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: This Amendment may be executed in counterpart, and any number of counterparts of this Amendment which have been executed by the Company and the Buyer shall constitute a single original. The Company’s attorney may integrate into one or more documents signature pages from documents executed in counterpart. Unless otherwise required by the Company, the telecopied or pdf signature of a person shall be deemed the original signature of that person and shall be binding 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 money they paid a non-attorney representative who misled them into believing that the “waiver” she promised to get them would preserve their right to appeal their case to the BIA. The BIA abused its discretion when it determined that the declaration was “vague” and faded to prove that petitioners had an agreement with the non-attorney representative against whom they have filed an ineffective assistance claim. See Lopez v. INS, 184 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir.1999) (listing Lozada requirements necessary to establish ineffective assistance). Not only did petitioners properly comply with Matter of Lozada, 19 I & N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), they also acted with due diligence upon discovering that their appeal had not been filed. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we conclude that petitioners have Options: A. holding that aedpas time limitation may be equitably tolled where extraordinary circumstances prevent petitioner from filing a timely petition and where petitioner acts with reasonable diligence B. recognizing equitable tolling of deadlines and numerical limits on motions to reopen or reconsider during periods when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception fraud or error as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence in discovering the deception fraud or error C. holding that equitable estoppel requires proof of fraud misrepresentation or affirmative deception D. holding that the act provides the exclusive procedures and remedies for common law causes of action based on allegations of deception fraud and misrepresentation E. holding that a petitioner must act with due diligence when pursuing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to benefit from equitable tolling of deadlines

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing equitable tolling of deadlines and numerical limits on motions to reopen or reconsider during periods when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception fraud or error as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence in discovering the deception fraud or error
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: forwarded a letter to the GCC’s Warden. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires an inmate to exhaust his administrative remedies before he may proceed with a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim in federal court. Wright v. Morris, 111 F.3d 414, 418 (6th Cir.1997). With the passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) on April 26, 1996, Congress expressly mandated exhaustion before bringing suit in federal court. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (1997); Garrett v. Hawk, 127 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir.1997). Prior to the enactment of the PLRA, however, a district court had discretion to require a prisoner to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing his claim in court. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (1994); Rocky v. Vittorie, 813 F.2d 734 (5th Cir.1987); See Wright v. Morris, 111 F.3d 414, 423 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs conditional complaint was, in Options: A. holding that person in 42 usc 1983 does not include states B. holding that the plra did not apply to preact work C. recognizing that aedpa would not apply to a habeas petition that was pending at the time of its enactment D. holding that 42 usc 1997e does not apply to claims pending at the time of passage of the plra E. holding that claims under 42 usc 1983 are not personal injury tort claims

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that 42 usc 1997e does not apply to claims pending at the time of passage of the plra
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 undersigned hereby joins in, and agrees to be bound by, subject to, and enjoy the benefit of the applicable rights set forth in, the Agreement (including the Exhibits thereto), as amended from time to time, with the same force and effect as if it were originally a party thereto.

assistant: 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: investigation. Disclosure of this information, Durney declares, “could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or safety” of such persons, see 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(F), and “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” see id. § 552(b)(7)(C), since release of such information would expose them to the risk of physical harm, harassment, and identity theft. Durney Decl. ¶ the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Government on its Exemption 7(A) claim and this court issued its order in August’s first appeal. In light of the substantiation of the important third-party interests at stake, it seems quite likely that the Government’s failure to invoke Exemptions 7(C ted States Secret Serv., 72 F.3d 897, 903-04 (D.C.Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Schanen v. United States Dep’t of Justice, Options: A. holding that the district court erred in refusing to grant the secret services fedrcivp 60b motion to rehear arguments about the applicability of foia exemptions 7c and 7d in light of the secret services belatedly proffered proof of a promise of confidentiality noting that the case was not the ordinary one since it involves not only the interests of the secret service but that of a third party whose identity and information are expressly protected by foia B. holding that disclosure of trade secret without protection of express confidentiality agreement was not fatal to trade secret protection where disclosure occurred during sale negotiation C. holding that it was impossible for the court to say that the information met the definition of a trade secret because the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the information derived economic value from an element of secrecy that is known only to plaintiff and its employees D. holding that foia exemptions are not mandatory bars to disclosure because the purpose of foia is to provide broad disclosure of government documents E. holding that the burden of establishing the true existence of a trade secret and its value to the owner remains on the claimant who must submit evidence relating to the six factors that texas law considers for trade secret status

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the district court erred in refusing to grant the secret services fedrcivp 60b motion to rehear arguments about the applicability of foia exemptions 7c and 7d in light of the secret services belatedly proffered proof of a promise of confidentiality noting that the case was not the ordinary one since it involves not only the interests of the secret service but that of a third party whose identity and information are expressly protected by foia
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: such as “a conspiracy,” “possession,” “knowing” and “willful.” J.A. 1421-1434. The judge also instructed the jury that if he did not “define any particular words, [the jury was to] assign to them their ordinary, everyday meanings.” J.A. 1421. The jury then returned a verdict of guilty on Count One of the Indictment. J.A. 1441^14. We assume, without deciding, that reading the indictment to the jury, accompanied by the above explanation, constituted insufficient jury instructions. We also assume that defendants’ substantial rights were affected. However, in light of the evidence introduced at trial establishing proximity, J.A. 868-73, we exercise our discretion and decline to notice the error. Cf. Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 470, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997) (<HOLDING>). C. Wall, convicted of both Counts One and Options: A. holding under a plain error analysis that a failure to charge the jury with an essential element did not warrant reversal of the conviction where the evidence supporting that element was overwhelming B. holding that failure to instruct on an essential element was harmless error because the element was so clearly established C. holding that the failure to charge an essential element of a crime in the indictment is an error which should be noted by an appellate court sua sponte as plain error D. holding that the omission of an element from jury in structions was not plain error where the underlying fact supporting the element was undisputed based on the uncontradicted testimony of a government witness E. holding that failure to submit an element of the offense to the jury is subject to harmless error analysis

assistant: The best answer is A. holding under a plain error analysis that a failure to charge the jury with an essential element did not warrant reversal of the conviction where the evidence supporting that element was overwhelming
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 Security Agreement shall continue in effect (notwithstanding the fact that from time to time there may be no Secured Obligations outstanding) until Payment in Full. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the obligations of any individual Grantor under this Security Agreement shall automatically terminate to the extent provided in and in accordance with Section 11.22 of the Credit Agreement.

assistant: Terminations
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 Committee shall keep a record of all its proceedings and acts and shall keep all such books of account, records, and other data as may be necessary for the proper administration of the Plan. Each Committee shall notify the Trustee and the Company of any action taken by the Committee relative to the Trustee and, when required, shall notify any other interested person or persons.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and her statements were further corroborated by her mother [and other witnesses].”). 15 Harper v. Barge Air Conditioning, Inc., 313 Ga. App. 474, 475 (1) (722 SE2d 84) (2011) (punctuation omitted); see also OCGA§ 15-12-134. 16 Wood v. B &S Enters., Inc., 314 Ga. App. 128, 133 (4) (723 SE2d 443) (2012) (punctuation omitted). 17 Harper, 313 Ga. App. at 475 (1) (punctuation o 879, 884 (3) (694 SE2d 707) (2010) (“It is well settled that the permissible range of the state’s closing argument is very wide.”). 23 Id. (punctuation omitted). 24 Arrington v. State, 286 Ga. 335, 346 (16) (c) (687 SE2d 438) (2009). 25 The examining physician testified it is not unusual to observe a lack of injuries when oral sodomy and digital penetration are alleged. 26 See Arrington, 286 Ga. at 346 (16) (c) (<HOLDING>). 27 Pearson v. State, 277 Ga. 813, 815 (3) Options: A. holding that the district court correctly instructed the jury that there had to be a substantial similarity between the indictment and the proof in order to find the defendant guilty B. holding that defendants claim that state engaged in burdenshifting was without merit when state argued that defendant had not rebutted evidence and trial court instructed jury as to burden of proof C. holding that the trial court correctly instructed the jury that the defendant had to establish by evidence that outweighed the evidence against him that he lacked the capacity to form specific intent D. holding that a challenged jury instruction did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof when the trial court elsewhere instructed the jury that the state must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt E. holding that any potential prejudice regarding burdenshifting is diminished by the prosecutors statement that the burden of proof is the governments and the courts explicit instructions regarding the burden of proof in the jury charge

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that defendants claim that state engaged in burdenshifting was without merit when state argued that defendant had not rebutted evidence and trial court instructed jury as to burden of proof
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: B.R. 1005, 1007 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.1987). Rule 45(b) also may apply in proceedings supplementary to and in aid of execution of judgment. See Bankr.R. 7069(a) (providing that in supplementary proceedings, judgment creditor may obtain discovery by either Federal Rules or state practice). Finally, even where a subpoena is served to compel attendance at a rule 2004 examination, the reasonableness consideration of rule 45(b) applies. See id. 2004 (providing that non-debtor entity's attendance for examination and production of documents may be compelled by manner provided by rule 9016); id. 9016 (incorporating rule 45(b)’s provision of quashing or modifying unreasonable and oppressive subpoena duces tecum), see also In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc., 123 B.R. 702, 712 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1991) (<HOLDING>); In re Fearn, 96 B.R. 135, 137, 138 Options: A. holding that court may seal documents if publics right of access is outweighed by competing interests B. holding that rule 2004 requires court to balance competing interests weighing necessity of information sought C. recognizing such balance of interests D. holding that court should balance competing interests E. recognizing that competing interests of parents children and the state requires additional analysis

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that rule 2004 requires court to balance competing interests weighing necessity of information sought
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: at 167, 733 N.E.2d at 842. Plaintiff argues that because the court in Jimenez v. City of Chicago “held that a reasonable jury could infer and therefore find the the [sic] defendants acted with malice because of the lack of investigation based on witness testimony” we should similarly find that Zima acted with malice in this case. (Resp. at 15.) The facts in Jimenez, however, are highly distinguishable from this case. In Jimenez, a witness told the police, against his own interests, that the plaintiff did not shoot the victim; the police received a tape-recording wherein another individual admitted to committing the murder; and defendant officers pressured two witnesses to change their stories and implicate plaintiff. Jimenez v. City of Chi, 830 F.Supp.2d 432, 451 (N.D.Ill.2011) (<HOLDING>). Unlike Jimenez, in this case there is indeed Options: A. holding that issues of discriminatory intent and actual motivation are questions of fact for the trier of fact B. holding defendants proffer of a false reason for employment action sufficient basis for trier of fact to find that such action was motivated by an improper discriminatory intent C. holding that a reasonable trier of fact could find that the defendants acted with malice D. holding that summary judgment is appropriate wjhere the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party E. holding that there must be sufficient competent evidence from which the trier of fact could estimate the amount of damages with a reasonable degree of certainty

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a reasonable trier of fact could find that the defendants acted with malice
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Accordingly, unless required by applicable law or regulatory authority, you agree that prior to the closing of a Possible Transaction, without the prior written consent of the Company, you will not, and you will direct your representatives not to, disclose to any person (including, but not limited to, any customer, employee, supplier, creditor or competitor of the Company) the fact that discussions or negotiations are taking place concerning a possible transaction between you and the Company or any of the terms, conditions or other facts with respect to any such Possible Transaction, including the status thereof, nor will you or any of your representatives make inquiry about the Company’s business to any customer, employee, supplier, creditor or competitor of the Company.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement contains the entire agreement and understanding among the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements, understandings, inducements and conditions, express or implied, oral or written, of any nature whatsoever with respect to the subject matter hereof . The express terms hereof control and supersede any course of performance or usage of the trade inconsistent with any of the terms hereof .

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 Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: the quality of the display of the netflix content may vary from device to device , and may be affected by a variety of factors , such as your location , the bandwidth available through and/or speed of your internet connection .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company may terminate Executive’s employment if Executive incurs a Disability upon written notice of termination in accordance with Section 4. Executive agrees, in the event of a dispute relating to Executive’s Disability, to submit to a physical examination by a licensed physician selected by the Company and reasonably acceptable to Executive. If Executive’s employment terminates on account of Disability, no further payments shall be due under this Agreement. However, Executive shall be entitled to (i) any benefits accrued or earned under the terms of any applicable benefit plans and programs of the Company, (ii) any amounts earned, accrued or owing but not yet paid under Section 1 above through the Termination Date and (iii) a pro rated bonus for the year in which Executive’s Disability occurs, which bonus shall be calculated and paid in the same manner as set forth in Section 2.2(a)(ii) above.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants made herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound hereby, each Credit Party hereby agrees to fully, finally and forever release and forever discharge and covenant not to sue the Lender Indemnitees, and each one of them, from any and all debts, fees, attorneys' fees, liens, costs, expenses, damages, sums of money, accounts, bonds, bills, covenants, promises, judgments, charges, demands, claims, causes of action, Proceedings, suits, liabilities, expenses, obligations or contracts of any kind whatsoever, whether in law or in equity, whether asserted or unasserted, whether known or unknown, fixed or contingent, under statute or otherwise, from the beginning of time through the Effective Date, including any and all claims relating to or arising out of any financing transactions, credit facilities, notes, debentures, security agreements, and other agreements, including each of the Loan Documents, entered into by the Credit Parties with Lender and any and all claims that the Credit Parties do not know or suspect to exist, whether through ignorance, oversight, error, negligence, or otherwise, and which, if known, would materially affect their decision to enter into this Agreement or the related Loan Documents. The provisions of this Section shall survive the satisfaction and payment of the other Obligations and the termination of this Agreement.

assistant: Releases
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 hereto has been represented by legal counsel in connection with the negotiation of the transactions herein contemplated and the drafting and negotiation of this Agreement. Each party hereto and its counsel has had an opportunity to review and suggest revisions to the language of this Agreement. Accordingly, no provision of this Agreement or any exhibits or amendments hereto shall be construed for or against or interpreted to the benefit or disadvantage of any party by reason of any party having or being deemed to have structured or drafted such provision.

assistant: Construction
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 Grantor hereby agrees to, jointly and severally, indemnify the Administrative Agent and the other Secured Parties, and their respective successors, assigns, agents and employees (each such Person being called an “ Indemnitee ”), against, and hold each Indemnitee harmless from, any and all losses, claims, damages, penalties liabilities and related expenses, including the fees, charges and disbursements of any counsel (but limited, in the case of legal fees and expenses, to the reasonable and documented out-of-pocket fees, disbursements and other charges of one counsel to all Indemnitees taken as a whole and, solely in the case of an actual or perceived conflict of interest, one additional counsel to all affected Indemnitees, taken as a whole, and, if reasonably necessary, one local counsel in any relevant jurisdiction to all Indemnities, taken as a whole and, solely in the case of an actual or perceived conflict of interest, one additional local counsel to all affected Indemnities, taken as a whole), incurred by or asserted against any Indemnitee arising out of, in connection with, or as a result of, execution or delivery of this Security Agreement, or the manufacture, purchase, acceptance, rejection, ownership, delivery, lease, possession, use, operation, condition, sale, return or other disposition of any Collateral (including, without limitation, latent and other defects, whether or not discoverable by any Indemnitee or any Grantor, and any claim for Patent, Trademark or Copyright infringement); provided that such indemnity shall not, as to any Indemnitee, be available to the extent that such losses, claims, damages, penalties, liabilities or related expenses (i) are determined by a court of competent jurisdiction by final and nonappealable judgment to have resulted from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of such Indemnitee or any of its Related Parties or (ii) arise from a dispute solely among the Indemnitees against another Indemnitee (other than any claim against an Indemnitee solely in its capacity as Administrative Agent or similar role in connection with this Security 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: the absence of legislative intent to protect the Clerks was evidenced by the fact that the legislature granted a private remedy only to those with an interest in property under section 382.365(3), and that the recording fees the Clerks seek to recover are not mentioned in the recording statutes but rather are contained in an entirely different chapter. Id. The Clerks counter that multiple parties can be intended beneficiaries of a statutory provision, citing State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Reeder, 763 S.W.2d 116 (Ky.1988). Their reliance on Reeder is misplaced. Reeder simply reinforces the basic principle that to sue under section 446.070 for a statutory violation, the plaintiff must be within the class of persons the legislature intended to protect. See 763 S.W.2d at 118 (<HOLDING>). As already discussed, the recording statutes Options: A. holding that although allegations were not specific as to what property was damaged they could be fairly read to include property covered by the insurance policy B. holding that the thirdparty beneficiary theory did not apply C. holding that insureds widow as beneficiary of life insurance policy had standing as an injured person under the insurance code D. holding that standing to sue under a contract requires plaintiff to be in privity or be an intended thirdparty beneficiary E. holding that a homeowner could sue under section 446070 because as the beneficiary of the insurance claim filed by the driver who damaged his property in an accident the homeowner belonged to the class intended to be protected by the insurance code which did not otherwise provide a remedy for thirdparty claimants such as the homeowner

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a homeowner could sue under section 446070 because as the beneficiary of the insurance claim filed by the driver who damaged his property in an accident the homeowner belonged to the class intended to be protected by the insurance code which did not otherwise provide a remedy for thirdparty claimants such as the homeowner
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: James Rankin Mortensen appeals his conviction and sentence imposed following his guilty plea to importation of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. Mortensen contends that 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 are unconstitutional pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2848, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Our holdings in United States v. Mendoza-Paz, 286 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.) (§ 960), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 573, 154 L.Ed.2d 459 (2002) and United States v. Varela-Rivera, 279 F.3d 1174, 1175 n. 1 (9th Cir.2002) (§ 952) foreclose this argument. See also United States v. Hernandez, 322 F.3d 592 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Mortensen further contends that the Options: A. holding that apprendi v new jersey 530 us 466 120 sct 2348 147 led2d 435 2000 did not overrule almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998 B. holding that harris v united states 536 us 545 122 sct 2406 153 led2d 524 2002 does not overrule mendozapaz C. holding that ring v arizona 536 us 584 122 sct 2428 153 led2d 556 2002 which applied apprendi to arizonas capital sentencing scheme was not a watershed rule and did not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review D. holding that the rule announced in ring v arizona 536 us 584 122 sct 2428 153 led2d 556 2002 doesnt apply retroactively on collateral review E. holding that blakely v washington 542 us 296 124 sct 2531159 led2d 403 2004 did not overrule almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that harris v united states 536 us 545 122 sct 2406 153 led2d 524 2002 does not overrule mendozapaz
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: At such time as the Obligations shall have been paid in full, the Collateral shall be released from the Liens created hereby, and this Agreement and all obligations (other than those expressly stated to survive such termination) of the Indenture Trustee and the Guarantor hereunder shall terminate, all without delivery of any instrument or performance of any act by any party, and all rights to the Collateral shall revert to the Guarantor. At the request and sole expense of the Guarantor following any such termination, the Indenture Trustee shall deliver to the Guarantor any Collateral held by the Indenture Trustee hereunder, and execute and deliver to the Guarantor such documents as the Guarantor shall reasonably request and prepare to evidence such termination.

assistant: Releases
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: So as to ensure that the Corporation or a Subsidiary, as applicable, will be able to comply with the applicable provisions of any federal, provincial, state or local law relating to the withholding of tax or other required deductions, including on the amount, if any, includable in the income of an Eligible Employee, the Corporation, or a Subsidiary, as applicable, shall withhold or cause to be withheld from any amount payable to an Eligible Employee, either under this Plan, or otherwise, such amount as may be necessary to permit the Corporation or the Subsidiary, as applicable, to so comply.

assistant: Withholdings
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 majority claims, relying on the “punitive damages” principle, “that reckless conduct is capable of being deterred.” See majority opinion at 8, 919 P.2d at 270. However, because workers’ compensation is a no-fault system, it is not designed to “punish the wrongdoer.” The majority fails to recognize that deterrence and no-fault are concepts that are at the opposite ends of the spectrum. Thus, the majority’s premise that the deterrence concept supports lawsuits between co-employees is simply wrong. Rather, “punishing the wrongdoer” is accomplished within the internal disciplinary procedures of the employer. In this sense, an employer’s disciplinary function plays a vital role in workers’ compensation. Cf Wharton v. Hawaiian Electric Co., Inc., 80 Hawai'i 120, 906 P.2d 127 (1995) (<HOLDING>). In addition, because our workers’ Options: A. holding that the trial courts authority to initiate workers compensation benefits before the final adjudication was not divested by the legislature and was consistent with the stated purpose of the workers compensation act B. holding that because maryland law expressly creates right to file workers compensation claim action exists for wrongful discharge for termination based solely on the filing of a workers compensation claim C. holding that employees stress injury solely due to disciplinary proceedings was not compensable under workers compensation D. holding that an employees visit to the office solely to retrieve medical documents for a workers compensation claim was not an activity implied into the contract of employment E. holding that provisions of section 40115102 are applicable to the determination of the status of truck drivers as employees or independent contractors under the workers compensation act and discussing legislative history indicating intent to apply these provisions both to workers compensation and unemployment compensation matters

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that employees stress injury solely due to disciplinary proceedings was not compensable under workers compensation
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as set forth on Schedule 7.9 , there is no pending, or to Holdings’ or the Borrower’s knowledge, threatened, action, suit, proceeding, or counterclaim by any Person, or to Holdings’ or the Borrower’s knowledge, investigation by any Governmental Authority, which, in any case, has a reasonable likelihood of being adversely determined and if so adversely determined, either (a) would reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect or (b) relates directly to any of the Loan Documents.

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: A Participant may be required to pay to the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, and the Company or any of its Subsidiaries shall have the right and is hereby authorized to withhold from any payment due under this Plan or from any compensation or other payment otherwise owing to the Participant, applicable withholding taxes with respect to any payment under this Plan, and to take any such actions as may be deemed necessary in the opinion of the Company to satisfy all obligations for the payment of such withholding taxes.

assistant: Withholdings
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 hereby represents and warrants to the undersigned that the Company’s representations and warranties as set forth in Section 3 of the Underwriter Agreement, dated as of May 3, 2016 (the “ Underwriter Agreement ”), together with any updates in the Company’s SEC Reports subsequent to the Underwriter Agreement, are true and correct as of the date hereof and have been fully performed as of the date hereof. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Underwriter Agreement and Inducement Warrant.

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: 148. At the Palmerton Zinc Pile site, Horsehead Industries, another PRP, was issued a UAO to clean up a site that Horsehead had never owned or operated. Krablin Decl. ¶¶ 18-21. Horse-head was able to obtain review because of a parallel cost recovery action. Id. ¶ 29. The court eventually issued a consent order preliminarily enjoining enforcement of the UAO against Horsehead. Id. ¶ 31. GE’s evidence from reimbursement proceedings is revealing but does not advance GE’s position. Under section 106(b)(2), PRPs may seek reimbursement upon completion of the cleanup if they believe that they have been issued a UAO in error. If EPA refuses to reimburse the PRP, then the PRP may file suit in a federal district court, where the PRP can challenge both liability and remedy selection. S ir.2005) (<HOLDING>). And given the size of the record after Options: A. holding that a four percent error rate constitutes substantial compliance with a statute B. holding that a 746 percent error rate is unacceptably high C. holding that where the proper rate of interest was eight percent but the court ordered six percent movant had waived right to higher rate by not raising the issue earlier in its petition for review D. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest at the colorado statutory rate of 8 percent E. holding that a 50 percent error rate would constitute a substantial risk of erroneous deprivation

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a 746 percent error rate is unacceptably high
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without giving effect to principles of conflicts of law except as specifically provided in any exhibit hereto which provides that the law of another jurisdiction shall govern that exhibit, in which event the law of the specified jurisdiction shall govern that exhibit.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: their fiducial marker technology was protected by the ’457 Patent were not made in bad faith. Because Plaintiff has failed to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to Defendants’ bad faith, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment (D.I.221) on Plaintiffs unfair competition claim. III. Whether Defendants Are Entitled To Summary Judgment On Plaintiff’s State Tort Claims It is well recognized that state tort claims based on a patent holder’s representation of its patent rights to the marketplace are preempted by the patent laws unless a claimant can establish that the patent holder acted in bad faith. See Zenith Electronics Corp., 182 F.3d at 1355 (citing Hunter Douglas, Inc. v. Harmonic Design, Inc., 153 F.3d 1318, 1337 (Fed.Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds (ci tation Options: A. holding that to require less than bad faith would impermissibly alter the balance between the competing purposes of federal patent law that congress has prescribed B. holding that 1338a jurisdiction inures when a complaint establishes that federal patent law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law in that patent law is a necessary element of one of the wellpleaded claims C. holding that lanham act and state law unfair competition claims premised on false patent marking were not preempted by the patent act because the proponent alleged that the mismarking was done in bad faith D. holding that a bad faith claim is a tort E. holding that where a conflict between state and federal law is alleged it must be reasonable to conclude that congress would have intended to preclude the state law in question since it would make little sense to preempt state law in order to serve the purposes underlying federal legislation if congress itself would not require or admit of preemption of state authority

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that to require less than bad faith would impermissibly alter the balance between the competing purposes of federal patent law that congress has prescribed
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: or not”, when used in a superior heading, is considered to modify the article descriptions in the provisions under that heading even though the phrase was not repeated in the provisions thereunder. See General Electric Co. v. United States, 83 Cust.Ct. 56, 61, C.D. 4822, 476 F.Supp. 1082 (1979). In General Electric Co, decided by this Court under the Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS), the Court reasoned that “the invasive character of the ‘whether or not’ language in the superior heading would make recitation of such language in each of the indented subheadings redundant.” General Electric Co. v. United States, 83 Cust.Ct. 56, 61, C.D. 4822, 476 F.Supp. 1082 (1979). See also Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. United States, 74 Cust.Ct. 125, 130, C.D. 4596, 1975 WL 26986 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Further, Plaintiffs proposed subheading Options: A. holding that whether or not phrase in the superior heading qualifies all of the provisions subordinate to the superior heading B. holding that the hearing provisions of the ina supersede the provisions of the apa C. holding that the phrase or ganic diseases of the nervous system contained in 38 usc 11013 was ambiguous because the statute did not define the phrase D. recognizing that where the marks share a word or phrase but are otherwise different the plaintiff is not pmmitted to claim a right to all variant of the phrase in a specific market E. holding that the possibility of a mistaken understanding of the phrase preponderance of the evidence on the part of the jury is too remote to constitute plain error when counsel gave the jury an accurate explanation of the legal meaning of the phrase in his closing argument and that meaning is consistent with the common understanding of the words in the phrase

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that whether or not phrase in the superior heading qualifies all of the provisions subordinate to the superior heading
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: Elliott’s employment hereunder shall commence on the Commencement Date and continue in full force and effect for a period of two (2) years, unless sooner terminated in accordance with the provisions hereof (the “ Term ”). Commencing on the first (1st) anniversary of the Commencement Date, such Term shall automatically extend so that on any day that this Agreement is in effect, it shall have a then current term of one (1) year. Such automatic extensions shall cease upon RAI’s written notice to Elliott of its election to terminate this Agreement at the end of the one (1) year period then in effect (a “ Notice of Non-Renewal ”).

assistant: Terms
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: this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction could be decided promptly and without undue expense. See H.R.Rep. No. 96-1235, at 20 (1980), as reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3729, 3731 (stating that the Customs Courts Act was intended to provide a “comprehensive system [that] will ensure greater efficiency in judicial resources and uniformity in the judicial decision making process”). Arguments about whether these cases should be decided pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) or (i) do nothing to fulfill this purpose. Taking a broader and statutorily consistent view of § 1581® jurisdiction, as did the courts in Consolidated Bearings, 348 F.3d at 1002, Shinyei, 355 F.3d at 1309, and Mukand Int’l, Ltd. v. United States, No.2006-1258, 2007 WL 571026, at *3 (Fed.Cir. Feb.6, 2007) (non-precedential) (<HOLDING>), better serves the purpose of the statute. Options: A. holding that an order dismissing a claim without prejudice is a final appealable order if the statute of limitations for that claim has expired B. holding that a developers claim for breach of fiduciary duty was actually a contract action properly brought in the court of claims C. holding that a claim for reliquidation of entries found not subject to an antidumping duty order was properly brought under 1581i4 D. holding that trial court properly found that claim was timebarred when the gravamen of claim for breach of fiduciary duties was an alleged failure to correctly read an ultrasound and reach proper diagnosis and accordingly the claim amounted to a claim of negligence that went to the propriety of the defendants medical skill and judgment E. holding a claim originally brought by a person who subsequently filed bankruptcy under chapter 11 was not subject to the automatic stay

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a claim for reliquidation of entries found not subject to an antidumping duty order was properly brought under 1581i4
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: was proper, even though later events which developed led to remand. Amoco Petroleum, 964 F.2d at 708 (7th Cir.1992). 11 . The Seventh Circuit clarified its Amoco Petroleum reasoning in In re Shell Oil Co., 966 F.2d 1130, 1132 (7th Cir.1992) (granting mandamus in part and directing district court to explain why it remanded case). Judge Easterbrook stated as dictum in Shell Oil that the language of § 1447(c)—i.e., remand is permitted "any time before final judgment”—does not mean that changes after removal can eliminate jurisdiction and compel remand. Rather, "[njeither the text of the revised § 1447(c) nor its legislative history implies that Congress altered the traditional view expressed in St. Paul [Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 58 S.Ct. 586, 82 L.Ed. 845 (1938) (<HOLDING>) ] ... that jurisdiction present at the time a Options: A. holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts B. holding no jurisdiction to review order raising amount of bail and questioning jurisdiction to review denial of motion to reduce bond C. holding events occurring subsequent to removal which reduce amount recoverable do not oust district courts jurisdiction D. holding that review of an original removal decision and a subsequent removal order are distinct E. holding that events occurring subsequent to removal which reduce the amount recoverable whether beyond the plaintiffs control or the result of his volition do not oust the district courts jurisdiction once it has attached

assistant: The best answer is C. holding events occurring subsequent to removal which reduce amount recoverable do not oust district courts jurisdiction