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: There is no action, suit, arbitration, proceeding, inquiry or investigation before or by the Principal Market, any court, public board, other Governmental Entity, self-regulatory organization or body pending or, to the knowledge of the Company, threatened against or affecting the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, the Common Stock or any of the Company’s or its Subsidiaries’ officers or directors that would reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect on the Company or its Subsidiaries, whether of a civil or criminal nature or otherwise, in their capacities as such, except as disclosed in the SEC Documents or in Schedule 3(t) of the August Securities Purchase Agreement. No director, officer or employee of the Company or any of its subsidiaries has willfully violated 18 U.S.C. §1519 or engaged in spoliation in reasonable anticipation of litigation. Without limitation of the foregoing, there has not been, and to the knowledge of the Company, there is not pending or contemplated, any investigation by the SEC involving the Company, any of its Subsidiaries or any current or former director or officer of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries. The SEC has not issued any stop order or other order suspending the effectiveness of any registration statement filed by the Company under the 1933 Act or the 1934 Act. Neither the Company nor any of its Subsidiaries is subject to any order, writ, judgment, injunction, decree, determination or award of any Governmental Entity.

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: This Agreement, the Transaction Documents, and all documents and instruments referred to herein constitute the entire agreement and supersede all prior agreements and understandings, both written and oral, among the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and thereof.

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

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 397 U.S. 45 90 S.Ct. 816 25 L.Ed.2d 43 UNITED STATESv.Donald Joseph COTTON et al. No. 1022. Supreme Court of the United States February 24, 1970 Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Wilson, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Mervyn Hamburg, for the United States. William M. Kunstler, for appellees. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion of the appellees for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for failure to docket the case within the time prescribed by Rule 13. 2 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting. 3 The requirement for filing the record in an appeal within the time prescribed by Rule 13 is not jurisdictional. Rather it is a provision of our own Rule which we often waive in the interests of justice. We should waive it here. The appeal now dismissed was solely protective under 18 U.S.C. § 3731. The main remedy sought was mandamus in the Court of Appeals, and the record naturally went to that court, not here. The issue tendered by the appeal now dismissed is whether the District Court properly dismissed the indictment, because there could be no 'fair trial' in the district at that time and that if a continuance was granted, appellees would be denied a speedy trial guaranteed by the Constitution. 4 That is an important question we should hear and decide.

assistant: 9
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: conflicts go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. See Valdez, 776 S.W.2d at 168; Cantu, 738 S.W.2d at 255. 13 . See Cantu v. State, 738 S.W.2d 249, 255 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (en banc) (trial court properly refused to permit in-court demonstration to simulate lighting in room where murder occurred when differences between actual room and courtroom would affect crucial element of illumination); Fort Worth & Denver Ry. Co. v. Williams, 375 S.W.2d 279, 281-82 (Tex.1964) (finding reversible error in demonstration of filmed experiment to show light beam cast by locomotive, when position of lights, distances, and other matters was unclear and there was no evidence of candlepower of light); Ginther v. State, 706 S.W.2d 115, 119 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, pet. ref’d) (<HOLDING>); Ford Motor Co. v. Nowak, 638 S.W.2d 582, 590 Options: A. holding admission of filmed experiment of test vehicle to show design defect was error when plaintiff failed to show test vehicle had same characteristics as plaintiffs car B. holding that the state failed to meet its burden when the record failed to show that the jurors would or would not be available after a weeks continuance C. holding that duress evidence was properly excluded where defendant failed to proffer evidence on each element of the defense D. holding that the hospital failed to show how it was harmed by failure to verify the rule to show cause E. holding trial court properly excluded video reenactment of arrest to show evidence would have blown out of vehicle when it failed to show position of vehicles window and thus did not address crucial element of air disturbances

assistant: The best answer is E. holding trial court properly excluded video reenactment of arrest to show evidence would have blown out of vehicle when it failed to show position of vehicles window and thus did not address crucial element of air disturbances
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same instrument. Signatures delivered by facsimile or PDF shall be effective for all purposes.

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: the judgment and sentence ‘set[s] forth the statutory maximum and clearly indicated] that the term of community [custody] does not extend the total sentence beyond that maximum.’ ” Id. at 566 (emphasis added) (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Hibdon, 140 Wn. App. 534, 538, 166 P.3d 826 (2007)). While the court did not address Zavala-Reynoso, it did rely in part on Sloan to conclude that a remand to the trial court for clarification was the proper remedy. Torngren, 147 Wn. App. at 566. Although the Torngren court found that an amended sentence was the appropriate remedy in that case, Division Three has also indicated that either an amended sentence or a vacation and remand for resentencing are equally appropriate remedies in these circumstances. Hibdon, 140 Wn. App. at 538 (<HOLDING>). Does the sentence exceed the statutory Options: A. holding that a remand need not be ordered despite legal errors if remand would be futile B. holding remand order reviewable because crowded docket not ground for remand under 1447c C. holding that in addition to a remand for clarification another option in these circumstances is to remand for resentencing D. holding that on direct appeal appellate court may remand for resentencing of all counts E. holding that the fourth circuit has jurisdiction to review a district courts sua sponte remand order even when that remand order is styled as a remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if the order was in fact based on the procedural insufficiency of the notice of removal

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that in addition to a remand for clarification another option in these circumstances is to remand for resentencing
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 arbitration will be administered by aaa in accordance with the consumer arbitration rules ( the `` aaa rules `` ) then in effect , except as modified here .

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: actions, or instructions are not at issue. The case depends on whether students, supposedly under Plaintiffs supervision, repeatedly and grossly flaunted Ohio University’s ethical standards. Defendants punished Plaintiff for his failure to act. As credibility was not at issue, cross-examination would be a fruitless exercise. Thus, due process does not entitle Plaintiff to cross-examination in this context. Third, Plaintiff demanded an impartial moderator. Until proven otherwise, the Court “must start with the assumption that government employees tasked with performing an adjudicatory or quasi-adjudicatory function will do so fairly and impartially.” Rosen v. Goetz, 410 F.3d 919, 930 (6th Cir.2005) (citing Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188, 196-97, 102 S.Ct. 1665, 72 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982) (<HOLDING>)). Plaintiff has not offered any evidence to Options: A. recognizing presumption B. recognizing this presumption C. recognizing added presumption D. holding that courts must start from the presumption that hearing officers are unbiased E. holding that the credibility determinations of hearing officers are afforded special deference

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that courts must start from the presumption that hearing officers are unbiased
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: states in which we have made zero or very few sales. In addition, there are many local jurisdictions in which we have never made a sale.”). Preliminary injunction hearings are ill-suited for such fine tailoring. More fundamentally, we are not convinced by the government’s premise: that Gordon may challenge the PACT Act only “as applied” against his sales into jurisdictions with which he lacks minimum contacts. The government points out that a court may find a statute to be invalid on its face only if a plaintiff has shown that the Act has no “plainly legitimate sweep.” Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Repub. Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449, 128 S.Ct. 1184, 170 L.Ed.2d 151 (2008) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987) (<HOLDING>). The government argues that any facial Options: A. holding that a jury verdict will be sustained on any reasonable theory based on the evidence B. holding that facial challenges will be sustained only if no set of circumstances exist under which the act would be valid C. holding that courts should exercise judicial restraint and decide asapplied challenges before facial challenges D. holding that on appeal a summary judgment ruling will be upheld if it can be sustained on any grounds even if the trial court gave an incorrect reason for its ruling E. holding that equitable tolling under 2255 would be allowed if at all only for extraordinary circumstances

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that facial challenges will be sustained only if no set of circumstances exist under which the act would be valid
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: an interpreter when, other than having some syntactical errors, his testimony was “very responsive” and “indicative of [his] ability to speak and understand English.”). Additionally, and as noted by the trial court in its denial of Nur’s motion for a new trial, neither Nur nor his attorney ever requested an interpreter; Nur communicated with the court in English, both orally and in writing; and the evidence at trial showed that Nur communicated with native English speakers in English when orchestrating the crime. Thus, based on the record, we cannot say that the court had notice that Nur had a significant language difficulty. As such, the court’s failure to appoint an interpreter on its own motion was not fundamental error. See, e.g., Martinez v. State, 451 N.E.2d 39, 41 (Ind.1983) (<HOLDING>). We therefore affirm the trial court’s denial Options: A. holding that the trial court was under no obligation to appoint an interpreter where defendant did not request one and spoke english reasonably well B. holding that it was not error for a trial court to have failed to provide sua sponte a competent interpreter where counsel did not request one prior to trial and defendant spoke and understood english well enough to conversantly discuss the crime with a police officer and had no trouble answering questions at the sentencing hearing C. holding that trial court need not appoint an interpreter where counsel indicated that he could communicate with defendant and that defendant could understand questions and answers D. holding that once counsel was appointed defendant spoke to the court through counsel and thus the court was not required to respond to defendants request for a speedy trial E. holding that where alien was in custody spoke only spanish had limited education and was unfamiliar with this country and its legal procedures in light of his failure to obtain counsel despite his efforts the immigration judge sua sponte if necessary should have continued the hearing so as to provide the petitioner a reasonable time to locate counsel and permit counsel to prepare for the hearing

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that it was not error for a trial court to have failed to provide sua sponte a competent interpreter where counsel did not request one prior to trial and defendant spoke and understood english well enough to conversantly discuss the crime with a police officer and had no trouble answering questions at the sentencing hearing
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to reinstate the license or permit to drive.” Section 577.04.1.5. The director, thus, has the burden of proof at the hearing. Rain v. Director of Revenue, 46 S.W.3d 584, 587 (Mo.App.2001). Hinnah, 77 S.W.3d at 619-20 (italics in original) (footnote omitted). The Director is correct in his assertion that the trial court erroneously declared and applied the law. In its judgment, the court stated: “Upon the evidence offered, adjudged and adduced the Court finds the expressed reason for the [tjrooper’s stop of [Jones’s] motor vehicle to be insufficient and the [o]fficer lacked reasonable suspicion therefor.” The trial court’s reliance on whether Trooper Creasey had a reasonable suspicion for the initial stop is misplaced. See Riche v. Dir. of Revenue, 987 S.W.2d 331, 336 (Mo. banc 1999) (<HOLDING>); Brown v. Dir. of Revenue, 85 S.W.3d 1, 4 n. 4 Options: A. holding that exclusionary rule does apply to civil forfeiture proceedings B. holding that the probable cause requirement for the initial stop and the exclusionary rule do not apply in section 302505 proceedings C. holding that the exclusionary rule does not apply to proceedings other than criminal trials D. holding that the exclusionary rule generally does not apply to immigration proceedings E. holding that exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture proceedings

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the probable cause requirement for the initial stop and the exclusionary rule do not apply in section 302505 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any amendment, supplement or modification of or to any provision of this Agreement, any waiver of any provision of this Agreement, and any consent to any departure by the Company or the Preferred Holders from the terms of any provision of this Agreement, shall be effective (i) only if it is made or given in writing and signed by the Company and the Preferred Holders, and (ii) only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose for which made or 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any action at law, suit in equity or judicial proceeding arising directly, indirectly, or otherwise in connection with, out of, related to or from this Agreement, or any provision hereof, that is not required to be submitted to arbitration pursuant to section 7(a) shall be litigated only in the courts of the State of North Carolina. Executive and the Company consent to the jurisdiction of such courts over the subject matter set forth in Section 7(c) . Executive waives any right Executive may have to transfer or change the venue of any litigation brought against Executive by the Company.

assistant: Venues
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 Option Terms shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the Company and its successors and assigns, and upon any person acquiring, whether by merger, consolidation, purchase of assets or otherwise, all or substantially all of the Company’s assets and business. If any rights exercisable by the Participant or benefits deliverable to the Participant under these Option Terms have not been exercised or delivered, respectively, at the time of the Participant’s death, such rights shall be exercisable by the Designated Beneficiary, and such benefits shall be delivered to the Designated Beneficiary, in accordance with the provisions of these Option Terms and the Plan. The "Designated Beneficiary" shall be the beneficiary or beneficiaries designated by the Participant in a writing filed with the Committee in such form and at such time as the Committee shall require. If a deceased Participant fails to designate a beneficiary, or if the Designated Beneficiary does not survive the Participant, any rights that would have been exercisable by the Participant and any benefits distributable to the Participant shall be exercised by or distributed to the legal representative of the estate of the Participant. If a deceased Participant designates a beneficiary and the Designated Beneficiary survives the Participant but dies before the Designated Beneficiary’s exercise of all rights under these Option Terms or before the complete distribution of benefits to the Designated Beneficiary under these Option Terms, then any rights that would have been exercisable by the Designated Beneficiary shall be exercised by the legal representative of the estate of the Designated Beneficiary, and any benefits distributable to the Designated Beneficiary shall be distributed to the legal representative of the estate of the Designated Beneficiary.

assistant: Successors
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: 305, 309, 102 S.Ct. 1798, 1801, 72 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982). 7 . It appears that these extensions were motivated in part by the EPA's indecision as to how to deal with the problem of storm-water outlets. We do not know what has transpired on this issue since the beginning of the year. 8 . We surmise that the storm water collected in the drainage ditch is being diverted into the collection pool. 9 . A crucial distinction would seem to be that plaintiff in this case seeks penalties for past violations, while the Government has elected to forego past penalties in its action. There is a substantial question in our mind as to whether HudFish is entitled to past penalties in light of Gwaltney. But see Public Interest Research Group of N.J., Inc. v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 684 F.Supp. 115 (D.N.J.1988) (<HOLDING>). We may have cause to revisit this issue at Options: A. holding that regulatory requirements are not jurisdictional in nature B. holding gwaltney limited to jurisdictional question and does not prohibit recovery of past penalties in citizen suit if jurisdictional requirements met C. holding service requirements under fedrcivp 4 to be jurisdictional D. holding that notice requirements of 4206a are jurisdictional E. holding immunity from liability is not jurisdictional

assistant: The best answer is B. holding gwaltney limited to jurisdictional question and does not prohibit recovery of past penalties in citizen suit if jurisdictional requirements met
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 expressly reaffirms that each of the representations and warranties set forth in the Purchase Agreement (as supplemented or qualified by the disclosures in any disclosure schedule thereto), continues to be true, accurate and complete in all material respects as of the date hereof, and the Company hereby remakes and incorporates herein by reference each such representation and warranty as though made on the date of this Agreement (unless as of a specific date therein), except as set forth in the Disclosure Schedules attached hereto.

assistant: Warranties
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 variety of prescription medications on 22-23 August 2006. As a result, “the probative value of’ evidence relating to the seizure of prescription medications at the time of Defendant’s 10 February 2005 arrest “depends upon [his] having in fact committed the prior alleged offense.” Scott, 331 N.C. at 41, 413 S.E.2d at 788. Finally, “[e]vidence of other crimes is admissible when it tends to establish a common plan or sche iscellaneous bottles and a collection of unidentified pills would not tend to show the existence of such a common scheme or plan. Thus, “the probative value of’ evidence relating to items seized as part of Defendant’s 10 February 2005 arrest “depends upon [his] having in fact committed the prior alleged offense.” Scott, 331 N.C. at 41, 413 S.E.2 S.E.2d 475, 477 (1994) (<HOLDING>). After careful consideration, we are unable to Options: A. holding improperly admitted evidence was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt B. holding that the erroneous admission in a misdemeanor larceny case of evidence elicited on crossexamination that the defendant had been detained in another store resulting in charges for which she was later acquitted was harmless given the overwhelming evidence against the defendant C. holding the error harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt D. holding that error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt E. holding that in a felonious breaking or entering and possession of housebreaking implements case the erroneous admission of evidence that the defendant had committed a similar breaking or entering on another occasion for which he was later acquitted constituted harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that in a felonious breaking or entering and possession of housebreaking implements case the erroneous admission of evidence that the defendant had committed a similar breaking or entering on another occasion for which he was later acquitted constituted harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt
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 any provision of this Agreement or its application to any Person or circumstances is held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, its other applications and the remaining provisions of this Agreement will be interpreted so as best reasonably to effect the intent of the parties.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: You and the COMPANY shall mutually agree to a date, time and place at which you shall return to the COMPANY the COMPANY property in your possession or control, including but not limited to, all paper records and documents, access cards and keys to any COMPANY facilities. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all parties acknowledge that there may be additional follow up work requested of you after the Termination Date which may require access to certain COMPANY Equipment and records, and that you shall be entitled to retain same for ready access and assistance to the COMPANY for a reasonable time period, whereafter the COMPANY may request return of same. For avoidance of doubt, it is acknowledged that you own your cell phone and the phone number associated with it, your laptop and associated monitors and docking station and such property is not subject to the requirement in this provision to return COMPANY property.

assistant: Records
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 on or following the Performance Vesting Date, Employee’s employment is terminated as a result of Employee’s Disability, Retirement or death, then the remainder of the Vested Shares, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, shall be immediately exercisable in full.

assistant: Disability
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: computer entry to determine that the plaintiff voluntarily quit instead of the administrative and judicial determinations of the State of Michigan that the plaintiff left work due to a work-related injury. GM’s argument that the plaintiff walked away from his job was rejected by the workers’ compensation appeal board. Common law doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata apply to final determinations by administrative agencies acting in judicial capacity, see Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104, 107-08, 111 S.Ct. 2166, 115 L.Ed.2d 96 (1991). The failure of the Pension Board to recognize the force of those decisions would be irrational in light of the plan’s provisions even if they were not binding. See Glenn v. MetLife, 461 F.3d 660, 669 (6th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Bennett v. Kemper Nat’l Servs., Inc., 514 Options: A. holding that evidence contrary to an administrators decision does not make the decision arbitrary and capricious so long as a reasonable basis appears for the decision B. holding that a failure of an erisa plan administrator to address the social security administrations determination that claimant is totally disabled is yet another factor that can render the denial of further longterm disability benefits arbitrary and capricious C. holding that the plan administrators failure to address the social security administrations finding of the claimants disability rendered the decision arbitrary and capricious D. holding that when applying an arbitrary and capricious standard of review the courts role is to determine whether the plan administrators decision was completely unreasonable E. holding that a reversal of the plan administrators decision is in order under the most deferential arbitrary and capricious standard when no reasonable grounds exist to support the decision

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the plan administrators failure to address the social security administrations finding of the claimants disability rendered the decision arbitrary and capricious
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 Holder has good and valid title to the Exchanged Balance in the aggregate principal amount set forth in the recitals to this Agreement, free and clear of any mortgage, lien, pledge, charge, security interest, encumbrance, title retention agreement, option, equity or other adverse claim thereto. The Holder has not, in whole or in part, (i) assigned, transferred, hypothecated, pledged or otherwise disposed of the Exchanged Balance or its rights in the Exchanged Balance, or (ii) given any person or entity any transfer order, power of attorney or other authority of any nature whatsoever with respect to the Exchanged Balance which would limit the Holder’s power to transfer the Exchanged Balance hereunder.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: dissolution failed to allege either that parties maintained a marital domicile in Florida or that former wife resided in Florida, service of process upon former wife under long-arm statute was void); Shefer v. Shefer, 440 So.2d 1319, 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)(finding that since it was undisputed that the parties never maintained a marital domicile in Florida, long-arm personal service over the wife was an impossibility under section 48.193(3)). Personal jurisdiction, however, is not required in order for the Florida court to adjudicate the petition to the extent that it seeks dissolution, see Arnstein v. Amstein, 422 So.2d 1052, 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), nor to the extent that it seeks custody of the parties’ minor children, see Warfield v. Warfield, 661 So.2d 924, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)(<HOLDING>), review denied, 669 So.2d 252 (Fla.1996), Options: A. holding that without personal jurisdiction over one parent a court could still decide custody of a child living in the state but could not determine support and visitation B. holding that personal jurisdiction is not required to make an outofstate parent a party to custody action where the state court has subject matter jurisdiction under the uniform child custody jurisdiction act C. holding that a trial courts decision on whether to exercise jurisdiction in a proceeding under the uniform child custody and jurisdiction enforcement act is reviewed for an abuse of discretion D. holding that unlike subject matter jurisdiction personal jurisdiction may be waived E. holding that when evidence did not prove dependency of child as alleged in complaint but revealed pure custody dispute juvenile court was without jurisdiction to determine custody of child

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that personal jurisdiction is not required to make an outofstate parent a party to custody action where the state court has subject matter jurisdiction under the uniform child custody jurisdiction act
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to which the benefits administrator must exercise discretion in the discharge of his duties is likewise a significant factor in determining a question of ERISA preemption because it is indicative of the complexity of the benefit program. See O’Connor, 251 F.3d at 267 (“The determination of what constitutes an ERISA plan thus turns most often on the degree of an employer’s discretion in administering the plan.”); Bogue, 976 F.2d at 1323 (ruling that a plan requiring “case-by-case, discretionary application” of the terms required an administrative scheme, and thus brought the benefits plan within the scope of ERISA even though the term of the employer’s obligation to pay was short and the number of participants was small); see also Rodowicz, 192 F.3d at 171; Belanger, 71 F.3d at 455 (<HOLDING>). As such, this factor relates to both the Options: A. holding benefit program that entailed a purely mechanical determination of eligibility and did not require any discretionary judgment on the part of the administrator was not an erisa plan B. holding that district courts order remanding an erisa benefits determination to a plan administrator was nonfinal and therefore not appealable after the remand to plan administrator plan participant still could appeal the district courts decision that erisa preempted her state law claim and if successful she would be able to pursue punitive damage C. holding that erisa does not preempt the plaintiffs claim that the erisa plan administrator is liable for medical malpractice where the plaintiff premised the claim solely on state law and did not invoke the erisa plan D. holding that a denial of benefits will not be reviewed de novo where the language of an erisa plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan E. holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant

assistant: The best answer is A. holding benefit program that entailed a purely mechanical determination of eligibility and did not require any discretionary judgment on the part of the administrator was not an erisa plan
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that the parties to the deal have used” so that a court may “recharacterize the leaseAeaseback transaction as a secured loan rather than an operating lease.” See Kathi W. Borkholder, Ground Leases-Lease/Leaseback Financing Alternatives to Mortgages, 13-FEB Prob. & Prop. 37, 41 (1999). In what appears to be the only reported opinion considering the question, Scottsdale Assocs., Inc. v. Seatrain Lines, Inc. (In re Seatrain Lines, Inc.), 20 B.R. 577, 582 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1982), the court recharacterized a leaseAeaseback arrangement as a form of mortgage. Recharac-terization is similarly required here; United has overcome the presumption that the terminology used by the parties accurately reflected the economic substance of their agreements. See In re PCH Assocs., 804 F.2d at 200 (<HOLDING>). Other arguments of the leaseback defendants. Options: A. recognizing presumption B. holding evidence insufficient to overcome presumption of correctness C. recognizing presumption and finding that it was overcome D. recognizing this presumption E. recognizing irrebuttable presumption as synonymous with conclusive presumption which is a presumption that cannot be overcome by any additional evidence or argument because it is accepted as irrefutable proof that establishes a fact beyond dispute

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing presumption and finding that it was overcome
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: in the event that you become aware of or reasonably suspect any breach of security , including without limitation any loss , theft , or unauthorized disclosure of your password , you will use our automated recovery process .

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: 677 A.2d 350 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996); City of Lancaster v. Lancaster County, 143 Pa.Cmwlth. 476, 599 A.2d 289 (1991). 33 . Although two appellee briefs were filed, one on behalf of the Pierce plaintiffs and one on behalf of the Clifton plaintiffs, we will present their arguments collectively. 34 . Although not directly addressing the contours of a facial challenge, we have addressed the differences between facial and as-applied challenges in a number of scenarios, often for procedural purposes. See, e.g., Phila. Entm’t & Dev. Partners v. City of Philadelphia, 594 Pa. 468, 937 A.2d 385, 392 n. 7 (2007) ("[A]s-applied challenges require applica tion of the ordinance to be ripe, facial challenges are different, and ripe upon mere enactment of the ordinance.”); Beattie, 907 A.2d at 527-29 (<HOLDING>); Lehman v. Pa. State Police, 576 Pa. 365, 839 Options: A. holding in the context of an asapplied challenge that when a defendant admits guilt of a substantive crime he cannot reverse course on appeal and claim the criminal statute is unconstitutional B. holding section 61132b2c facially unconstitutional C. recognizing that categorical constitutional challenge was fundamentally similar to asapplied constitutional challenge initially raised on appeal D. holding that court can exercise equity jurisdiction over taxpayers challenge that property assessment system is unconstitutional facially or asapplied E. holding that declaring statute facially unconstitutional deprives trial court of subjectmatter jurisdiction

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that court can exercise equity jurisdiction over taxpayers challenge that property assessment system is unconstitutional facially or asapplied
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices and other communications given or made pursuant hereto shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given or made if and when delivered personally or by overnight courier to the parties at the following addresses or sent by electronic transmission, with confirmation received, to the telecopy numbers specified below (or at such other address or telecopy number for a party as shall be specified by like notice) at the respective addresses set forth on the signature page below.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: this agreement ( including the privacy policy ) , as modified from time to time , constitutes the entire agreement between you , the site and 9gag , inc with respect to the subject matter hereof .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement, and all claims or causes of action (whether in contract or tort) based upon, arising out of, or related to this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby, shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the Laws of the State of New York, without giving effect to principles or rules of conflict of laws to the extent such principles or rules would require or permit the application of Laws of another jurisdiction.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Grant Notice may be executed in one or more counterparts, including by way of any electronic signature, subject to applicable l aw, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one instrument.

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: you acknowledge that no other written , oral or electronic communications will serve to modify or supplement this agreement , and you agree not to make any claims inconsistent with this understanding or in reliance on communications not part of this agreement .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and any documents and agreements executed in connection with the Exchange embody the entire agreement and understanding of the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersede all prior and contemporaneous oral or written agreements, representations, warranties, contracts, correspondence, conversations, memoranda and understandings between or among the parties or any of their agents, representatives or affiliates relative to such subject matter, including, without limitation, any term sheets, emails or draft documents.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: omitted). The next step of the qualified immunity inquiry is actually two steps. It asks whether the defendant violated a constitutional right and whether the “right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Townsend v. Jefferson Cnty., 601 F.3d 1152, 1157 (11th Cir.2010) (internal citations omitted). Lever and Holt are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage because a material factual dispute remains about whether Plaintiffs constitutional right to procedural due process was violated. Moreover—based on Hargray—if Plaintiffs allegations prove true, it should have been clear to Lever and Holt that their conduct was unlawful; thus, Plaintiffs constitutional right was clearly established. See Loftus v. Clark-Moore, 690 F.3d 1200, 1204 (11th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). As discussed above, Lever and Holt at least Options: A. holding that the question of whether a municipal official is a policymaking official is a matter of state law to be decided by the court B. holding that government officials receive qualified immunity unless their conduct violated a constitutional right and the law to this effect was clearly established under thenexisting law such that a reasonable official would have known that his behavior was unlawful C. holding that the relevant inquiry is not whether the court has discretion to facilitate notice but whether this is an appropriate case in which to exercise discretion D. holding that the relevant dispositive inquiry is whether it would be clear to a reasonable state official that his conduct was unlawful E. holding that the only relevant inquiry to determine whether a suspect was in custody is how a reasonable man in the suspects position would have understood his situation

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the relevant dispositive inquiry is whether it would be clear to a reasonable state official that his conduct was unlawful
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in merit and may not have been sufficient to require a hearing, see United States v. Moon, 718 F.2d 1210, 1229 (2 Cir. 1983), cert. denied,_U.S__, 104 S.Ct. 2344, 80 L.Ed.2d 818 (1984), the court made no determination to that effect. The SEC’s good faith cannot be deemed irrelevant as a matter of law to a determination whether its request for interlocutory equitable relief should be granted. Cf. United States v. Second National Bank, 502 F.2d 535, 548 (5 Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 912, 95 S.Ct. 1567, 43 L.Ed.2d 777 (1975). 6 . See also SEC v. Blatt, 583 F.2d 1325, 1344 (5th Cir.1978) ("the seriousness of permanent injunctions has triggered closer appellate scrutiny of SEC injunctions than was found in earlier decisions"); SEC v. Caterinicchia, 613 F.2d 102, 105 (5th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). 7 . The Treasury Department is authorized to Options: A. recognizing the importance of a determination on the merits with respect to the issuance of a permanent injunction B. recognizing that the issuance of a writ of mandamus is itself generally a matter of discretion C. holding that purpose of stop was complete upon the issuance of the citation D. holding that application of equitable principles in evaluating requests for permanent injunctions under the patent act should not differ from treatment of permanent injunctions in other fields of law E. recognizing the developing judicial attitude toward closer appellate scrutiny of the issuance of injunctions

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing the developing judicial attitude toward closer appellate scrutiny of the issuance of injunctions