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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as set forth in the SEC Reports, none of the officers or directors of the Company or any Subsidiary and, to the knowledge of the Company, none of the employees of the Company or any Subsidiary is presently a party to any transaction with the Company or any Subsidiary (other than for services as employees, officers and directors), including any contract, agreement or other arrangement providing for the furnishing of services to or by, providing for rental of real or personal property to or from, providing for the borrowing of money from or lending of money to or otherwise requiring payments to or from any officer, director or such employee or, to the knowledge of the Company, any entity in which any officer, director, or any such employee has a substantial interest or is an officer, director, trustee, stockholder, member or partner, in each case in excess of $100,000 other than for: (i) payment of salary or consulting fees for services rendered, (ii) reimbursement for expenses incurred on behalf of the Company or any Subsidiary, (iii) other employee benefits, including stock option agreements under the 2012 Plan or the 2006 Plan or any other plan of the Company except as disclosed in Subsection 2.17 to the Disclosure Schedule and (iv) as described in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K/A filed with the Commission on April 30, 2018, with respect to a loan facility provided to the Company by Rockmore Investment Master Fund Ltd.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as described on Schedule 3.1(j) , there is no action, suit, inquiry, notice of violation, proceeding or investigation pending or, to the knowledge of the Company, threatened against or affecting the Company, any Subsidiary or any of their respective properties before or by any court, arbitrator, governmental or administrative agency or regulatory authority (federal, state, county, local or foreign) (collectively, an “ Action ”) which (i) adversely affects or challenges the legality, validity or enforceability of any of the Transaction Documents or the Securities or (ii) could, if there were an unfavorable decision, have or reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect. Neither the Company nor any Subsidiary, nor any director or officer thereof, is or has been the subject of any Action involving a claim of violation of or liability under federal or state securities laws or a claim of breach of fiduciary duty. There has not been, and to the knowledge of the Company, there is not pending or contemplated, any investigation by the Commission involving the Company or any current or former director or officer of the Company. The Commission has not issued any stop order or other order suspending the effectiveness of any registration statement filed by the Company or any Subsidiary under the Exchange Act or the Securities Act.

assistant: Litigations
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 proceeds of each Loan, and each Letter of Credit, will be used by the Borrower only in accordance with the provisions of Section 8.8 . No part of the proceeds of any Loan will be used by the Borrower to purchase or carry any Margin Stock or to extend credit to others for the purpose of purchasing or carrying any Margin Stock. Neither the making of any Loan nor the use of the proceeds thereof will violate or be inconsistent with the provisions of Regulations U or X.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: ... the officer performs a discretionary act.”). Although federal law does not determine whether an officer’s actions are discretionary for purposes of state law, nonetheless an examination of federal immunity law is instructive. Under federal law, the act in question must be discretionary as a prerequisite to an extension of qualified immunity. See Streetman v. Jordan, 918 F.2d 555, 556 (5th Cir.1990) (“Qualified immunity cloaks a police officer from personal liability for discretionary acts which do not violate well-established law.”). Thus, those cases in which a federal court extends immunity to a police officer, necessarily determine that the disputed actions are discretionary. See, e.g., Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039-40, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987) (<HOLDING>); Swint v. City of Wadley, 5 F.3d 1435 (11th Options: A. holding officers engaged in search entitled to immunity B. holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity C. holding that defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law where they relied upon consent of property owner to perform search D. holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity where defendant officers could have reasonably believed that they were given sufficient third party consent to search E. holding officers involved in investigatory raid entitled to immunity

assistant: The best answer is A. holding officers engaged in search entitled to immunity
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of counsel. He claims only that Judge Moore abused his discretion in sentencing [Taylor] to a sentence authorized by law.” The State agrees that the Motion Court’s rejection of Taylor’s Motion on either of these bases was legal error. Taylor’s Motion did not contest the revocation of his probation. The Motion contested the legality of the sentence imposed upon revocation of his probation, and argued that the harshest sentence possible was imposed “only because [Taylor] exercised his constitutional right to challenge a condition of probation in the Supreme Court of Missouri.” It is unconstitutional to use enhanced sentencing to punish or penalize a defendant who exercises his constitutional rights. See United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 581, 88 S.Ct. 1209, 20 L.Ed.2d 138 (1968) (<HOLDING>) (cited with approval in Thurston v. State, 791 Options: A. holding that practice which discourages exercise of fifth or sixth amendment rights by penalizing through enhanced sentencing the exercise of those rights is unconstitutional B. holding that there is no sixth amendment right to jury sentencing C. holding that religious exercise is any exercise of religion whether or not compelled by or central to a system of religious belief and that the use building or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise shall be considered religious exercise D. recognizing that reasonable time limitations may be placed on the exercise of constitutional rights E. holding the sixth amendment applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that practice which discourages exercise of fifth or sixth amendment rights by penalizing through enhanced sentencing the exercise of those rights is unconstitutional
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: which states that: An attorney at law is absolutely privileged to publish defamatory matter concerning another in communications preliminary to a proposed judicial proceed ing, or in the institution of, or during the course and as part of, a judicial proceeding in which he participates as counsel, if it has some relation to the proceeding. Since the rules of absolute privilege to publish defamatory materials apply to the publication of any matter that is an invasion of privacy, Rohda’s tenth claim for relief is dismissed. Moreover, at least with respect to a claim based on Section 652D, publicity given to private life, the matters disclosed were of legitimate public concern as a matter of law. See, e.g., Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 95 S.Ct. 1029, 43 L.Ed.2d 329 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Defendant Peterson’s Motion for Summary Options: A. holding unconstitutional a state decision awarding damages against a broadcasting company for invasion of privacy by disclosing the name of a rape victim in violation of a state statute which prohibited such disclosures B. holding that 14 prohibits the awarding of costs against the state as a defendant C. holding that a claim for civil damages based on alleged violation of criminal statute under which criminal penalties result was properly dismissed because criminal violations are brought not in the name of the individual party but rather by and on behalf of the state of ohio or its subdivisions D. recognizing that state agencies which are independent of the state are citizens of the state E. holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state

assistant: The best answer is A. holding unconstitutional a state decision awarding damages against a broadcasting company for invasion of privacy by disclosing the name of a rape victim in violation of a state statute which prohibited such disclosures
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 between Owner and Manager as to the interpretation of this Agreement or the rights and obligations of any party hereto shall be resolved through binding arbitration held in the county in which the Property is located. The parties shall mutually select one person, who has at least five years of property management experience, to act as the arbitrator for resolution of the dispute and, in the event the parties cannot agree on said arbitrator, then it shall be appointed by the nearest office of the American Arbitration Association (“ AAA ”). The arbitrator may use the rules of the AAA for commercial arbitration, but is encouraged to adopt the rules the arbitrator deems appropriate to accomplish the arbitration in the quickest and least expensive manner possible. The parties shall equally share all initial costs of arbitration. The prevailing party shall be entitled to reimbursement of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as determined by the arbitrator. All decisions of the arbitrator shall be final, binding and conclusive on all parties.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Upon its receipt of an Assignment and Acceptance Agreement executed and delivered by an assigning Purchaser and an Eligible Assignee or assignee Purchaser, the Transfer Agent shall, if such Assignment and Acceptance Agreement has been duly completed, (i) accept such Assignment and Acceptance Agreement, (ii) record the information contained therein in the Register and (iii) give prompt notice thereof to the Issuer and the Servicer.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Rossi’s affidavit would be admissible at trial and whether Mr. Rossi would be competent to testify about it. For all the Court knows from Mr. Rossi’s affidavit, the information contained in it is based upon rank speculation and fourth-hand hearsay. While Mr. Rossi’s counsel contended at oral argument that in opposing summary judgment, Mr. Rossi had no burden to show that the information contained in his affidavit would be admissible at trial, Mr. Rossi’s counsel is plainly wrong. See Patterson, 375 F.3d at 219 (“Rule 56(e)’s requirement ... means that an affidavit’s hearsay assertion that would not be admis sible at trial if testified to by the affiant is insufficient to create a genuine issue for trial.”); Sarno v. Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives, Inc., 183 F.Bd 155, 160 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). See also Schwapp v. Town of Avon, 118 F.3d Options: A. holding that hearsay statement did not constitute competent evidence and thus could not be considered in opposition to motion for summary judgment B. holding that a signed but unsworn letter which is not otherwise authenticated is hearsay and should not be considered as evidence in opposition to a motion for summary judgment C. recognizing motion to strike as proper vehicle for evaluating objectionable hearsay evidence in opposition papers to summary judgment motion D. holding that arguments not raised in opposition to a motion for summary judgment are waived E. holding that hearsay in affidavit which would be inadmissible in evidence at trial could not be considered on motion for summary judgment

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that hearsay statement did not constitute competent evidence and thus could not be considered in opposition to motion for summary judgment
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: Notwithstanding any provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, the terms of any indemnification agreement or provision applicable to Executive by reason of the fact that he is or was serving as an employee, officer, director or consultant of or to the Company or any subsidiary or affiliate shall survive his termination of employment and any expiration or termination of this Agreement or the Consulting Agreement. Notwithstanding the terms of any indemnification agreement, the Company shall continue to indemnify Executive for his prior services to the Company or at the Company’s request to another entity and under the terms of the Consulting Agreement to the maximum extent permitted under Maryland law, and to pay or reimburse reasonable expenses in advance of the final disposition of the proceeding to the maximum extent permitted from time to time by the laws of Maryland, provided, that Executive shall be required to repay any advanced amounts if the standard of conduct for indemnification thereunder is not met.

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: that the term “action taken” in subsection 9613(h)(4) does not speak in clear terms either. See Neighborhood Toxic Cleanup Emergency v. Reilly, 716 F.Supp. 828, 833 (D.N.J.1989) (“[T]he statute’s language fails to answer the question of how much must be done before review is available.”). Senator Stafford’s comments supply a pragmatic guideline to interpretation. He said that “the courts must draw appropriate distinctions between dilatory or other unauthorized lawsuits by potentially responsible parties involving only monetary damages and legitimate citizens’ suits complaining of irreparable injury that can be only addressed only [sic] if a claim is heard during or prior to response action.” 132 Cong.Rec. 28,409 (1986); see also Cabot Corp. v. EPA, 677 F.Supp. 823, 829 (E.D.Pa.1988) (<HOLDING>). The problem may be illustrated by an extreme Options: A. holding that potential loss of a contract constitutes irreparable injury B. holding that evidence of specific competitive injury establishes irreparable injury warranting injunctive relief C. recognizing significant differences in text of state and federal equal protection clauses D. holding that movant must demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction E. recognizing differences between compensatory and irreparable injury in selecting proper remedies under subsections 9613h1 h4

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing differences between compensatory and irreparable injury in selecting proper remedies under subsections 9613h1 h4
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 shall use commercially reasonable efforts to take, or cause to be taken, all appropriate action to do, or cause to be done, all things necessary, proper or advisable under all Legal Requirements or otherwise to consummate and make effective the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.

assistant: Further Assurances
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, at its expense and at any time and from time to time, promptly execute and deliver all further instruments and documents and take all further action that may be necessary or desirable or that the Collateral Agent or any Secured Party may reasonably request in order (i) to perfect and protect the security interest created hereby; (ii) to enable the Collateral Agent to exercise and enforce its rights and remedies hereunder with respect to the Collateral; or (iii) to otherwise effect the purposes of this Agreement, including, without limitation (A) executing and filing such financing or continuation statements, or amendments thereto, as may be necessary or desirable or that the Collateral Agent may request in order to perfect and preserve the security interest created hereby, (B) executing and delivering, and causing depositaries and security intermediaries to execute and deliver, control agreements in respect of deposit accounts and investment property, and (C) furnishing to the Collateral Agent from time to time statements and schedules further identifying and describing the Collateral and such other reports in connection with the Collateral as the Collateral Agent may reasonably request, all in reasonable detail.

assistant: Further Assurances
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 by the parties hereto, by action taken or authorized by, in the case of Victory, by Victory’s Board of Directors and, in the case of Navitus, by Navitus and its partners, as applicable. This Agreement may not be amended except by an instrument in writing signed on behalf of Victory and Navitus.

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: observed, Cisek did not specifically prove any special damages. To support the trial court’s award of general damages, Cisek testified at the hearing that Cyndi Baily, general counsel for Baylor, informed him that government officials and officers of Baylor were calling her office about Morrill’s letters. Baily also informed Cisek that the letters were threatening his career at Baylor, and that Morrill’s conduct was inconsistent with a continued employee/employer relationship between Cisek and Baylor. Cisek testified that he has not been promoted since he began working at Baylor, and that several initiatives he introduced had not moved forward. Cisek’s salary has not increased since he began working at Baylor. Cisek testified that if Baylor had fired him b App.-Waco 1977, writ dism’d) (<HOLDING>). Forum Non Conveniens In her fourth issue, Options: A. holding that a 50000 malicious prosecution compensatory damages award deviated materially from what would be reasonable compensation and ordering a new trial on the issue of damages unless plaintiff stipulated to a reduction in the award to 25000 B. holding that award of 25000 was reasonable C. holding that award of 50000 was reasonable D. holding that an attorneys fees award is not appealable until the amount of the award is set E. holding that in deciding whether the jurys award is inadequate the test is whether reasonable people could not conclude that the award was reasonable compensation

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that award of 25000 was reasonable
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: Division over the next five years. 575 F.3d at 1355. The Federal Circuit then discussed whether the demonstration of the protestor’s “substantial chance” of receiving the contract award but for the alleged agency error, the traditional test for standing in bid protests and the test proposed by the government in Weeks Marine, is the proper standard for pre-award bid protests: We have not had occasion to discuss what is required to prove an economic interest, and thus prejudice, in a ease such as this, where a prospective bidder/offeror is challenging a solicitation in the pre-award context. In such a ease, it is difficult for a prospective bidder/offeror to make the showing of prejudice that we have required in post-award bid protest cases. See, e.g., Statistica, 102 F.3d at 1582 (<HOLDING>). The reason of course is that, in a case such Options: A. holding that a protester is not required to show that but for the alleged error the protester would have been awarded the contract instead a protester must show there was a substantial chance it would have received the contract but for the alleged error B. holding that in the postaward context a protesting party lacked standing to bring the protest action because it could not show a substantial chance of receiving an award when its submission did not comply with the solicitations substantive requirements C. holding that a protester must show only that there was a substantial chance it would have received the contract award but for that error D. recognizing under plain error review that the burden to show that substantial rights have been prejudiced is on the party that failed to raise the issue below and for an error to have affected substantial rights the error must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings E. holding that a contractor lacked standing because it failed to show a substantial chance it would have received the contract award but for agency error

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a contractor lacked standing because it failed to show a substantial chance it would have received the contract award but for agency error
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: During the term of this Agreement, Executive shall not accrue paid vacation or personal time off under any current or future vacation or paid time off policy of the Company (collectively, the “ PTO Plans ”). Executive may take reasonable time off for vacation, consistent with the needs of the Company’s business, and shall notify the Board of such vacation usage, consulting in advance with the Board as appropriate. Executive’s accrued vacation and paid time off account balance of $148,229.86 as of December 31, 2016 (the “ Balance ”) shall not be affected by this Section 4.1, and such Balance shall be payable in full upon Executive’s termination of employment with the Company for any reason.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No Borrower shall, nor shall it permit any other Loan Party to grant or permit to exist (voluntarily or involuntarily) any lien, claim, security interest or other encumbrance whatsoever on any of its assets, other than Permitted Liens.

assistant: Liens
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 Lender agrees that, without the prior written consent of Borrower Agent and Agent, it will not make any assignment or sell a participation hereunder in any manner or under any circumstances that would require registration or qualification of, or filings in respect of, any Revolver Loan or other Obligation under the securities laws of the United States of America or of any jurisdiction.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the Court were to conclude that the term “disbursements” was ambiguous, such that it was proper to consider the legislative history, the Court would conclude that the legislative history supports a broad definition of “disbursements” which is not limited to a debtor’s “legal obligations.” Indeed, Congress considered and rejected basing fees on “a debtor’s liabilities,” a term which includes “anything for which a person is legally bound or obligated.” See Webster’s New World Dictionary a In non-accounting jargon, an expense is a disbursement. Therefore, we conclude that section 1930(a)(6) requires a determination of whose expense is being paid by the disbursement of cash, regardless of who actually writes the check or when it is posted on the Debtors’ accounting records.” Id. at 47-48 (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). The Options: A. holding that while it is unconstitutional to imprison someone for failure to pay a debt it is constitutional to imprison someone for failure to pay a fine the term debt is to be understood as an obligation arising otherwise than from the sentence of a court for the breach of the public peace or commission of a crime B. holding that by using the term liability which must refer to the duty or legal responsibility to pay money on a tort claim the legislature intended the otca limits to include attorney fees and costs C. recognizing that an insurers obligation to pay for prenotification legal expenses is concomitant with its right to control the defense and that a contrary result would require the insurer to pay for those defense costs which it had no opportunity to control D. holding that it is plain error for a trial court to require a defendant to pay courtappointed attorney fees in the absence of legally sufficient evidence that defendant has the ability to pay the amount imposed E. recognizing that the term disbursements extends beyond the entity with the legal obligation to pay a debt and may include the one who benefitted by the expense but was not legally obligated to pay it

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that the term disbursements extends beyond the entity with the legal obligation to pay a debt and may include the one who benefitted by the expense but was not legally obligated to pay it
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 Guaranty may be executed in any number of counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument, and any of the parties hereto may execute this Guaranty by signing any such counterpart.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: the articles , text , photos , maps , videos , video players , and third-party material available on bing and msn are for your noncommercial , personal use only .

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: further , you and linden lab agree that , should resolution of the dispute ( s ) occur in arbitration , such dispute ( s ) will be arbitrated only on an individual basis and will not be consolidated with any other arbitration or other proceedings that involve any claim or controversy of any other party .

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: factual review power; sufficiency of evidence claim based on the law); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (Fourteenth Amendment of the federal constitution requires record evidence to reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt). Accordingly, the Court is precluded from considering the claim on federal habeas review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (permitting federal habeas corpus review only where the petitioner has alleged that he is in state custody in violation of “the Constitution or a federal law or treaty”); Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780, 110 S.Ct. 3092, 111 L.Ed.2d 606 (1990) (habeas corpus review is not available where there is simply an alleged error of state law); Ex parte Craig, 282 F. 138, 148 (2d Cir. 1922) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 263 U.S. 255, 44 S.Ct. 103, 68 L.Ed. Options: A. holding a court cannot issue and make returnable to it a writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner is outside the courts authority B. holding that managing conservator while in texas to seek return of child by writ of habeas corpus may not be served with civil process and is subject to jurisdiction of court in which habeas corpus is pending and only for purpose of prosecuting writ of habeas corpus C. holding that a petition for review is an adequate substitute for habeas corpus D. holding that threeyear statute of limitations was not an unconstitutional suspension of the writ of habeas corpus E. holding that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to review the weight of evidence

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to review the weight of evidence
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 rights and obligations of the Parties under Sections 4(e) , 4(i) , 5(a)(ii) , 5(b)(i) , 5(f) , 6 , 7 , 8 , 14 , 15 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 , and 26 shall survive the expiration and/or termination of this Agreement and the termination of Executive’s employment hereunder for the periods expressly designated in such sections or, if no such period is designated, for the maximum period permissible under applicable law.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: environmental catastrophes); Morton Int’l, Inc. v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am., 134 N.J. 1, 629 A.2d 831, 848-55, 875 (1993) (refusing to enforce a literal reading of the pollution exclusion, in part because of evidence that the exclusion was intended to apply only to large-scale environmental disasters). 9 . See also Essex Ins. Co., Inc. v. Berkshire Envtl. Consultants, Inc., No. A. 99-30280, 2002 WL 226172, at *4 (D.Mass. Feb. 7, 2002) (concluding “that the pollution exclusion does not apply because the underlying complaints do not allege that the injuries and deaths resulted from traditional environmental pollution, i.e. hazards discharged onto land, the atmosphere, or a body of water”); West Am. Ins. Co. v. Tufco Flooring East, Inc., 104 N.C.App. 312, 409 S.E.2d 692, 699 (1991) (<HOLDING>), overruled, on other grounds by Gaston Cnty. Options: A. holding that the confrontation clause is applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment B. holding that the penalty is applicable C. holding that the release of carbon monoxide into an apartment is not the type of environmental pollution contemplated by the pollution exclusion clause D. holding that a discharge into the environment is necessary for the total pollution clause to be applicable E. holding that the discharge of paint chips into soil was covered by the pollution exclusion because it polluted the environment but that the presence of lead paint in a household would not be so covered

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a discharge into the environment is necessary for the total pollution clause to be applicable
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: from 212(c) relief. I would be so inclined, that is, were it not for the fact that I am unconvinced by the dissent's ingenious interpretation of Domond v. U.S. INS, 244 F.3d 81 (2d Cir.2001), and Rankine, 319 F.3d 93. Instead, I read those cases as foreclosing the argument that the conviction of an alien, without more, presents a retroactivity problem. 7 . Moreover, as the tribunals below recognized, even if the IIRIRA and the AEDPA do not apply to Petitioner, the five-year bar would independently preclude him from seeking 212(c) relief. In Buitrago-Cuesta v. INS, 7 F.3d 291, 292 (2d Cir.1993), this court held that the five-year bar applies retroactively to aliens who were convicted before Congress established that bar in 1990. Petitioner maintains, however, that (11th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). 10 . Although Petitioner is unclear on this Options: A. holding that all data necessary to show probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant must be contained within the four corners of the affidavit B. holding that issuance of an order to show cause satisfied this requirement C. holding that for purposes of the iirira proceedings commence only upon the inss filing of a notice to appear with the immigration court D. holding in the iirira context that service of the notice to appear was on the facts of that case sufficient to start proceedings E. holding in the iirira context that the combination of service of the order to show cause and the issuance of a detainer notice sufficed to begin the proceedings

assistant: The best answer is E. holding in the iirira context that the combination of service of the order to show cause and the issuance of a detainer notice sufficed to begin the proceedings
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 plaintiff seeking to recover on a damages judgment in an official-capacity suit must look to the government entity itself. Id. at 165, 105 S.Ct. 3099. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has instructed that courts should assume that an action brought against an individual is brought against that individual solely in that individual’s official capacity when a complaint is silent on the issue. Egerdahl v. Hibbing Community College, 72 F.3d 615, 619 (8th Cir.1995) (“[A] plaintiff who wishes to sue a state official in his personal capacity must so specify in her complaint. .. If a plaintiffs complaint is silent about the capacity in which she is suing the defendant, we interpret the complaint as including only official-capacity claims.”); Nix v. Norman, 879 F.2d 429, 431 (8th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); accord Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 592 (6th Options: A. holding that nature of alleged bias must be personal and not arising out of litigation B. holding that individualcapacity suits must be clear enough to notify defendant of the personal nature of the suit C. holding that a finding of fraud may be reversed only for clear error but that the finding must be judged in view of the clear and convincing burden of proof D. holding that the waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal E. holding that the person claiming the privilege must set forth with enough particularity to enable the court to make an informed decision the nature of the material withheld and of the threat to the national security should it be revealed

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that individualcapacity suits must be clear enough to notify defendant of the personal nature of the suit
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: its contours. Proceedings are said to arise in a Title 11 case if they are ‘“administrative matters’ that arise only in bankruptcy cases.” Wood v. Wood (Matter of Wood), 825 F.2d 90, 97 (5th Cir.1987). Certainly, that is not the case here since the claims for relief could have been made in state court in the first instance. The 10th Circuit has adopted the test for determining “related to” jurisdiction expressed in the 3rd Circuit ease of Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984 (3d Cir.1984). Under that test, whether a civil proceeding is “related to” a bankruptcy case depends on “whether the outcome of that proceeding could conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy.” Id. at 994. Gardner v. United States (In re Gardner), 913 F.2d 1515, 1518 (10th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Since the debtors’ Chapter 13 plan has been Options: A. holding that the bankruptcy court lacks related jurisdiction to resolve controversies between third party creditors which do not involve the debtor or his property unless the court cannot complete administrative duties without resolving the controversy B. holding that its appellate jurisdiction does not extend to the adjudication of administrative or legislative issues or controversies but rather only to decisions of a judicial character C. holding that a creditors security was preserved notwithstanding the bankruptcy of the debtor D. holding that bankruptcy court is without jurisdiction to control disposition of chapter 13 debtors property that is not property of the bankruptcy estate unless the property is related to the bankruptcy proceedings of the code E. holding that if dispute involves funds that are not property of estate it cannot be maintained in the bankruptcy court unless it is related to the bankruptcy proceeding which means it is likely to affect the debtors estate

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the bankruptcy court lacks related jurisdiction to resolve controversies between third party creditors which do not involve the debtor or his property unless the court cannot complete administrative duties without resolving the controversy
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: date. Id. The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal for a failure to state a conspiracy claim. The Walker court noted that Rule 9 was inapplicable, and held that “it is enough in pleading a conspiracy to merely indicate the parties, general purpose, and approximate date, so that the defendant has notice of what he is charged with.” Id. The Walker court also distinguished its holding from its earlier holding in Ryan v. Mary Immaculate Queen Center, 188 F.3d 857, 859-60 (7th Cir.1999), which Sanchez cites in support of his specificity argument, because the plaintiff in Ryan “did not so much as hint at what role he might have played or agreed to play” in the alleged conspiracy. Walker, 288 F.3d at 1007; see also, Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 764 (7th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). The other cases cited by Sanchez are also Options: A. holding that more than notice to a defendant is required B. holding that a complaint under section 1983 must contain more than naked improbable unsubstantiated assertions without any specifics C. holding that a person alleging a conspiracy to violate constitutional rights must do more than simply aver that a conspiracy existed D. holding that complaint alleging a conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of his civil rights cannot survive motion to dismiss based on conclusory allegations of conspiracy which are not supported by references to material facts E. recognizing that ryan cannot be read to require that a complaint alleging conspiracy under 1983 contain more than notice of time scope and parties involved

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that ryan cannot be read to require that a complaint alleging conspiracy under 1983 contain more than notice of time scope and parties involved
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: No amendment or waiver of any provision of this Agreement or any other Loan Document, nor consent to any departure by any Loan Party therefrom, shall in any event be effective unless the same shall be in writing and signed by the Company and the relevant other Loan Party, if applicable, and the Required Lenders, and then such waiver or consent shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose for which given; provided that (a) the written consent of the Company and each Lender directly affected thereby shall be required in order to amend or waive any provision of the Agreement or the Notes which would have the effect of (i) a reduction in principal, interest or fees payable to such Lender under this Agreement or the Notes, (ii) the postponement of any date fixed for the payment of any principal, interest or fees under this Agreement or the Notes, (iii) an increase in the Commitments or (iv) amending or waiving compliance with Section 2.08 or Section 2.14; (b) the written consent of the Company and all the Lenders shall be required in order to amend or waive any provision of the Agreement or the Notes which would have the effect of (i) amending or waiving compliance with the proviso to Section 2.01(a), Section 8.05 or this Section 8.01, (ii) amending the definition of Required Lenders or (iii) any release or modification of the Company’s guarantee under Article IX; (c) no amendment, waiver or consent shall, unless in writing and signed by the Administrative Agent in addition to the Lenders required above to take such action, affect the rights or duties of the Administrative Agent under this Agreement, and (d) the Commitment of any Lender shall not be extended without the prior written consent of such Lender; provided further no amendment, waiver or consent shall, unless in writing and signed by the applicable Swing Line Lender in addition to the Lenders required above to take such action, affect the rights or duties of such Swing Line Lender under this Agreement; and provided further that the Agreement may be amended to adjust the borrowing mechanics related to Swing Line Advances with only the written consent the Company, the Administrative Agent, the Sub-Agent, and the Swing Line Lenders if the obligations of the Lenders are not adversely affected thereby.

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: waives this privilege if he “voluntarily discloses or consents to disclosure of any significant part of the privileged matter.” At trial, Ross testified extensively about what he said to his wife on the night of the shooting. This was clearly a voluntary disclosure of a “significant part of the privileged matter” under Rule 504. We therefore agree with the State that Ross’s testimony constituted a waiver of the Rule 504 privilege in this case. Furthermore, Ross could not use the trial court’s initial ruling to exclude the marital communications as a means to commit perjury by way of a defense. The State was certainly entitled to cross-examine Ross as to his version of what he disclosed to his wife on the night of the shooting. See Rooks v. State, 250 Ark. 561, 466 S.W.2d 478 (1971) (<HOLDING>). We therefore affirm on this point. As for Options: A. recognizing the importance of crossexamination in casting doubt on credibility B. holding due process required an opportunity for crossexamination when the decision depended on the credibility of individual witness testimony C. holding that it was permissible for the state to test the credibility of appellants trial testimony by crossexamination D. holding that a trial witnesss testimony as to the credibility of another witness was prejudicial error E. holding counsel was not deficient in not objecting to testimony that was permissible within state rules of evidence

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that it was permissible for the state to test the credibility of appellants trial testimony by crossexamination