industry regarding the time of payment, the transferee “introduced testimony ... that it is ‘common’ in the tracking industry — even when 30-day payment terms are required by contract — for payments ‘to be made over a 30-day period’ (i.e., after 30 days from the date of invoice) and that it is ‘[v]ery common’ in the industry ‘that people pass the 30 day period.’ ” Id Thus, the Eighth Circuit apparently did not require proof that particular industry members consistently paid late. See also Tolona Pizza, 3 F.3d at 1033 (finding that the evidence showed that “payment within 30 days is within the outer limits of normal industry practices”); U.S.A Inns, 9 F.3d at 684-85 (<HOLDING>). A similar approach was posited in Options: A. holding that the transferee provided sufficient evidence that its transfer comported with industry standards the transferee proved that probably eight to ten percent of its accounts were on a similar pay schedule as the debtors and that working with delinquent customers as long as some type of payment was forthcoming was common industry practice B. holding that the commission reasonably interpreted the statute as requiring it to assess the condition of the industry as a whole C. holding a party to be an initial transferee because she was given legal title to the funds D. holding that a trustee is not required to avoid the initial transfer from the initial transferee before seeking to avoid it and recover from subsequent transferees and noting that this conclusion is consistent with case law that has disallowed automatic recovery from a subsequent transferee following the avoidance of an initial transfer through a stipulated judgment or default when the transferee had not been a party to the underlying avoidance proceeding E. holding that a trustee may settle with an initial transferee and still pursue recovery against a subsequent transferee but notwithstanding the trustee will still be required to prove that the transfers were fraudulent and improper in connection with its suit against the subsequent transferee because the trustees settlement with the initial transferee did not involve any determination on the merits as to the initial transfers and in this way the subsequent transferee will be afforded its due process rights to contest the avoidability of these initial transfers

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the transferee provided sufficient evidence that its transfer comported with industry standards the transferee proved that probably eight to ten percent of its accounts were on a similar pay schedule as the debtors and that working with delinquent customers as long as some type of payment was forthcoming was common industry practice
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall pay Executive an annual salary (the " Base Salary ") equal to Four Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($450,000) per year. Payment shall be made in accordance with the Company's normal payroll practices. The Base Salary will be reviewed by the Board no less frequently than annually.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, and the rights of the parties shall be governed by, the laws of the State of Texas or, where applicable, United States federal law, in each case, without regard to any conflicts of laws provisions or those of any state other than Texas .

assistant: Governing Laws