flwrlabs/fed-legal huggingface dataset:
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: similarly, a factual dispute regarding whether or not Defendants should be entitled to qualified immunity. Because the Court’s denial of qualified immunity was based on a factual dispute requiring resolution by a trier of fact; there was no “final decision” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Court’s denial of summary judgment should therefore not have been subject to an interlocutory appeal. Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. at 319-20, 115 S.Ct. 2151 (“holding that a defendant, entitled to invoke a qualified immunity defense, may not appeal district court’s summary judgment order insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a ‘genuine’ issue of fact for trial.”); see also Johnson v. Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist., 724 F.3d 1159, 1164 (9th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>) In holding that qualified immunity is not Options: A. holding that ninth circuit jurisdiction over summary judgment appeals is limited we may review only the district courts legal conclusion that an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity B. holding that an officer applying for a warrant without probable cause may be entitled to qualified immunity but is not entitled to absolute immunity C. holding that reasonableness of the officers decision in applying for and executing the warrant is a legal question and therefore the court had jurisdiction to hear appeal from the district courts order denying summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity D. holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity E. holding that the court lacked appellate jurisdiction over a partial summary judgment on liability in a qualified immunity case

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that ninth circuit jurisdiction over summary judgment appeals is limited we may review only the district courts legal conclusion that an officer is not entitled to qualified 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: agree. Because Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts’ jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies, we do not have jurisdiction where “the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 396, 100 S.Ct. 1202, 1208, 63 L.Ed.2d 479 (1980) (quotation omitted); see also McPherson v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 119 F.3d 453, 458 (6th Cir.1997) (en banc). As Buntin is no longer employed by the Board, the injunction enjoining the Board from assigning her duties not prescribed by Ky.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 159.140 (Banks-Baldwin 1997) no longer affects her legal interests. We therefore conclude that Buntin’s request for injunctive relief is moot. Cf. Ahmed v. University of Toledo, 822 F.2d 26, 27 (6th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). IV. CONCLUSION Because we conclude that Options: A. recognizing the right of students to challenge on first amendment grounds actions of school officials which circumscribe the range of ideas to which students are exposed B. holding that the defendant school officials did not create the students danger or increase their risk of harm where female students were physically verbally and sexually molested by male students in a unisex bathroom and in a darkroom C. holding moot the plaintiffs challenge to a universitys requirement that foreign students carry health insurance where named plaintiffs were no longer students at the university D. holding that female students claim was moot because the university they were suing had already established a womens lacrosse team which was the relief the students originally sought E. holding that universitys amendment of regulation made moot a challenge to regulations

assistant: The best answer is C. holding moot the plaintiffs challenge to a universitys requirement that foreign students carry health insurance where named plaintiffs were no longer students at the university
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 closing of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement (the “ Closing ,” and the date of the Closing, the “ Closing Date ”) shall occur and shall be deemed to be effective immediately on June 26, 2018. Such Closing shall take place at a mutually agreeable time and place, and be conditioned upon all of the conditions to closing set forth in this Agreement being met.

assistant: Closings
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: Veterans’ Appeals. Jurisdiction to review the Board’s decisions is conferred exclusively on the Court, of Veterans Appeals. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Court of Veterans Appeals. Congress expressly gave the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals “exclusive jurisdiction” to “interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a decision.” See Zuspann v. Brown, 60 F.3d 1156, 1159 (5th Cir.1995). Thus, an intent to foreclose resort to section 1983 in the comprehensive remedial scheme expressly provided by Congress easily may be inferred from the foregoing statutes and regulations. See Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992, 1012, 104 S.Ct. 3457, 3469, 82 L.Ed.2d 746 (1984) (<HOLDING>). This court agrees with the defendants that Options: A. recognizing that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to bringing a 1983 action B. holding that because plaintiff no longer has available administrative remedies his action must be dismissed with prejudice C. holding that to allow a plaintiff to circumvent the education of the handicapped acts administrative remedies by pursuing a 1983 lawsuit would be inconsistent with congress carefully tailored scheme D. holding that exhaustion of administrative remedies is a mandatory prerequisite to a lawsuit under foia E. holding that it would be inconsistent with congress intent to require exhaustion of optional appeals through state procedures after an aggrieved party has exhausted all administrative remedies expressly prescribed by congress in the administrative procedures act apa

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that to allow a plaintiff to circumvent the education of the handicapped acts administrative remedies by pursuing a 1983 lawsuit would be inconsistent with congress carefully tailored scheme
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: brief, Northlake argues that the trial court in the First Petition lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Northlake had not exhausted its administrative remedies. Our supreme court has held that “the exhaustion of administrative remedies under [the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act] is a procedural error and does not implicate the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction.” First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Robertson, 19 N.E.3d 757, 760 (Ind.2014), amended on reh’g, 27 N.E.3d 768 (Ind.2015). Moreover, Northlake argued in the First Petition that it was not required to exhaust its administrative remedies because it would suffer irreparable harm while the administrative appeal was finalized. See, e.g., State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs v. Ispat Inland, Inc., 784 N.E.2d 477, 483 (Ind.2003) (<HOLDING>). Northlake cannot now argue that the trial Options: A. holding that a party may gain judicial review without exhausting its administrative remedies where pursuit of administrative remedies would be futile where strict compliance would cause irreparable harm and where the applicable statute is alleged to be void on its face B. holding that statute of limitations is tolled by pursuit of internal union remedies even where those remedies are ultimately determined to be futile C. holding that a plaintiff may not avoid exhausting the administrative remedies by requesting money damages D. holding that irreparable harm is presumed where discharged employee has exhausted her administrative remedies and proceeds under a civil rights statute E. holding that a procedural default in exhausting administrative remedies bars relief in federal court

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a party may gain judicial review without exhausting its administrative remedies where pursuit of administrative remedies would be futile where strict compliance would cause irreparable harm and where the applicable statute is alleged to be void on its face
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 for any Liens in respect of any secured Indebtedness (as defined below) of the Company and its subsidiaries, each of the Company and its subsidiaries (a) has good and marketable title to its property that is owned real property, (b) has valid leases to its property that is leased real property and (iii) good and valid title to or a valid leasehold interest in all of its other property, other than negligible assets not material to the operations of the Company or any of its subsidiaries, in each case, except as would not, individually or in the aggregate, have a Material Adverse Effect. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and for the avoidance of doubt, the representations and warranties set out in this Section 3(u) shall not apply to aircraft equipment, the applicable provisions of which are set forth in Section 3(v) .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Party shall be responsible for its own fees and expenses incurred in connection with the negotiation, execution and effectuation of this Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby, including, but not limited to, any matters related to the 2019 Annual Meeting, except that the Company will reimburse BLR Partners for its reasonable documented expenses, including legal fees, incurred in connection with the negotiation and entry into this Agreement and other matters related to the 2019 Annual Meeting, in an amount not to exceed $50,000.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As a U.S. company employee, you will be eligible to enroll for all standard benefits according to the Company’s U.S. benefits plans beginning first of the month or first of the month following date of hire. Standard benefits include: vacation, sick leave, holidays, medical/dental/vision insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, 401(k) plan, and Section 125 cafeteria plan for those employees with full-time status (30 hours or more). For offers of employment less than 30 hours per week a benefits plan will be provided separately.

assistant: Benefits
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: If a Participant has a Termination of Employment, then that portion of the Participant’s Account Balance which is not vested as of his or her Termination of Employment shall become a Forfeiture as soon as administratively practicable after the earliest of (i) the date on which the balance of the Participant’s Accounts is distributed, (ii) the last day of the Plan Year in which the Participant incurs a one year Period of Severance, or (iii) the date of Termination of Employment; provided, however, if the Participant has no vested interest in any Accounts, such portion shall become a Forfeiture on the date of Termination of Employment.

assistant: Forfeitures
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: procedures in place to ensure the randomness of a trial court’s sua sponte shuffle, and so such a shuffle, while not prohibited, could raise a concern about tampering with the process. HOLCOMB, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which PRICE and JOHNSON, JJ., joined. I respectfully dissent. In my view, the majority interprets and applies the judicially created harmless error rule in a way that effectively repeals the legislatively granted right to a jury shuffle, a right belonging to both the State and the defendant. In so doing, the majority exceeds the authority the Legislature gave this Court to promulgate rules of appellate procedure. In addition, I am concerned about the Court’s recent treatment of statutory rights. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 72 S.W.3d 346 (Tex.Crim.App., 2002)(<HOLDING>); Ex parte Graves, 70 S.W.3d 103 Options: A. holding that there is both a statutory and a constitutional right to a jury trial under erisa because congress lacks constitutional authority to limit right to a jury B. holding that the constitutional right to a sixmember jury may be waived by a knowing and intelligent waiver C. holding that written jury waivers alone cannot validly waive a defendants right to a jury trial D. holding that a trial courts refusal to withdraw a jury waiver ordinarily does not implicate the federal constitutional right to a jury trial E. holding that denial of a defendants statutory right to a written jury waiver is harmless if the preprinted judgment form recites that the defendant waived a jury

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that denial of a defendants statutory right to a written jury waiver is harmless if the preprinted judgment form recites that the defendant waived a jury
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you agree that by uploading , publishing , or submitting any content to or through the servers for display in any publicly accessible area of the service , you hereby grant other users a non-exclusive , worldwide , royalty-free , sublicenseable and transferable license to photograph , capture an image of , film , and record a video of the content , and to use , reproduce , distribute , prepare derivative works of , display , and perform the resulting photograph , image , film , or video in any current or future media as provided in and subject to the restrictions and requirements of an applicable product policy or other policy .

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: Judicial admissions are limited in scope to factual matters otherwise requiring evidentiary proof, and are exclusive of legal theories and conclusions of law. Glick, 458 F.2d at 1291. The fact must have been unequivocally admitted and not be merely one interpretation of the statement that is purported to be a judicial admission. Jones v. Constantino, 429 Pa.Super. 73, 631 A.2d 1289, 1293-94 (1993) (finding no admission where “the evidence could be reasonably construed to admit of more than one meaning”); see also, Phila. Reinsurance Corp. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 2003 WL 1698892, 2003 U.S.App. LEXIS 6198 (3d Cir.2003) (“An unequivocal statement is one that is clear, unambiguous and expresses only one meaning.”); Glick, 458 F.2d at 1291; The Doyle, 105 F.2d 113, 117 (3d Cir.1939) (<HOLDING>). An admission is not conclusively binding when Options: A. holding that tribes did not waive their immunity by intervening in administrative proceedings because any waiver must be unequivocal and may not be implied B. holding that admissions to be binding must be unequivocal and anyway they may be disregarded in the interests of justice C. holding that the waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal D. holding that fraud on the court must be supported by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence E. holding that only deliberate clear and unequivocal statements can constitute conclusive judicial admissions

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that admissions to be binding must be unequivocal and anyway they may be disregarded in the interests of justice
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946)); Kennedy v. Lockyer, 379 F.3d 1041, 1054 (9th Cir.2004) (noting Brecht applies to post-AEDPA cases). When there is “‘a reasonable possibility that the extrinsic material could have affected the verdict,’ ” a defendant is entitled to a new trial. United States v. Prime, 431 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir.2005) (citations omitted). The district court correctly concluded that Davis was not entitled to federal habeas relief on this claim. The sound Mrs. Mecchi made was cumulative of the testimony Davis’s attorney elicited from Mr. Mecchi at trial, as he had imitated Mrs. Mecchi making the same noise. See United States v. Prime, 431 F.3d 1147, 1157-58 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Hughes v. Borg, 898 F.2d 695, 700-01 (9th Options: A. holding that juror access to several exhibits that had not been admitted into evidence was not prejudicial as they were cumulative of trial testimony B. holding the exclusion of cumulative evidence was not prejudicial error C. holding improperly admitted evidence may be harmless if cumulative D. holding improperly admitted testimony was cumulative to the other properly admitted evidence and was therefore harmless E. holding exhibits deemed admitted into evidence where they were treated below without objection as if they were admitted

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that juror access to several exhibits that had not been admitted into evidence was not prejudicial as they were cumulative of trial testimony
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: 127 Idaho 685, 687, 905 P.2d 86 (1995) (applying Strickland standard to petitioner’s claim that counsel’s failure to file petition for discretionary review with state Supreme Court constituted ineffective assistance of appellate counsel). At a hearing before the habeas court, the petitioner testified that after this court had affirmed his conviction, he telephoned his attorney and asked her to file a petition for certification with our Supreme Court. Appellate counsel did not file the petition. Relying on Sekou v. Warden, 216 Conn. 678, 690, 583 A.2d 1277 (1990), the habeas court determined that an appellate attorney’s failure to seek discretionary review of an unmeritorious claim would not constitute conduct falling below the level of reasonably competent representation. See id. (<HOLDING>); see also Williams v. Manson, 195 Conn. 561, Options: A. holding that a party may not raise a claim on appeal that was not presented to the trial court B. holding that petitioner did not procedurally default his ineffective assistance of counsel claim by failing to raise it on direct appeal C. holding that appellate counsel is not required to raise meritless issues on appeal D. holding that appellate counsels failure to raise unmeritorious claim on direct appeal was not considered conduct failing below level of reasonably competent representation E. holding claim of alleged brady violation waived on collateral appeal for failure to raise it at trial or on direct appeal

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that appellate counsels failure to raise unmeritorious claim on direct appeal was not considered conduct failing below level of reasonably competent representation
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 Subscriber acknowledges that the Corporation and its counsel are relying upon the representations, warranties, acknowledgements and covenants of the Subscriber set forth herein (including the schedules attached hereto) in determining the eligibility (from a securities law perspective) of the Subscriber (or, if applicable, the eligibility of another on whose behalf the Subscriber is contracting hereunder to subscribe for Common Shares) to purchase Common Shares under the Offering, and hereby agrees to indemnify the Corporation and its directors, officers, employees, advisers, affiliates, shareholders, representatives and agents (including their respective legal counsel) against all losses, claims, costs, expenses, damages or liabilities that they may suffer or incur as a result of or in connection with a breach by the Subscriber of any such representations, warranties, acknowledgements and covenants. The Subscriber undertakes to immediately notify the Corporation of any change in any statement or other information relating to the Subscriber set forth herein that occurs prior to the Closing Time. To the extent that any person entitled to be indemnified hereunder is not a party to this Subscription Agreement, the Corporation shall obtain and hold the rights and benefits of this Subscription Agreement in trust for, and on behalf of, such person, and such person shall be entitled to enforce the provisions of this section notwithstanding that such person is not a party to this Subscription Agreement.

assistant: Indemnity
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: Parts. I There is no question that the trial judge mistakenly prevented the defense from peremptorily back-striking a juror whom it identified to the trial judge. The law has been quite clear for some time that the trial judge has no discretion to restrict a defendant’s exercise of a peremptory challenge by back-striking. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 795 B(l); State v. Watts, 579 So.2d 931 (La.1991), and State v.Taylor, 93-2201, p. 22 (La.2/28/96), 669 So.2d 364, 376 (“In other words, peremptory challenges are exercisable at any time before the jury panel is sworn.”) |;>The Louisiana Supreme Court requires us to review the trial judge’s violation of the defendant’s right to peremptorily back-strike a juror under the so-called “harmless error” rule. See Taylor, 93-2201, p. 26, 669 So.2d at 378 (<HOLDING>) Despite my disagreement that this kind of Options: A. holding the failure to proffer rendered the allocution error harmless B. holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error C. holding that in order to conclude that federal constitutional error is harmless court must find that error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt D. holding exclusion was harmless error E. holding we find that the verdict rendered was surely unattributable to any error that occurred in not allowing back striking and so qualifies as harmless

assistant: The best answer is E. holding we find that the verdict rendered was surely unattributable to any error that occurred in not allowing back striking and so qualifies as harmless
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 439 U.S. 280 99 S.Ct. 712 58 L.Ed.2d 519 Commonwealth of MASSACHUSETTS, petitioner,v.Charles F. WHITE No. 77-1388 Supreme Court of the United States December 11, 1978 Rehearing Denied Jan. 22, 1979. See 439 U.S. 1136, 99 S.Ct. 1061. On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Dec. 11, 1978. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court. 2 Mr. Justice POWELL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: for failing to provide a patient with proper instructions. In all of these scenarios, a court might hold a doctor liable for actions which involve speech and, given such state action, presumably infringe the doctor’s First Amendment rights. With this in mind, we proceed to evaluate the Act’s constitutionality. C. We find that the Act is a valid regulation of professional conduct that has only an incidental effect on physicians’ speech. As such, the Act does not facially violate the First Amendment. To define the standards of good medical practice and provide for administrative enforcement of those standards is well within the State’s long-established authority to regulate the professions. See generally Barsky v. Bd. of Regents, 347 U.S. 442, 449, 74 S.Ct. 650, 654, 98 L.Ed. 829 (1954) (<HOLDING>); Semler v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Exam’rs, Options: A. holding that states were permitted to regulate intrastate airfares B. holding 902 authorized department of health to regulate hospitals managerial practices C. holding that states may regulate all professions concerned with health D. recognizing that the states have a cognizableinterest in whether congress may direct or otherwise motivate the states to regulate in a particular field or a particular way E. recognizing that it serves no discernible public purpose to draw distinctions between clinical social work and other mental health professions with regard to the need for confidentiality

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that states may regulate all professions concerned with health
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in counterparts (and by different parties hereto on different counterparts), each of which shall constitute an original, but all of which when taken together shall constitute a single contract. Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page of this Agreement by facsimile or other electronic imaging shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: However, we find it difficult to draw that inference here. The key to our view of the facts is that the police knew all along that they were surveilling Ms. Lewis’ apartment. Hawes testified that he had been advised that Ms. Lewis resided there, and the officers had no reason to assume that she was not there on the day they arrested Colbert. In fact, it is altogether incredible that an officer would be surprised by the fact that a resident of a home would come out of his or her house upon seeing a large group of undercover police officers arresting an individual who just left that resident’s apartment. In addition, there is no indication that Ms. Lewis herself posed any kind of a threat to the officers, indeed she wasn’t searched or taken into custody at all. See United S 6th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, this justification threatens to Options: A. holding that in a situation where the police have probable cause to arrest one party and reasonably mistake a second party for that first party the arrest of the second party is still a valid arrest B. holding that the officers awareness that the defendant could be dangerous and that he had a previous weapons conviction was not enough to justify the sweep because once the defendant was in custody he no longer posed a threat to the police C. holding that search of appellants suitcase found on the floor next to the couch on which he was sleeping was an unconstitutional search of his person and was not authorized by a search of the residence D. holding unconstitutional a sweep of the second floor of a house after arrest occurred on first floor where officers could point to no specific basis for believing anyone posed a threat from the second floor E. holding that the protective sweep incident to the defendants arrest in front of his house on suspicion of murder was not justified because the evidence that an accomplice was involved in the murder did not equate to evidence that someone would be hiding out in the defendants house a month after the crime occurred and at the time of the arrest the officers were not chasing the defendant from a crime scene

assistant: The best answer is D. holding unconstitutional a sweep of the second floor of a house after arrest occurred on first floor where officers could point to no specific basis for believing anyone posed a threat from the second floor
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each party shall take such acts, and execute and deliver to any other party such additional documents or instruments as may be reasonably requested in order to effect the purposes of this 2016-1 Servicing Supplement and the 2016-1 Servicing Agreement and to better assure and confirm unto the requesting party its rights, powers and remedies hereunder.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: marks omitted); see, e.g., Lindahl v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 470 U.S. 768, 779-80 n. 13, 105 S.Ct. 1620, 84 L.Ed.2d 674 (1985) (recog nizing that 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b) precludes all review of the Secretary of Labor’s compensation decision under the Federal Employee Compensation Act); Collins v. United States, 67 F.3d 284, 287-88 (Fed.Cir.1995) (finding that the plain language of the Military Claims Act, which states that “the settlement of a claim under [the Act] is final and conclusive,” provides clear and convincing evidence of legislative intent to preclude judicial review). Further, reviewability is not an all or nothing question: Congress may allow review of some issues underlying a decision, but prohibit review of others. See, e.g., Lindahl, 470 U.S. at 779-80, 105 S.Ct. 1620 (<HOLDING>); Harris v. Shinseki, 704 F.3d 946, 948 Options: A. holding that appellate review of an administrative agencys factual determinations is circumscribed B. holding 5 usc 8347c bars review of agencys factual determinations but not questions of law and procedure C. holding that questions of procedure are for the arbitrator not the courts D. holding that an ineffective grievance procedure bars employers defense based on that procedure E. holding that we review agency determinations of law de novo

assistant: The best answer is B. holding 5 usc 8347c bars review of agencys factual determinations but not questions of law and procedure
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) Except to the extent that this Agreement or a court order expressly provides for payments to be allocated to a particular Lender or to the Lenders, if any Lender (a “ Benefitted Lender ”) shall receive any payment of all or part of the Obligations owing to it (other than in connection with an assignment made pursuant to Section 10.6), or receive any collateral in respect thereof (whether voluntarily or involuntarily, by set-off, pursuant to events or proceedings of the nature referred to in Section 8(f), or otherwise), in a greater proportion than any such payment to or collateral received by any other Lender, if any, in respect of the Obligations owing to such other Lender, such Benefitted Lender shall purchase for cash from the other Lenders a participating interest in such portion of the Obligations owing to each such other Lender, or shall provide such other Lenders with the benefits of any such collateral, as shall be necessary to cause such Benefitted Lender to share the excess payment or benefits of such collateral ratably with each of the Lenders; provided , however , that if all or any portion of such excess payment or benefits is thereafter recovered from such Benefitted Lender, such purchase shall be rescinded, and the purchase price and benefits returned, to the extent of such recovery, but without interest.

assistant: Adjustments
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: ranged from 6 to 9.2 ounces.” WP Art. at 3 (internal quotation marks omitted). 18 . Bassolino faces an additional hurdle in reaching even this contingency, as he claims to have purchased a product — chicken fingers. — -that is identified in neither the Press Release (which refers only to chicken tenders), DCA Rpt. at 2, nor the Moll Affidavit (which refers to chicken legs, chicken thighs, rotisserie chicken halves, split chicken breasts, and wing buckets), Moll Aff., Ex. A, as a product tested by the DCA. Plaintiffs' counsel conceded at argument that chicken fingers and tenders are "different form[s] of producéis]” that are "marketed differently.” Tr. 19-20; cf. White City Shopping Ctr., LP v. PR Restaurants LLC, 21 Mass.L.Rptr. 565, 2006 WL 3292641 (Mass.Super.Ct. Oct. 31, 2006) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs’ argument that it can be inferred Options: A. holding that arguments that are not raised or that are not accompanied by factual and legal support are deemed waived B. holding that tacos burritos and quesadillas are not sandwiches C. holding that when regulations are intended to have different purposes and are not dependent on each other they are not intertwined D. holding that arguments which are not sufficiently developed are waived E. holding that ijssues that are raised only in the argument part of the brief and are not contained in the point relied on are not preserved for review

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that tacos burritos and quesadillas are not sandwiches
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: Anacleto Pacheco-Medina filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court, seeking relief from his Oregon state court conviction for delivery of a controlled substance. The district court denied relief because Pacheco-Medina was not in custody at the time he filed his petition, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The facts are known to the parties and will not be repeated herein except as necessary. I Pacheco-Medina’s suspended sentence completely expired in January 2000, and he filed his habeas petition in federal district court in November 2001. Accordingly, Pacheco-Medina was not in custody under the conviction and sentence he now seeks to attack. See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91, 109 S.Ct. 1923, 104 L.Ed.2d 540 (1989) (<HOLDING>). The fact he is now subject to an INS Options: A. recognizing that federal habeas statutes require petitioner to be in custody when petition filed B. holding that once the sentence imposed for a conviction has completely expired the collateral consequences of that conviction are not themselves sufficient to render an individual in custody for the purposes of a habeas attack upon it C. holding that a habeas petitioner must be in custody under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed D. holding that petitioner could not collaterally attack his state court conviction on a petition for review of an agency decision E. holding that a california habeas petition is timely if filed within a reasonable time

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a habeas petitioner must be in custody under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed
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: his trial on unrelated bank robbery charges. The Supreme Court disagreed and declined to extend “the collateral estoppel component of the Double Jeopardy Clause to exclude in all circumstances ... relevant and probative evidence that is otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence simply because it relates to alleged criminal conduct for which a defendant has been acquitted." Dowling, 493 U.S. at 348, 110 S.Ct. at 672. Based on the Court's holding in Dowling, we conclude that Gornto no longer constitutes good law to the extent it holds that the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars the government from introducing the underlying evidence of acquitted substantive counts in the retrial of the mistried conspiracy count. See United States v. Machado, 804 F.2d 1537, 1543 (11th Cir.1986) Options: A. holding that in the absence of an intervening supreme court decision only the en banc court may overrule a decision by a threejudge panel B. holding that one panel of this court is bound by the precedent of an earlier panel absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision of the supreme court C. recognizing that a later en banc court may overrule an earlier en banc opinion D. holding that only intervening law from the supreme court or this court sitting en banc can overrule a prior panel decision E. holding that we are bound by prior panel opinions until they are overruled or abrogated by the supreme court or this court sitting en banc

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that only intervening law from the supreme court or this court sitting en banc can overrule a prior panel decision
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Whenever notice is required to be given under this Note, unless otherwise provided herein, such notice shall be given in accordance with Section 9(a) of the Convertible Note. The Company shall provide the Holder with prompt written notice of all actions taken pursuant to this Note, including in reasonable detail a description of such action and the reason therefore.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No amendment to or waiver of any provision of this Security Agreement, nor consent to any departure by any Grantor from its obligations under this Security Agreement, shall in any event be effective unless the same shall be in writing and signed by the Administrative Agent (on behalf of the Lenders or the Majority Lenders, as the case may be, pursuant to Section 9.1 of the Credit Agreement) and such Grantor and then such waiver or consent shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose for which given.

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: however, does not limit the Trustee’s rights to curing default. For example in United Bank of Ariz. v. Sun Mesa Corp., 119 F.R.D. 430, 431 (D.Ariz.1988), another Division of this Court held that the Trustee lacked standing to bring securities fraud claims on behalf of bondholders because the indenture at issue limited the trustee to curing default. In so holding, the court noted that “[s]tanding was absent because the relevant agreements only provided the Bank with standing to cure default on the underlying loan. Since the fraud claims could have been asserted regardless of breach, the claims were not a remedy for default.” Id. Other cases, relied on by Defendants, apply the same approach. See e.g., Regions Bank v. Blount Parrish & Co., 2001 WL 726989, at *5 (N.D.Ill. June 27, 2001) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). The Indenture of Trust in Options: A. holding that the plain language of the act appears to permit private actions by corporations both in permitting any persondefined to include corporations to bring an action and in its broad definition of the unlawful acts and practices including any unfair or deceptive act in the conduct of any trade or commerce within new hampshire B. holding that though pjlaintiff was given the power under the ijndenture to pursue any available remedy that language refers only to actions designed to collect the principal of premium if any or interest on the bonds or to enforce the performance of any provision of the bonds or the indenture C. holding that any property in which the taxpayer has any right title or interest is subject to foreclosure proceeding including property in which others claim an interest so long as all persons having liens or claiming any interest in the property are joined as parties to the suit D. holding that rule 10b5 does not impose any duty on an indenture trustee which is not in the indenture itself E. holding that an officer or employee of the tennessee valley authority was not an officer or employee acting under the authority of the united states or any department or any officer of the government thereof within the meaning of a criminal statute first enacted in 1884

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that though pjlaintiff was given the power under the ijndenture to pursue any available remedy that language refers only to actions designed to collect the principal of premium if any or interest on the bonds or to enforce the performance of any provision of the bonds or the indenture
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 350 U.S. 77 76 S.Ct. 131 100 L.Ed. 60 W. W. NEESE, Administrator of the Estate of William Neese, Deceased, Petitioner,v.SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY. No. 28. Argued Nov. 7, 1955. Decided Nov. 21, 1955. Mr. Henry Hammer, Columbia, S.C., for petitioner. Mr. Sidney S. Alderman, Washington, D.C., for respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 216 F.2d 772, without reaching the constitutional challenge to that court's jurisdiction to review the denial by the trial court of a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was excessive. Even assuming such appellate power to exist under the Seventh Amendment, we find that the Court of Appeals was not justified, on this record, in regarding the denial of a new trial, upon a remittitur of part of the verdict, as an abuse of discretion. For apart from that question, as we view the evidence we think that the action of the trial court was not without support in the record, and accordingly that its action should not have been disturbed by the Court of Appeals. 2 We need not consider respondent's contention that only the jurisdictional question was presented by the petition for certiorari, for in reversing on the above ground we follow the traditional practice of this Court of refusing to decide constitutional questions when the record discloses other grounds of decision, whether or not they have been properly raised before us by the parties. See Peters v. Hobby, 349 U.S. 331, 338, 75 S.Ct. 790, 793; Alma Motor Co. v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., 329 U.S. 129, 132, 136, 142, 67 S.Ct. 231, 232, 233, 236, 91 L.Ed. 128. 3 Reversed.

assistant: 8
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 Consent of any Governmental Entity is required on the part of the Purchaser in connection with (a) the execution, delivery or performance of the Transaction Agreements to which it is a party and the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby and thereby, (b) the issuance of the Shares and Warrants in accordance with this Agreement, (c) the issuance of the Class A Common Stock upon conversion of the Shares in accordance with the Certificate of Designations and (d) the issuance of the Class A Common Stock upon exercise of the Warrants in accordance with the Warrant Agreement, other than (i) the expiration or termination of any applicable waiting periods under the Antitrust Laws with respect to the performance under the Transaction Agreements, or consummation of transactions, in each case occurring after the Closing, (ii) those to be obtained, in connection with the registration of the Conversion Shares and Warrant Shares under the Securities Act and any related filings and approvals under applicable state securities Laws, (iii) such filings and approvals as may be required by any federal or state securities Laws, including compliance with any applicable requirements of the Exchange Act, and (iv) such Consents the failure of which to make or obtain would not, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to have a Purchaser Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Loan Party will, and will cause each Subsidiary to, maintain, with financially sound and reputable insurance companies, (a) insurance in such amounts and against such risks as are customarily maintained by similarly situated companies engaged in the same or similar businesses operating in the same or similar locations (after giving effect to any self-insurance reasonable and customary for similarly situated companies) and (b) all insurance required pursuant to the Collateral Documents (and shall cause the Agent to be listed as a loss payee on property and casualty policies covering loss or damage to Collateral and as an additional insured on liability policies, subject, in each case, to any exceptions for insurance required to be maintained under leases). The Borrower will furnish to the Agent, upon request, information in reasonable detail as to the insurance so maintained.

assistant: Insurances