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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and DuPont in the other TMJ cases then pending before it. The court entered these judgments as final judgments in accordance with Rule 54(b) and also ordered that judgment be entered for Dow Chemical and DuPont in any tag-along TMJ cases that later might be transferred to it. When Kocher’s suit subsequently was transferred to the District of Minnesota, the District Court granted summary judgment for Dow Chemical and DuPont pursuant to these orders. We hold that the judgments for Dow Chemical and DuPont in this case satisfy Rule 54(b) because they were based on the 54(b) orders in the prior TMJ cases and thus unquestionably were intended to be final for purposes of appeal. We therefore have jurisdiction over this appeal. See United States v. Glenn, 585 F.2d 366, 367 n. 2 (8th Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>); Kelly v. Lee’s Old Fashioned Hamburgers, Options: A. holding that a commissioner acts as an instrumentality to inform and assist the court only the court has authority to make final orders or judgments B. holding that an order not denominated a judgment is not final for purposes of appeal C. holding that order could be appealed because ajlthough the district court did not make an express finding there is no doubt that the district court intended its orders to be final judgments for purposes of appeal D. holding that ajlthough ocga 5648 c sets forth the conditions upon which the trial court may dismiss an appeal for delay it does not by its terms require the court to make a formal recitation of those conditions in its order and affirming a trial courts dismissal order which found that the delay was unreasonable but had no express finding that the delay was inexcusable punctuation omitted E. holding a judgment of a district court does not become final by appeal within the meaning of the statute providing for registration of such judgments in another district until the case has been disposed of by appeal

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that order could be appealed because ajlthough the district court did not make an express finding there is no doubt that the district court intended its orders to be final judgments for purposes of appeal
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: Employee agrees that he will not make any disparaging remarks or statements about any of the Released Parties, or their respective parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates including, but not limited to, all related companies, partnerships, affiliated entities or joint ventures, as well as their respective current and former officers, directors, shareholders, principals, attorneys, agents, employees or any Released Party, or his prior employment with the Company. Employee further agrees that he will not make any disparaging remarks or statements about any of the products or services provided by PJC or any of its affiliates. Nothing in this Section, however, shall prevent Employee from engaging in Protected Activity. The Company agrees to use its best efforts to cause the Company’s leadership team and members of the Board of Directors not to make any disparaging remarks or statements about Employee or his prior employment with the Company and Employee agrees to direct any prospective employers to Christine Esckilsen, Chief Human Capital Officer. The Company agrees that Ms. Esckilsen will inform any such prospective employer the dates of service and positions held by Employee with the Company and reference the statement referred to in Exhibit B.

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

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: Cite as: 559 U. S. ____ (2010) 1 Per Curiam NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JAMAL KIYEMBA ET AL. v. BARACK H. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 08–1234. Decided March 1, 2010 PER CURIAM. We granted certiorari, 558 U. S. ___ (2009), on the ques tion whether a federal court exercising habeas jurisdiction has the power to order the release of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay “where the Executive detention is in definite and without authorization in law, and release into the continental United States is the only possible effective remedy,” Pet. for Cert. i. By now, however, each of the detainees at issue in this case has received at least one offer of resettlement in another country. Most of the detainees have accepted an offer of resettlement; five detainees, however, have rejected two such offers and are still being held at Guantanamo Bay. This change in the underlying facts may affect the legal issues presented. No court has yet ruled in this case in light of the new facts, and we decline to be the first to do so. See, e.g., Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718, n. 7 (2005) (“[W]e are a court of review, not of first view”). Under these circumstances, we vacate the judgment and remand the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It should determine, in the first instance, what further proceedings in that court or in the District Court are necessary and appropriate for 2 KIYEMBA v. OBAMA Per Curiam the full and prompt disposition of the case in light of the new developments. It is so ordered.

assistant: 9
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: any notices or other communications permitted or required hereunder , including those regarding modifications to these terms , will be in writing and given by academia.edu ( i ) via email ( in each case to the address that you provide ) ; or ( ii ) by posting to the site .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Guaranty shall be deemed to be a contract under the Laws of the State of New York and shall, pursuant to New York General Obligations Law Section 51401, for all purposes be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.

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: authority to consent even if he did not. Because we hold that Reed had actual authority to consent to the search, there is no need for us to determine whether the officer’s conduct was justified by Reed’s apparent authority. We leave the apparent-authority doctrine to be further developed in a case in which its application is, unlike here, determinative of the outcome. Conclusion Because he possessed actual authority over the appellant’s bedroom, Reed had the power to consent to a search of the appellant’s bedroom. The search of the appellant’s bedroom was, therefore, reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and, as there are no other points of error requiring remand, we affirm the judgment of the 338, 62 L.Ed.2d 238 (1979) (<HOLDING>). 18 . Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 466, Options: A. holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant B. holding that it is unreasonable to search individuals who are in the same general area as someone being searched under a valid warrant without something more to establish probable cause C. holding that if sufficient untainted evidence was presented in the warrant affidavit to establish probable cause the warrant was nevertheless valid D. holding searches conducted without a warrant based on probable cause are presumptively unreasonable E. holding that police do not need probable cause or a warrant to search items that have already been searched for inventory purposes

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that it is unreasonable to search individuals who are in the same general area as someone being searched under a valid warrant without something more to establish probable cause
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: answered with “three mistakes.” None of the three mistakes, however, commented on the IME results that Briggs had a sedentary functional capacity. Therefore, Liberty reasonably concluded that Dr. Anchor’s failure to comment suggested that he agreed with the IME’s conclusion that Briggs had a. sedentary capacity. Even considering the facts in the light most favorable to Briggs, this case amounts’to Briggs’s treating physicians and the non-treating physicians having conflicting clinical findings. Although Liberty cannot arbitrarily ignore the opinions of Briggs’s treating physicians, it reasonably may choose to value the opinions of its own medical consultants over his treating physician. Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822, 834, 123 S.Ct. 1965, 155 L.Ed.2d 1034 (2003) (<HOLDING>). Here, an independent medical examiner and an Options: A. recognizing that plan participants should be able to access information about the plan administrators fiduciary duties from the plan administrators counsel B. holding that plan administrators may credit reliable evidence that conflicts with a treating physicians evaluation but may not arbitrarily refuse to credit a claimants reliable evidence including the opinions of a treating physician C. holding that erisa does not require plan administrators to give special deference to treating physicians opinions although administrators may not arbitrarily refuse to credit them D. holding that courts have no warrant to require administrators automatically to accord special weight to the opinions of a claimants physician E. holding that unlike the social security disability program erisa does not require plan administrators to give special deference to the opinions of treating physicians and noting that there are critical differences between the two programs that nothing in erisa requires employers to establish employee benefit plans and that erisa does not mandate what kind of benefits employers must provide if they choose to have such a plan quotations omitted

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that erisa does not require plan administrators to give special deference to treating physicians opinions although administrators may not arbitrarily refuse to credit them
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: ATXG, represented by YU Keying, the President, Chief Executive Officer of ATXG has full power, legal capacity and authority to enter into this Agreement and to consummate the transaction herein contemplated, and to perform all obligations here under. This Agreement constitutes the legal, valid and binding obligation of ATXG, and this Agreement is enforceable with respect to Yingxi Industrial Chain Group Co., Ltd.E in accordance with its terms. Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement, nor the compliance with any of the provisions hereof, will (a) conflict with or result in a breach of, violation of or default under any of the terms, conditions of provisions of any note, bond, mortgage, indenture, license, lease, credit agreement or other agreement, document, instrument or obligation to which ATXG is a party or by which ATXG or any of its assets for properties may be bound or (b) violate any judgment, order, injunction, decree, statute, rule or regulation applicable to ATXG or the assets or properties of ATXG.

assistant: Authorizations
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 the Litigation Fund was “adjudicated,” constitute payments to the Plaintiffs in consideration of potential liability and thereby render Central Texas a “settling person”? (Or more broadly, was the Litigation Plan a settlement between Central Texas and the Plaintiffs?) We answer “yes.” The tender of the $5 million to the bankruptcy court (half of which went to the Litigation Fund) and Central Texas’ direct annual payments to the Litigation Fund, were indirect payments to the Plaintiffs in consideration of Central Texas’ potential liability to the Plaintiffs, and the subsequent payments from that fund to the Plaintiffs were not contingent on the outcome of an adversarial or uncertain proceeding. Cf. Gilcrease v. Garlock, Inc., 211 S.W.3d 448, 452-55 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2006, no pet.) (<HOLDING>) (citing McNair v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Options: A. holding that postsettlement bankruptcies of settling parties did not make settlements contingent and that defendant was entitled to credits even though settlements had not been paid and distinguishing settlements contingent on other litigation and uncertain bankruptcy proceedings B. holding that defendant may be entitled to selfdefense instruction even though he did not testify C. holding that a defendant did not otherwise defend even though he had appeared before the court D. holding that transferors request to recover fee it had paid was within the scope of the general statutory language allowing recovery of reasonable costs of participating in a proceeding even though other party was initially responsible for paying this fee and even though statute did not specifically provide that such recovery was allowed E. holding that bankruptcy court erred by not awarding fees for unsuccessful litigation even though the effort was found to have been actually made reasonable and necessary to the faithful representation of the bankruptcy estate

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that postsettlement bankruptcies of settling parties did not make settlements contingent and that defendant was entitled to credits even though settlements had not been paid and distinguishing settlements contingent on other litigation and uncertain bankruptcy proceedings
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 396 U.S. 119 90 S.Ct. 395 24 L.Ed.2d 303 Louis CARLOSv.NEW YORK. No. 524. Supreme Court of the United States December 8, 1969 Herald Price Fahringer and Eugene Gressman, for petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York PER CURIAM. 1 The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment is reversed, Redrup v. New York, 386 U.S. 767, 87 S.Ct. 1414, 18 L.Ed.2d 515. 2 THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice HARLAN are of the opinion that certiorari should be denied. However, the case having been taken for review, they would affirm the judgment of the state court upon the premises stated in Mr. Justice HARLAN's separate opinion in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 496, 77 S.Ct. 1304, 1 L.Ed.2d 1498 (1957), and in his dissenting opinion in A Book Named 'John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure' v. Attorney General of Com. of Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, 455, 86 S.Ct. 975, 16 L.Ed.2d 1 (1966).

assistant: 3
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: § 284 and § 285 may be invoked are not identical. For example, attorney misconduct or other aggravation of the litigation process may weigh heavily with respect to attorney fees, but not for enhancement of damages. Id. (internal citations omitted). Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by failing to explain why attorneys’ fees were unwarranted and the issue is remanded for a proper determination. E. Post-Trial Accounting Finally, WhitServe appeals the denial of a post-trial accounting. “[W]hen damages are not found by a jury, the court shall assess them.” 35 U.S.C'. § 284 (emphasis added). District courts have discretion to award damages for periods of infringement not considered by the jury. See Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1303 (Fed.Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); Finjan, 626 F.3d at 1212-13 (explaining that Options: A. holding the order is only reviewable if actually considered by the district court B. holding that a district court may not impose a sentencing enhancement based on conduct of which the jury acquitted the defendant C. holding that it was a due process violation where the judge in issuing the death sentence against the recommendation of the jury considered a confidential presentencing report that was not considered by the jury D. holding that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion by stating that it did not have the ability to present the transcript to the jury E. holding that the district court was within its discretion to impose a royalty on postverdict sales not considered by the jury in order to fully compensate the patentee

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the district court was within its discretion to impose a royalty on postverdict sales not considered by the jury in order to fully compensate the patentee
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as set forth in Schedule 4.8A to the Credit Agreement and except as would not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, such Grantor owns or has rights in each item of the Collateral; and such Collateral is free and clear of any and all Liens except as permitted by the Loan Documents. Except as permitted by the Loan Documents, no financing statement or other public notice with respect to all or any part of the Collateral is on file or of record in any public office except financing statements or other public notices that have been filed without the consent of the Grantor.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Borrower and each of its Restricted Subsidiaries is duly and validly organized and existing and in good standing under the laws of its jurisdiction of incorporation, formation or organization and is authorized to do business and is in good standing in all jurisdictions in which such qualifications or authorizations are necessary except where the failure to be so qualified or authorized could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Change. As of the Closing Date, each Credit Party’s type of organization and jurisdiction of incorporation, formation or organization are set forth on Schedule 4.1 .

assistant: Organizations
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: Statute immunized the defendant from liability for negligence, having already held that the defendant was not negligent under the applicable standard of care and that the decedents were the proximate cause of their own deaths. However, the Sixth Circuit’s willingness to address the merits of the plaintiffs’ negligence claims perhaps lends credence to the court’s holding today. Further, the court’s holding is consistent with other language in Pearce, rejecting the plaintiffs arguments that state law should apply “in analyzing the SIAA,” and instead holding that “general admiralty law, not state law, governs claims resulting from maritime deaths in territorial waters.” Id. at 647; see also Brotherhood Shipping Co., Ltd. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 985 F.2d 323, 325 (7th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). The' defendant seeks to apply a Tennessee law Options: A. holding that the basis of liability is negligence and not injury B. holding comparative negligence not defense to intentional tort C. holding that the state law violated equal protection principles D. holding that the obviousness of a danger is a factor for comparative negligence not a bar to recovery E. holding that federal comparative negligence principles prevailed over state comparative negligence principles on the basis that admiralty is not merely a basis of jurisdiction but instead it is a body of substantive principles as well

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that federal comparative negligence principles prevailed over state comparative negligence principles on the basis that admiralty is not merely a basis of jurisdiction but instead it is a body of substantive principles as well
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 NO. 5 SHALL BE CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. SECTIONS 9.09 AND 9.10 OF THE CREDIT AGREEMENT ARE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE HEREIN MUTATIS MUTANDIS .

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: As used in this Settlement Agreement, the terms Nation, Nation Australia, Paltar, and Officer include their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors, assigns, affiliates, predecessors in interest, successors in interest, assignors, assignees, agents, independent contractors, employees, attorneys, directors, shareholders, investors, insurers, sureties, and anyone claiming by, through or under the respective Party.

assistant: Binding Effects
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 by each of the parties hereto on any number of separate counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page of this Amendment in Portable Document Form (PDF) or by facsimile shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed original counterpart of this Amendment.

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: of other affirmative defenses and probable cause in three precedential opinions. Holman, 564 F.3d 225 (3d Cir.2009); Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263 (3d Cir.2007); Radich v. Goode, 886 F.2d 1391 (3d Cir.1989). In Holman, the Third Circuit held that the “necessity” affirmative defense “need not have been considered in the assessment of probable cause for arrest for trespass at the scene.” 564 F.3d at 231. The Circuit held that a ruling to the contrary would require the arresting officer to “examine countless factual permutations to determine the ‘necessity’ of specific conduct at a given moment in time.” Id. at 231. In Sands, the Circuit held that an officer need not consider whether the charges are barred by a statute of limitations when determining whether there is probable .2012) (<HOLDING>). The Gorman court explained that: [CJlaims of Options: A. holding that once probable cause was established the officer was not required to investigate whether the person arrested was a victim acting in selfdefense or the aggressor in a domestic violence situation B. holding that once probable cause is established officer is not required to investigate further C. holding that a defendant who alleges selfdefense can show through the testimony of another witness that the alleged victim had a propensity for violence thereby inferring that the alleged victim was the aggressor a defendants prior knowledge of the victims reputation for violence is irrelevant because the evidence is offered to show the conduct of the victim rather than the defendants state of mind D. holding that before a defendant is entitled to introduce evidence of the victims character for violence there must be sufficient evidence to support a finding that the victim was the first aggressor and that once the defendant testified that he was attacked and cut by the victim without provocation before using the victims utility tool to stab the victim the defendant was clearly entitled to question the victim about past acts of violence reflected in court documents from the state of oregon E. holding that the right to be arrested only on probable cause was clearly established and considering under the third prong whether a reasonable person in the officers position would have thought her actions violated that right

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that once probable cause was established the officer was not required to investigate whether the person arrested was a victim acting in selfdefense or the aggressor in a domestic violence situation
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 in all respects be construed in accordance with and governed by the substantive laws of the State of New York, without reference to its conflicts of law rules. Each party hereby irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts sitting in Chicago, Illinois, and agrees to appear in any such court with respect to, any dispute hereunder or in connection herewith, or any transaction contemplated hereby or discussed herein, and hereby irrevocably waives, and agrees not to assert in any suit, action or proceeding, any claim that it is not personally subject to the jurisdiction of any such court, that such suit, action or proceeding is brought in and if the Holder is not otherwise subject to service of process in the State of Illinois, the Holder hereby appoints Registered Agent Solutions, Inc. as its agent in the State of Illinois for acceptance of legal process and agrees that service made on such agent shall have the same legal force and effect as if served upon Holder personally within such state. Each party hereby irrevocably waives personal service of process and consents to process being served in any such suit, action or proceeding by mailing a copy thereof to such party at the address for such notices to it under this Agreement, and agrees that such service shall constitute good and sufficient service of process and notice thereof. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to limit in any way any right to serve process in any manner permitted by law. EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO HEREBY IRREVOCABLY WAIVES ANY AND ALL RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY LEGAL PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THIS AGREEMENT OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY.

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 provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Investors and their respective successors and assigns. An Investor may transfer or assign, in whole or from time to time in part, to one or more persons its rights hereunder in connection with the transfer of Registrable Securities by such Investor to such person, provided that such Investor complies with all laws applicable thereto, the terms and conditions of the Purchase Agreement applicable thereto and provides written notice of assignment to the Company promptly after such assignment is effected.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of Holdings, the Borrower and its Restricted Subsidiaries is in compliance with all Applicable Laws (including, without limitation, the FCPA) applicable to it or its property except where the failure to do so, individually or in the aggregate, could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Compliance With 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: an attorney’s duty to provide adequate representation does not encompass the duty to foresee and protect a client from his own possible suicidal tendencies. Citing a string of cases which rigidly follow McPeake, common carrier defendant COLTS urges us to come to the same conclusion regarding COLTS responsibility to suicide decedent George Hudalc. Pennsylvania state courts and federal courts applying Pennsylvania law appear to have consistently relied on the McPeake decision. See Ferris v. Cleveland, Civil Action No. 3:10-1302, 2012 WL 2564782 (M.D. Pa. 2012) (granting a motion in limine that excluded testimony of a neuropsychologist to identify the causal relationship between a motor vehicle accident and the decedents suicide); Puza v. Carbon County, 586 F.Supp.2d 271 (M.D. Pa. 2007) (<HOLDING>); Cooper v. Frankford Health Care System, Inc., Options: A. holding that federal courts have statutory habeas jurisdiction over petitions filed by guantanamo detainees B. holding that prison conditions are those aspects of prison life affecting the entire prison population C. holding that prison guards who are employees of a private prison management firm are not entitled to a qualified immunity from suit brought by prisoners under 1983 D. recognizing that prison regulations designed to provide security are not only legitimate but are central to all other correctional goals E. holding that architects who designed prison were not liable for pretrial detainees suicide

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that architects who designed prison were not liable for pretrial detainees suicide
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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. See Rennie v. Klein, 462 F.Supp. 1131, 1144-45 (D.N.J.1978), 476 F.Supp. 1294, 1307 (D.N.J.1979), modified and remanded on other grounds, 653 F.2d 836, 844, 847 (3d Cir.1981) (en banc) (quoting with approval In re K.K.B.), vacated and remanded for further consideration, 458 U.S. 1119, 102 S.Ct. 3506, 73 L.Ed.2d 1381 (1982), reaffirmed on remand, 720 F.2d 266, 269 (3d Cir.1983) (en banc); Rogers v. Okin, 478 F.Supp. 1342, 1369 (D.Mass.1979), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 634 F.2d 650, 653 (1st Cir.1980) (citing with approval In re K.K.B.), vacated and remanded on other grounds sub nom. Mills v. Rogers, 457 U.S. 291, 102 S.Ct. 2442, 73 L.Ed.2d 16 (1982); see also Davis v. Hubbard, 506 F.Supp. 915, 929 (N.D. Ohio 1980) (<HOLDING>). Noting the exception for emergency situations Options: A. recognizing right to refuse psychotropic medication in the absence of emergency as aspect of liberty guaranteed by due process clause B. holding that inmate has a liberty interest under the due process clause to refuse the involuntary administration of psychotropic drugs C. holding that a state defendant has a sixth amendment right guaranteed by the fourteenth amendments due process clause to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor D. holding the right to marry is a central part of the liberty protected by the due process clause E. recognizing that the due process guaranteed under the alabama constitution is coextensive with the due process guaranteed under the united states constitution

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing right to refuse psychotropic medication in the absence of emergency as aspect of liberty guaranteed by due process clause
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that, because the grievance procedure was not available to her to challenge her non-selection, she cannot be deemed to have made an election of remedies that bars the present action. This court, however, disagrees with plaintiffs contention that her non-selection for promotion involved an “appointment” for the purpose of 5 U.S.C. § 7121(c)(4). According to 5 U.S.C. § 7121(c)(4), a grievance procedure under a collective bargaining agreement may not extend to any grievance concerning an “examination, certification, or appointment.” However, the courts have held that the term “appointment,” for the purpose of this statute, relates solely to the initial appointment into the federal service. See, e.g., Suzal v. Director, United States Information Agency, 32 F.3d 574, 580 (D.C.Cir.1994)(<HOLDING>); National Fed’n of Fed. Employees Local 1636 Options: A. holding that there is no legitimate claim of entitlement to a grievance procedure B. holding that a jail inmate does not have a constitutional entitlement to an adequate grievance procedure and the ineffectiveness or even absence of a grievance procedure does not give rise to a constitutional claim C. holding that employees grievance regarding the nonrenewal of his appointment was not precluded from grievance procedure as appointment referred only to initial appointment D. holding that an ineffective grievance procedure bars employers defense based on that procedure E. holding that because plaintiffs were reasonable in interpreting defendants grievance procedure to apply only to active employees plaintiffs did not act in bad faith when they alleged that no applicable grievance procedure existed

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that employees grievance regarding the nonrenewal of his appointment was not precluded from grievance procedure as appointment referred only to initial appointment
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 Transaction Documents sets forth all of the agreements, representations, warranties and conditions of the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior agreements, representations, warranties and conditions. The exhibits referred to above constitute parts of this Agreement. No alteration, amendment, modification or waiver of any of the terms or provisions hereof, and no future representation or warranty by either party with respect to this transaction, shall be valid unless the same be in writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement of same is sought.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: quotation marks omitted). The remedy that CNS seeks is more akin to the bright-line finding that we approved in Los Angeles County Bar Ass’n than the ongoing monitoring of the substance of state proceedings that we rejected in E.T. To determine whether the Ventura County Superior Court is making complaints available on the day they are filed, a federal court would not need to engage in the sort of intensive, context-specific legal inquiry that would be necessary to determine whether counsel’s performance was constitutionally adequate. See id. There is little risk that the federal courts would need to “examin[e] the administration of a substantial number of individual cases” to provide the requested relief. Id. at 1124; see also Tarter v. Hury, 646 F.2d 1010, 1013 (5th Cir. 1981) (<HOLDING>). The Ventura County Superior Court has Options: A. holding that an injunction is an extraordinary remedy B. holding that trial court erred by entering an injunction sua sponte as an injunction cannot be entered unless a pleading requests one C. holding federal injunction countermanding a state court injunction did not violate antiinjunction act D. holding that an injunction against excessive bail was barred by oshea but that an injunction requiring clerks to file and docket all pro se motions was a simple nondiscretionary procedural safeguard that would not be excessively intrusive E. holding that the injunction did not constitute a claim

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that an injunction against excessive bail was barred by oshea but that an injunction requiring clerks to file and docket all pro se motions was a simple nondiscretionary procedural safeguard that would not be excessively intrusive
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: 11. No rights or obligations other than those expressly set out in this Agreement are to be implied and nothing contained in this Agreement: b. confers upon the Receiving Party a licence or other transfer of rights in respect of any Party’s interest in any Information or in any present or future patent or patent application; or

assistant: No
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: This agreement allows us to disclose confidential information to each other, to our own affiliates and to the other's affiliates, under the following terms. An "affiliate" is any legal entity that one of us owns, that owns one of us or that is under common control with one of us.  A "representative" is an employee, contractor, advisor or consultant of one of us or one of our respective affiliates.  Each of us may disclose the other's confidential information to our representatives (who may then disclose that confidential information to other of our representatives) only if those representatives have a need to know about it for purposes of our business relationship with each other.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: legislation effectively validating a Treasury Department revenue rule that courts previously had found to expand impermissibly the definition of “wages” subject to FICA taxation beyond the scope of the statute. Id. at 21. After looking to the period of retroactivity (four years), the reliance interests of the parties, and whether the parties’ rights had vested, the court concluded that Congress had acted constitutionally with a curative intent to ratify the invalidated Treasury Department revenue rule, despite the longer than normal period of retroactivity. Id. at 25-27. GPX relies upon different tax cases, such as United States v. Carlton, which upheld retrospective tax legislation based on “only a modest period of retroactivity.” 512 U.S. 26, 32, 114 S.Ct. 2018, 129 L.Ed.2d 22 (1994) (<HOLDING>). Finding that the government has wide latitude Options: A. recognizing exception B. holding that the act is retroactive C. holding that the act is not retroactive D. recognizing that congress almost without exception enacts revenue statutes with retroactive effective dates E. holding retroactive application

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that congress almost without exception enacts revenue statutes with retroactive effective dates
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: Executive shall be paid a base salary of Three Hundred and Forty Thousand Dollars ($340,000) per annum, with such increases thereafter as may be determined by Employer (the “Base Salary”) in its sole discretion.

assistant: Base Salary
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 former panel, in light of fresh developments, would change its collective mind.” Id. We are dubious that this scenario can ever play out where, as here, a panel of a court finds its path blocked by an earlier decision of the full court. Cf. Ewing v. Williams, 596 F.2d 391, 397 (9th Cir.1979) (declaring that “an appellate panel simply cannot modify an en banc decision”). A contrary rule permitting a single panel in a multi-panel circuit to revisit determinations made by the court as a whole would invite chaos. For that reason, panels generally are precluded from following such a maverick course. E.g., United States v. Norton, 780 F.2d 21, 23 (8th Cir.1985); United States v. Poolaw, 588 F.2d 103, 105 (5th Cir.1979); cf. Biggins v. Hazen Paper Co., 111 F.3d 205, 208 (1st Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). In this case, all roads lead to Rome. Options: A. holding that only intervening law from the supreme court or this court sitting en banc can overrule a prior panel decision B. holding that in the absence of an intervening supreme court decision only the en banc court may overrule a decision by a threejudge panel C. recognizing that a later en banc court may overrule an earlier en banc opinion D. holding that one panel of this court is bound by the precedent of an earlier panel absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision of the supreme court E. holding that a panel may not reconsider issues decided earlier in the same case by the en banc court

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a panel may not reconsider issues decided earlier in the same case by the en banc court
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: 82 . 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). 83 . Id. at 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052. 84 . Id. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. 85 . Id. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052. 86 . Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (alteration in original). 87 . Id. 88 . Id. 89 . Id. (quoting Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101, 76 S.Ct. 158, 100 L.Ed. 83 (1955)). 90 . Id. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052. 91 . Id. 92 . Id. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052. 93 . Id. at 693, 104 S.Ct. 2052. 94 . Id. 95 . Id. 96 . Id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. 97 . Id. 98 . Id. at 696, 104 S.Ct. 2052. 99 .Id. 100 . See Tex.R. Civ. P. 279. 101 . Strickland, 466 U.S. at 699, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (quoting Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101, 76 S.Ct. 158, 100 L.Ed. 83 (1955)). 102 .See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (<HOLDING>); Pondexter v. State, 942 S.W.2d 577, 588 Options: A. holding that appellate court may only review issues actually presented to and considered by the trial court B. holding pursuant to rule 885 that an appellate court is not required to reach a double jeopardy issue that was not brought in the trial court C. holding that an appellate court cannot consider an issue that was not preserved for appellate review D. holding that a plain error that affects substantial rights may be considered even though it was not objected to or brought to the courts attention E. holding that under federal rule of appellate procedure 52b plain error in a jury charge may be considered by an appellate court although it was not brought to the attention of the trial court

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that under federal rule of appellate procedure 52b plain error in a jury charge may be considered by an appellate court although it was not brought to the attention of the trial court
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: For purposes of determining Lenders’ obligations to fund or participate in Loans or Letters of Credit, Agent may exclude the Commitments and Loans of any Defaulting Lender(s) from the calculation of Pro Rata shares. A Defaulting Lender shall have no right to vote on any amendment, waiver or other modification of a Loan Document, except as provided in Section 14.1.1(c) .

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: This Lease shall be governed and construed under the laws of the State of Florida . All disputes arising, directly or indirectly, out of or relating to this Lease, and all actions to enforce this Lease, shall be dealt with and adjudicated in the state courts of the State of Florida located in Tampa, Florida or the federal courts for the Middle District of Florida ; and for that purpose Lessee expressly and irrevocably submits to the jurisdiction of such courts. Lessee agrees that so far as is permitted under applicable law, this consent to personal jurisdiction shall be self-operative and no further instrument or action, other than service of process in one of the manners specified in this Lease, or as otherwise permitted by law, shall be necessary in order to confer jurisdiction upon it in any such court. Lessee further agrees that judgment against it in any such action or proceeding shall be conclusive and, to the extent permitted by applicable law, may be enforced in any other jurisdiction within or outside the United States of America by suit on the judgment, a certified or exemplified copy of which shall be conclusive evidence of the fact and of the amount of its indebtedness.

assistant: Jurisdictions
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 Managing Member is a limited liability company duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with full power and authority and legal right to be a member of the Company and to carry on its business in the manner and in the locations in which such business has been and is now being conducted by it, to execute and deliver this Agreement and to perform its obligations hereunder.

assistant: Authority