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 Agreement may be terminated by any Purchaser, as to such Purchaser’s obligations hereunder only and without any effect whatsoever on the obligations between the Company and the other Purchasers, by written notice to the other parties, if the Closing has not been consummated on or before March 22, 2017; provided , however , that such termination will not affect the right of any party to sue for any breach by any other party (or parties).

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: performing his employment contract, and (iii) his three trips to plaintiffs Virginia headquarters, also in the course of performing his employment contract. Each of these contacts, taken individually, might well be insufficient to warrant a finding of personal jurisdiction. It is clear, for example, that entering into a business agreement with a resident of the forum does not, without more, subject a nonresident defendant to personal jurisdiction in Virginia. America Online, Inc. v. Huang, 106 F.Supp.2d 848, 855-56 (E.D.Va.2000); Ellicott Machine, 995 F.2d at 478. And, the mere exchange of telephone calls, faxes, and written communications with a party in Virginia also may not suffice, although it may. Compare Unidyne Corp. v. Aerolineas Argentinas, 590 F.Supp. 391, 396 (E.D.Va.1984) (<HOLDING>), with Peanut, 696 F.2d at 314 (holding the Options: A. recognizing that a transaction that lacks economic substance generally reflects an arrangement in which the basis of the property was misvalued in the context of the transaction B. holding that unrebutted evidence can and should form the basis for summary judgment C. holding that being a guarantor alone is an insufficient basis to invoke personal jurisdiction D. holding telex messages and letters negotiating a transaction are insufficient to form a basis for in personam jurisdiction E. recognizing step transaction doctrine whereby courts must consider all steps of transaction in light of entire transaction so that substance of transaction will control over form of each step

assistant: The best answer is D. holding telex messages and letters negotiating a transaction are insufficient to form a basis for in personam jurisdiction
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Loan Documents embody the entire agreement and understanding among the Borrower, the General Partner, the Administrative Agent, the Issuing Bank and the Lenders and supersede all prior commitments, agreements and understandings among the Borrower, the Administrative Agent, the Issuing Bank and the Lenders relating to the subject matter thereof, except for the agreement of the Borrower to pay certain fees to the Administrative Agent and the agreement of the Administrative Agent to pay certain fees to the Lenders.

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: assess whether the goals are indeed worth the risks. (Id. at 386). “[T]o be confident in its Solicitor’s advice on matters ‘intimately related’ to Authority policy,” the Court explained, “the Board must have the right to demand that his loyalties lie with it and its agenda.... Given the political ramifications of any attendant legal advice, confidence sometimes may come only with the assurance that the Solicitor shares the same political ideology as the Board.” (Id.), quoting Ness, 660 F.2d at 522). The Court of Appeals concluded: “These situations are exactly the types for which the Supreme Court created the Elrod/Bmnti exception.” {Id.; see also, Battaglia v. Union County Welfare Board, 88 N.J. 48, 438 A.2d 530 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 965, 102 S.Ct. 2045, 72 L.Ed.2d 490 (1982) (<HOLDING>) The position of assistant county counsel is Options: A. holding that an agencys rulings with respect to whether a party was afforded the process it is due under the fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution are subject to de novo review B. holding that assistant united states attorney may file information requesting sentence enhancement based on prior conviction even though statute says that information must be filed by the united states attorney C. holding the exclusion did not violate the equal protection clause of the wyoming constitution or the fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution D. holding termination of legal assistant to county welfare board based on political party affiliation was permissible under first amendment to the united states constitution E. holding that the constitutional rights in a termination proceeding are derived from the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment of the united states constitution and not the sixth amendment

assistant: The best answer is D. holding termination of legal assistant to county welfare board based on political party affiliation was permissible under first amendment to the united states constitution
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: suffered from past persecution nor had a well-founded fear of future persecution because of his Indian ethnicity. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s and Immigration Judge’s findings of fact that Petitioner was not credible and that he failed to show either past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review and uphold the Board’s decision. A. Adverse Credibility Determination The Immigration Judge denied Petitioner refugee status primarily because she found that he was not credible. After reviewing the record as a whole, we conclude that substantial evidence supports this adverse credibility determination. An adverse credibility finding must be based on issues that go to the heart of an applicant’s claim. Yu, 364 F.3d at 703 (<HOLDING>). Such a finding “cannot be based on an Options: A. holding that the agency may not deny a cat claim solely on the basis of an adverse credibility finding made in the asylum context where the cat claim did not turn upon credibility B. holding that an adverse credibility determination is sufficient to deny asylum C. holding that where asylum officer testifies regarding accuracy of interviewing procedures inconsistencies between petitioners asylum interview testimony and merits hearing testimony form sufficient basis to uphold adverse credibility determination D. holding when one identified ground for an adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of petitioners claim of persecution the court is bound to accept the ijs adverse credibility determination E. holding that the agency may not deny a cat claim solely on the basis of adverse credibility finding made in the asylum context where the cat claim did not turn upon credibility

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an adverse credibility determination is sufficient to deny asylum
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: her whole for the wrongs she suffered. As to her additional claims under Title VII, namely her sexual harassment and hostile work environment claims, it is unlikely this Court would be with jurisdiction to entertain them, as it appears that Figueroa has not exhausted her administrative remedies. The charges filed by Figueroa before the EEOC on November 3, 2008; August 10, 2008; September 16, 2010; and March 30, 2011 all contain a checkmark under retaliation, but none under discrimination based on sex. Thus, it appears that Figueroa’s Title VII claims of sexual harassment and hostile work environment have not been under the scrutiny of the EEOC; as such, allowing Figueroa to intervene with them would probably prove futile. See Morales-Vallellanes v. Potter, 339 F.3d 9, 18 (1st Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); and United States v. Glens Falls Newspapers, Options: A. recognizing ageplusgender discrimination claim when complaint brought claims under adea and title vii B. holding that plaintiffs eeoc charge alleging sex discrimination did not encompass claim of sexual harassment subsequently asserted in title vii action in federal court because the facts underlying sexual harassment claim could not be inferred from the factual assertions made in the eeoc charge nor would they have been uncovered absent specific allegations to indicate such a cause of action existed C. holding that plaintiff stated a discrimination claim despite not including a discrimination heading in eeoc complaint because the facts included in eeoc complaint were sufficient to trigger an investigation into whether plaintiff suffered an adverse action because of his religion D. holding that the allegations in the complaint stated a cause of action under section 376313 E. holding that a title vii cause of action is limited to those discrimination allegations in the complaint that have been under the scrutiny of a formal eeoc complaint

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a title vii cause of action is limited to those discrimination allegations in the complaint that have been under the scrutiny of a formal eeoc complaint
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: 2.3 airbnb may make the access to and use of the airbnb platform , or certain areas or features of the airbnb platform , subject to certain conditions or requirements , such as completing a verification process , meeting specific quality or eligibility criteria , meeting ratings or reviews thresholds , or booking and cancellation history .

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: In the event any provision of this Agreement is found to be void and unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall nevertheless be binding upon the parties with the same effect as though the void or unenforceable part had been severed and deleted.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: F.2d 1310, 1316 (D.C.Cir.1982) (citing 16 U.S.C. § 1332(f)). The legislative history underlying the 1978 amendments further illuminates Congress’ intent: “The goal of wild horse and burro management, as with all range management programs, should be to maintain a thriving ecological balance between wild horse and burro populations, wildlife, livestock and vegetation, and to protect the range from the deterioration associ ated with overpopulation of wild horses and burros.” Conference Report 95-1737, October 6, 1978 to accompany H.R. 10587, Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. The Act should consequently not be viewed as requiring that the BLM increase the numbers of horses, or give wild horses priority over other users. See Fallirá v. Hodel, 725 F.Supp. 1113, 1118 (D.Nev. 1989) (<HOLDING>). Instead, the focus of the Act is rightly Options: A. holding that the act does not give horses higher status than cattle on public lands B. holding that a congressional policy allowing vertical integration of logging on federal lands does not indicate that a similar policy is permissible on state lands C. holding that state officers may execute on tribal lands process related to offreservation violations of state law D. holding that the first amendment does not by itself give rise to a cause of action for damages E. holding that uipa does not give commission exclusive power to adjudicate deceptive act claims

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the act does not give horses higher status than cattle on public lands
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: implies the invalidity of his conviction or sentence to establish that the conviction or sentence was already invalidated. Id. at 1139-40. Here, Mr. Johnson was never “in custody” in connection with his misdemeanor conviction for unlawfully possessing a firearm in a vehicle. Mr. Johnson paid the imposed $100 fine, and it is undisputed that the deferred twelve-month sen tence, which required him to not commit further hunting violations and to appear for a review hearing, has expired. Mr. Johnson’s freedom was never significantly confined or restrained. Compare Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 83 S.Ct. 373, 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963) (finding that conditions imposed on a parolee were sufficient to constitute “in custody”), with Henry v. Lungren, 164 F.3d 1240, 1241-42 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); see also Dremann v. Francis, 828 F.2d 6, 7 Options: A. holding that even though the offense was not of a sexual nature requiring the defendant to register as a sex offender following his conviction for false imprisonment of a minor was rationally related to the government interest in protecting the public and did not violate the defendants right to due process or equal protection under the law B. holding that sex offender registration and notification do not constitute punishment C. holding that the imposition of a life sentence for failure to register as a sex offender constituted cruel and unusual punishment because the sentence was so harsh in comparison to the crime D. holding that an individual who is required to register as a sex offender is not in custody E. holding that although the defendant in that case was convicted after the effective date of the new statute 1137118 he nevertheless was required to register as a sex offender because 113716 was in effect at the time he was charged

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that an individual who is required to register as a sex offender is not in custody
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: State v. Huber, 361 N.W.2d 236, 238-39 (N.D.1985); State v. Rogers, 17 Ohio St.3d 174, 478 N.E.2d 984, 992 (1985), judgment vacated on other grounds, 474 U.S. 1002, 106 S.Ct. 518, 88 L.Ed.2d 452 (1985); Nauni v. State, 670 P.2d 126, 134 (Okla.Crim.App. 1983); State v. Arpin, 122 R.I. 643, 410 A.2d 1340, 1352 (1980); State v. Huiett, 271 S.C. 205, 246 S.E.2d 862, 864 (1978) (allowing a curative instruction only); State v. Martin, 683 N.W.2d 399, 407 (S.D.2004); Robison, 888 S.W.2d at 476-77; State v. Percy, 146 Vt. 475, 507 A.2d 955, 957-58 (1986) (discussing and reaffirming the Vermont Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Smith, 136 Vt. 520, 396 A.2d 126, 129 (1978), to refuse, as a general rule, to require the instruction); Kitze v. Commonwealth, 246 Va. 283, 435 S.E.2d 583, 586 (1993) (<HOLDING>); Spruill v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 475, 271 Options: A. holding that the trial court had the authority to give an instruction if it deemed such a measure appropriate B. holding that failure to give a curative instruction if the prosecution made incorrect statements regarding the consequences of an insanity acquittal can result in the case being overturned C. holding that a prior acquittal does not preclude the admission of evidence of a defendants other alleged crimes in a prosecution for the bank robbery on the basis of collateral estoppel principles because the prior acquittal did not determine an ultimate issue in the present case D. holding that where an objection is sustained and curative instruction given and no further relief such as a mistrial additional curative instruction or striking of the offending comment is requested there is nothing for the appellate court to review E. holding that prejudice from question concerning the treatment of defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity to be cured by immediately sustaining objection and by a curative instruction to the jury

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that failure to give a curative instruction if the prosecution made incorrect statements regarding the consequences of an insanity acquittal can result in the case being overturned
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: had authority to hire and fire BPW employees, those decisions were reviewed by no one at the BPW or the City, and those decisions were not constrained by any mandatory City employment policy. As such, the Court concludes that Morawski possessed official policymaking authority for the BPW and the City. As such, neither the BPW nor Morawski in his official capacity are protected from liability bjMonell. However, because there is no evidence that Esparaza was empowered to make employment decisions on behalf of the BPW, there is no basis for concluding that she was an official policymaker. As such, official liability as to Esparaza is barred. Count One: Individual Liability The Sixth Circuit has explained that three elements are necessary to est . 274, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977) (<HOLDING>). Although Defendants suggest that Plaintiffs Options: A. holding that a school district was not liable for sexual molestation of plaintiffs daughter by a teacher even though the acts occurred on school property and during school hours B. holding that intraconspiracy doctrine applied to plaintiffs claims against school board teacher school principal and district superintendent C. holding that a school acted impermissibly when a public school teacher was not rehired because allegedly he had relayed to a radio station the substance of a memorandum relating to teacher dress and appearance D. holding the school did not violate the teachers constitutional rights by prohibiting the teacher from reading the bible in class E. recognizing employeremployee relationship between county school board and teacher

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a school acted impermissibly when a public school teacher was not rehired because allegedly he had relayed to a radio station the substance of a memorandum relating to teacher dress and appearance
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except for that certain Employee Agreement Regarding Confidentiality, Intellectual Property, and Competitive Activities dated February 22, 2005 (which shall remain in effect in accordance with its terms), this is the entire agreement between Executive and the Company with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements with respect to the subject matter hereof, including any prior agreements with the Company respecting the Executive’s employment by and between Liquidity Services, Inc. and the Executive. No agreements or representations, oral or otherwise, express or implied, with respect to the subject matter hereof have been made by any party which are not expressly set forth in this Agreement. No reliance is placed on any representation, opinion, advice or assertion of fact made by the Company or its directors, officers and agents to the Executive, except to the extent that the same has been reduced to writing and included as a term of this Agreement. Accordingly, there shall be no liability, either in tort or contract, assessed in relation to any such representation, opinion, advice or assertion of fact. All references to any law shall be deemed also to refer to any successor provisions to such law.

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: relating to information shared in joint defense communications by one party to such communications will not constitute a waiver by any other party to such communications.” Western Fuels Ass’n Inc. v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co., 102 F.R.D. 201, 203 (D.Wyo.1984). The court reasoned that this rule was necessary “to assure joint defense efforts are not inhibited or even precluded by the fear that a party to joint defense communications may subsequently unilaterally waive the privileges of all participants, either purposefully in an effort to exonerate himself or inadvertently.” Id. This hol D. 21, 29 (N.D.Ill.1980), later proceeding sub nom., Ohio-Sealy Mattress Mfg. Co. v. Sealy, Inc., 669 F.2d 490 (7th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1002, 104 S.Ct. 509, 78 L.Ed.2d 698 (1983) (<HOLDING>). The Court is aware of only one decision Options: A. holding that the district court properly allowed the defendant who asserted the disputed defense as a contested issue of law in the joint pretrial order to pursue the defense despite the defendants failure to comply with rule 8c B. holding that defendants failure to assert the defense in any pretrial motions did not waive defendants limitations defense because the assertion of a limitations defense in the answer preserved defendants right to raise the defense both during the first trial and before the second C. holding that where codefendants conducted a joint defense that provided a benefit to each defendant the joint services represented fair consideration for the payment of reasonable compensation regardless of which defendant paid the bill D. holding that the government did not waive an affirmative defense not pleaded in the answer because it raised the defense at a pragmatically sufficient time by listing the defense in the joint pretrial order E. holding in a class action derivative suit that the joint defense privilege cannot be waived without the consent of all the parties to the defense except in the situation where one of the joint defendants becomes an adverse party in a litigation

assistant: The best answer is E. holding in a class action derivative suit that the joint defense privilege cannot be waived without the consent of all the parties to the defense except in the situation where one of the joint defendants becomes an adverse party in a litigation
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 Award Agreement and the award of Restricted Share Rights evidenced hereby will be governed by, and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Delaware (without regard to its choice-of-law provisions), except to the extent Federal law would apply.

assistant: Applicable 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 Grantee shall vest in the Granted Stock in accordance with the vesting schedule provided for in the Notice of Stock Award Grant; provided , however , that the Grantee shall cease vesting in the Granted Stock on the Grantee's Termination Date or the date on which the Administrator determines that the vesting conditions provided for in the Notice of Stock Award Grant were not satisfied during the designated period of time. Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon the occurrence of a Vesting Event (as defined in the Plan), the Grantee shall become 100% vested in those shares of Granted Stock that are outstanding on the date of the Vesting Event.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be amended, modified, superseded, canceled, renewed or extended and the terms or covenants hereof may be waived, only by a written instrument executed by both of the parties hereto, or in the case of a waiver, by the party waiving compliance. The failure of either party at any time or times to require performance of any provision hereof shall in no manner affect the right at a later time to enforce the same. No waiver by either party of the breach of any term or covenant contained in this Agreement, whether by conduct or otherwise, in any one or more instances, shall be deemed to be, or construed as, a further or continuing waiver of any such breach, or a waiver of the breach of any other term or covenant contained in this Agreement.

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: Joining Party represents and warrants to Agent that, as of the Effective Date (as defined below), except as disclosed in writing by Joining Party to Agent on or prior to the date hereof and approved by the Agent in writing (which disclosures shall be deemed to amend the Schedules and other disclosures delivered as contemplated in the Credit Agreement), the representations and warranties contained in the Credit Agreement and the other Loan Documents applicable to a “Guarantor” or “Subsidiary Guarantor” are true and correct in all material respects as applied to Joining Party as a Subsidiary Guarantor and a Guarantor on and as of the Effective Date as though made on that date. As of the Effective Date, all covenants and agreements in the Loan Documents and the Contribution Agreement of the Subsidiary Guarantors apply to Joining Party and no Default or Event of Default shall exist or might exist upon the Effective Date in the event that Joining Party becomes a Subsidiary Guarantor.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: S.Ct. at 288). “[P]robable cause is a fluid concept — turning on the assessment of probabilities in particular factual contexts — not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 232, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2329, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). It “ ‘must be seen and weighed not in terms of library analysis by scholars, but as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement.’ ” Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 1543, 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983) (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981)). Furthermore, a suspect’s actions that suggest “a consciousness of wrongdoing” can contribute to a finding of probable cause. See United States v. Vasquez, 638 F.2d 507, 521-22 (2d Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 847, 102 S.Ct. 165, 70 Options: A. holding that a defendant who had borrowed a car for a limited period of time had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the cars locked trunk where it was the very person from whom he had borrowed the car who first called the police after he failed to return the car B. holding that an arrest to retrieve car keys where ownership of the car was in dispute was not supported by probable cause C. holding that there was probable cause for arrest where officers knew defendants had recently been with suspected drug dealer officers saw defendants car being maneuvered so as to indicate that surveillance had been detected and when officers approached car defendant attempted to place package under car and then pulled the package back inside the car and closed and locked the car door D. holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search E. holding that search of car was not incident to arrest where arrestee had exited and locked car before he was approached by officer and then arrested

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that there was probable cause for arrest where officers knew defendants had recently been with suspected drug dealer officers saw defendants car being maneuvered so as to indicate that surveillance had been detected and when officers approached car defendant attempted to place package under car and then pulled the package back inside the car and closed and locked the car door
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: plaintiffs’ expert report was deficient as to Agrawal, the court ultimately held that the trial court did not err in dismissing the claims against the association. Id. at 843. Thus, although the Kettle court appears to conclude that an expert report is required whenever a professional association is sued, it also recognizes that the liability of the professional association depends on the conduct of the association’s physician, and its holding is based on the inadequacy of the expert report as to that physician. Therefore, Kettle is not persuasive on the question before us. McCoy’s petitions alleged, under a section entitled “Vicarious Liability,” that OGA was “vicariously liable for the conduct 2671863, at *1 (Tex.App.-Beaumont Nov.23, 2004, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Here, McCoy seeks to hold OGA liable under a Options: A. holding that because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the expert report adequate as to the vicarious liability claim against the hospital based on the actions of the doctors plaintiffs suit against the hospital including her claim that the hospital was vicariously hable for the actions of its nurses could proceed B. holding that no expert reports specifically addressing conduct of professional corporation and professional association were required when plaintiffs alleged only vicarious liability based on medical negligence of entities physicians explaining that the entities conduct is not measured by a medical standard of care but rather their liability was solely vicarious C. holding that expert report addressing hospitals conduct was not required when plaintiffs sole theory against hospital was vicarious liability based on ostensible agency and explaining that the conduct by the hospital on which the agency relationship depends is not measured by a medical standard of care these are principles of agency law on which no expert report is required D. holding that medical center was not required to be named in expert report addressing its residents conduct because plaintiffs alleged no directliability claims against it and noting that medical center was implicated in report and so waived all its objections when it failed to object to sufficiency of report within twentyone days after service E. holding expert report requirement fulfilled in claim against nurse by providing expert report of nurse as to standard of care and expert report of medical doctor as to causation

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that expert report addressing hospitals conduct was not required when plaintiffs sole theory against hospital was vicarious liability based on ostensible agency and explaining that the conduct by the hospital on which the agency relationship depends is not measured by a medical standard of care these are principles of agency law on which no expert report is required
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 THE OTHER LOAN DOCUMENTS, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO ANY CONFLICT OF LAW PRINCIPLES (BUT GIVING EFFECT TO FEDERAL LAWS RELATING TO NATIONAL BANKS).

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: If one or more provisions of this Agreement are held to be unenforceable under applicable law, the parties agree to renegotiate such provision in good faith. In the event that the parties cannot reach a mutually agreeable and enforceable replacement for such provision, then (a) such provision shall be excluded from this Agreement, (b) the balance of this Agreement shall be interpreted as if such provision were so excluded, and (c) the balance of this Agreement shall be enforceable in accordance with its terms. This Agreement and all acts and transactions pursuant hereto and the rights and obligations of the parties hereto shall be governed, construed and interpret ed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without giving effect to principles of conflicts of law.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: upward departures does not justify downward departures for the victims of the conduct. Circuit decisions which have sanctioned upward departures for a parent based on the parent’s influencing a child to join the criminal activity are instructive. For example, the Fourth Circuit held that an upward departure was warranted even absent coercion where “the parent exposes the child to a drug business environment and thereby facilitates the child’s ability to obtain illegal drugs.” United States v. Locklear, 41 F.3d 1504, 1994 WL 642196, at *3 (4th Cir.1994) (Table). This court, as well as the First, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits, have also analyzed the parental-influence question without relying on coercion. See United States v. Forsythe, 156 F.3d 1244, 1998 WL 539462, at *4 (10th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Ledesma, 979 F.2d 816, 822 Options: A. holding that uncorroborated accomplice testimony may provide the exclusive basis for a criminal conviction B. holding district court correctly reversed a departure sentence where the trial court failed to provide written reasons for the departure C. holding that failure to join necessary party was prejudicial D. holding that district courts error was not harmless because the court relied on an improper factor in imposing an upward departure E. holding that the use of parental influence to induce ones child to join in criminal activity may provide a basis for upward departure

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the use of parental influence to induce ones child to join in criminal activity may provide a basis for upward departure
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: on his prior aggravated felony conviction, we only retain jurisdiction to review constitutional claims or questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D). As previously discussed, we lack jurisdiction to review unexhausted arguments raised for the first time in a petition for review. However, some constitutional claims do not require exhaustion because the agency does not have the authority to adjudicate those claims. See Sundar v. INS, 328 F.3d 1320, 1325 (11th Cir.2003). Nevertheless, where the agency can provide a remedy to the constitutional ■ claim, “the ‘exhaustion requirement applies with full force.” Id. Thus, “procedural due process claims, as well as procedural errors argued in due process terms, must be raised before” the agency. Amaya-Artunduaga, 463 F.3d at 1251 (<HOLDING>). Assuming we have jurisdiction, “[w]e review Options: A. holding that the petitioners due process claim that he was denied a full and fair hearing because the immigration judge was biased was the kind of procedural error that required exhaustion B. holding that there is no due process violation where the ijs finding was not arbitrary and the alien was not denied a full and fair opportunity to present his claims C. holding that petitioner did not exhaust his due process claim that he was denied a full and fair hearing by arguing that due process was violated on the ground that the ij admitted uncertified evidence D. holding that the defendant was denied due process because the procedural rule was not followed in any respect by the trial court E. holding that a petitioner must show prejudice in order to prevail on a claim that he or she was denied a full and fair hearing in violation of due process

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the petitioners due process claim that he was denied a full and fair hearing because the immigration judge was biased was the kind of procedural error that required exhaustion
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: Unless otherwise expressly specified herein, all payments required to be made pursuant to this Agreement shall be made in U.S. dollars and in immediately available funds. At the election of FTAI Energy, any payment due hereunder, including any Fee payment pursuant to Section 3 or any reimbursement pursuant to Section 6, without limitation, may be made in the form of a note evidencing indebtedness of FTAI Energy and/or Jefferson Railport, with such terms (including interest rate) as FTAI Energy and/or Jefferson Railport, on the one hand, and Blocker and FEP, on the other, may reasonably agree.

assistant: Payments
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 constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto with regard to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations and agreements, either written or oral, between them except for the Surviving Agreements. There are no conditions, agreements, or representations between the parties except those expressed herein. This Agreement may be altered, modified, amended, or repealed only by a duly executed written instrument signed by the parties hereto. This Agreement shall be governed by the law of the State of Maryland, without giving effect to the conflicts of laws provisions thereof. Each party binds himself or itself and his or its heirs, successors, legal representatives and assigns in respect to all covenants and agreements contained herein. Except as specifically contemplated herein, nothing herein shall be construed as giving any right or benefit hereunder to anyone other than the parties hereto.

assistant: Miscellaneous
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: occurring during Chief Walters’s tenure, and such claims were only added to § 1981 in 1991. See Mem. of Decision [doc. # 96] at 20. The probative value of pre-1991 evidence is significantly reduced by its remoteness to the time period at issue, namely 2002 to 2006. See Davidson v. Smith, 9 F.3d 4, 7 (2d Cir.1993) (approving of the district court’s decision to exclude evidence as too remote pursuant to Rule 403). In addition, the Town’s final policymakers before 1991 are unlikely to be the same as the relevant final policymakers for the purposes of this case. As a result, pre-1991 evidence should be excluded as more likely to confuse and mislead the jury, and unnecessarily delay the ultimate conclusion of the trial. See City of New York v. Pullman Inc., 662 F.2d 910, 915 (2d Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>); In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 611 Options: A. holding that inextricably intertwined evidence is intrinsic evidence that is admissible if its probative value outweighs the danger of prejudice B. holding that prior conviction shall be admissible evidence for impeachment purposes unless danger of undue prejudice substantially outweighs probative value C. holding that trial court has discretion to determine whether probative value of photo outweighs prejudicial effect D. holding that evidence should be excluded where the likelihood that it would confuse the jury and protract the proceedings outweighs its probative value E. holding that the trial court properly excluded evidence relating to a purported additional suspect where the evidence was speculative and had little or no probative value

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that evidence should be excluded where the likelihood that it would confuse the jury and protract the proceedings outweighs its probative value
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As of the Initial Funding Date, no Loan Party has any Subsidiaries other than those specifically disclosed in Schedule 5.12 , and all of the outstanding Equity Interests in such Subsidiaries have been validly issued, are fully paid and non-assessable and are owned by a Loan Party as specified on Schedule 5.12 free and clear of all Liens except those created or permitted under the Collateral Documents. As of the Initial Funding Date, no Loan Party has any equity investments in any other corporation or entity other than those specifically disclosed in Schedule 6 to the Perfection Certificate. All of the outstanding Equity Interests in the Borrower have been validly issued, are fully paid and non-assessable and are owned by Holdings free and clear of all Liens except those created or permitted under the Collateral Documents.

assistant: Subsidiaries
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: knew it to be false.” Id. at 374. The plaintiff argued that the defendants had relied on this false information resulting in his loss of 60 days statutory good time credit and the withdrawal of his recommended parole release date, which was replaced by “a new date twenty-four months later, in effect delaying his eligibility for parole by two years.” Id. at 373. The Circuit Court “concluded] that Razzoli’s Privacy Act claim — not only in regard to the good time decision but also the parole eligibility determination— [was] not cognizable.” Id. at 376. Rather, the plaintiffs sole recourse was to file a petition for habeas relief, even though his “non-habeas claim would have [had] a merely probabilistic impact on the duration of [his] custody.” Id. at 373; see also Bourke, 269 F.3d at 1074 (<HOLDING>); Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 809 Options: A. holding that because bops notification to petitioner that he was eligible for a sentence reduction was erroneous his status was not retroactively changed by the application of the new regulation B. holding that a state prisoner must bring his claim in habeas only if by prevailing he would necessarily prove the unlawfulness of his conviction or confinement C. holding that husbands knowledge of his obligation of support and his subsequent election to enter employment that would substantially reduce his income and make it impossible to meet his obligations would not justify reduction in support D. holding that prisoner could not file a petition for mandamus challenging the bops determination that he was ineligible to be considered for a reduction in his sentence although bourkes success on this claim would not necessarily result in his being released any earlier it would raise that possibility and thus have a probabilistic impact upon the duration of his custody E. holding that that if the success of a 1983 damages claim brought by a prisoner would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence the prisoner may only bring the claim where the conviction or sentence has been invalidated

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that prisoner could not file a petition for mandamus challenging the bops determination that he was ineligible to be considered for a reduction in his sentence although bourkes success on this claim would not necessarily result in his being released any earlier it would raise that possibility and thus have a probabilistic impact upon the duration of his custody
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of service, or disability not compensated under the workers’ compensation law. The remaining subsections of § 48-628 outline other behaviors or scenarios 2d 804 (Del. Super. 1982); Stafford v. Welltech, 867 P.2d 484 (Okla. App. 1993). The rationale in the cases for permitting recovery under both acts is that the statutory language does not prohibit a dual recovery and is further based upon the beneficent objectives of both workers’ compensation and employment security legislation. See Levi Strauss & Co., supra; Neuberger, supra; Mendez, supra; Stafford, supra. As noted by the defendants, other states deny or reduce unemployment benefits by the amount of workers’ compensation the claimant receives or vice versa. See, e.g., Cuellar v. Northland Steel, 226 Mont. 428, 736 P.2d 130 (1987) (<HOLDING>); St. Pierre v. Fulflex, Inc., 493 A.2d 817 Options: A. holding that in absence of statute prohibiting recovery claimant may receive workers compensation and unemployment benefits simultaneously B. holding that district court had discretion to decline to offset severance and unemployment payments from damages award C. holding that legislature clearly intended that workers compensation act and unemployment security act be construed together thus prohibiting worker from receiving both unemployment compensation and workers compensation payments for same period D. holding that pursuant to statute unemployment benefits must be offset against workers compensation payments E. holding that claimant may simultaneously receive unemployment benefits and workers compensation for temporary partial disability where statute only precludes receipt of workers compensation for temporary total or permanent total disability if claimant is receiving unemployment benefits

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that pursuant to statute unemployment benefits must be offset against workers compensation payments