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: which a United States court is compelled to actually enforce the collection of a foreign tax judgment, and prohibiting its use in any case requiring a United States Court to pass on the validity of, or give effect to, a foreign revenue law. Because this revision creates a circuit split on an issue where such a division is unwarranted, I dissent from the majority’s formulation of the revenue rule. B. As is evident from the above discussion, the revenue rule is a discretionary doctrine, one that is guided by “constitutional and prudential considerations.... ” Boots, 80 F.3d at 587. See also Attorney Gen. of Canada, 268 F.3d at 113 (“We do not suggest that the revenue rule always bars United States courts from furthering the tax policies of foreign sovereigns.”); Trapilo, 130 F.3d at 550 (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added); Boots, 80 F.3d at 587 Options: A. recognizing that the courts jurisdiction to enforce supportmoney judgments is predicated upon the continued dependency of the children in question B. recognizing that judgments of arizona courts on foreign judgments will not be conclusive in the jurisdiction of origin C. recognizing use of ancillary jurisdiction in subsequent proceedings for the exercise of the courts inherent power to enforce its judgments D. holding that courts review judgments not statements in opinions E. recognizing that our courts will normally not enforce foreign tax judgments

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that our courts will normally not enforce foreign tax judgments
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provision of this Agreement (or any other agreement incorporated herein) is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the remainder of the provision shall be amended to achieve as closely as possible the economic effect of the original term and all other provisions shall continue in full force and effect.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No waiver or course of dealing shall be established by (a) the failure or delay of Lender to require strict performance by any Obligor under any Loan Document, or to exercise any rights or remedies with respect to Collateral or otherwise; (b) the making of any Loan or issuance of any Letter of Credit during a Default, Event of Default or other failure to satisfy any conditions precedent; or (c) acceptance by Lender of any payment or performance by an Obligor under any Loan Documents in a manner other than that specified therein. Any failure to satisfy a financial covenant on a measurement date shall not be cured or remedied by satisfaction of such covenant on a subsequent date.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: There is no claim, suit, action, arbitration, governmental inquiry, injunction, consent decree or legal, administrative or other proceeding existing, pending, or threatened against or relating to Company, or to Company's financial condition, or to the Business, or any of the Total Assets, nor does Seller know of, or have reasonable grounds for, believing that there is any basis for any such action, arbitration, proceeding or inquiry.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All of the indemnity obligations of the parties set forth in this Agreement shall terminate and expire, and shall cease to be of any force or effect, at 5:00 P.M. (Eastern time) on t he first anniversary of the Closing Date, and all liability and indemnificat ion obligations with respect thereto shall thereupon be extinguished ; provided, however, that (a) the representations and warranties in Sections 7.2.2(a) through (c), 7.2.2( f ), 7.2.3(a), (b), (d) , 7.2.10 , and 7.2.15(a ) shall survive until the eighteen (18) month anniversary of the Closing Date, (b) the representations and warranties in Sections 7.1 and 7.2.1 shall survive indefinitely and (c) the provisions of Section 2.4 shall survive for 18 months after Closing . It is the express intent of the parties that, if the applicable survival period as contemplated by this Section 16 .1 is shorter than the statute of limitations period that would otherwise have been applicable , then by virtue of this Agreement, the applicable statute of limitations period shall be reduced to the shortened survival period contemplated by this Section 1 6 .1 . If notice of a claim has been given by an indemnitee party the limitations of this Section 1 6 .1 shall not apply to such claim until it is finally resolved. The parties further acknowledge that the time periods set forth in this Section 1 6 .1 for the assertion of claims under this Agreement are the result of arms’-length negotiation among the parties and that they intend for the time periods to be enforced as agreed among the parties.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: manslaughter with a firearm and the thirty-year prison sentence he received for that offense. Regardless of the sentence on remand for the aggravated battery conviction, Driggers will have to spend a considerable amount of time in prison. Given his affinity for scant attire and his aversion for dress codes, we trust that Driggers is compliant with any rules adopted by the Department of Corrections regulating the clothing requirements of inmates and that he appears a little more dapper in his newly acquired prison "Manslaughter is defined as homicide which is not murder, and which is neither justified nor excused.”) (footnote omitted), review denied, 392 So.2d 1379 (Fla.1980); Green v. State, 244 So.2d 167 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); see also Bautista v. State, 863 So.2d 1180, 1186 (Fla.2003) (<HOLDING>). 2 . Hunt v. State, 753 So.2d 609 (Fla. 5th Options: A. holding that the older more general manslaughter statute is preempted by the vehicular homicide statute B. holding that dui manslaughter falls within the general category of homicide offenses and that hjomicides are punished based on the number of victims because the legislative purpose behind homicide statutes is to safeguard the lives of individuals C. holding that dwi manslaughter and vehicular homicide are different forms of the same offense D. recognizing that dui manslaughter and vehicular homicide are two separate crimes neither being a lesser included offense of the other but holding that a single death cannot support convictions for both crimes E. holding the state must prove that at the time of the homicide the defendant was engaged in the commission of the felony

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that dui manslaughter falls within the general category of homicide offenses and that hjomicides are punished based on the number of victims because the legislative purpose behind homicide statutes is to safeguard the lives of individuals
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: fair opportunity to litigate their claims.” Pa at P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 3343, provides in pertinent part: “[i]n order that the presumption of the res judicata may be valid in another suit, it is necessary that, between the case decided by the sentence and that in which the same is invoked, there be the most perfect identity between the things, causes, and persons of the litigants, and their capacity as such.” Although this provision refers to res judicata, it has also been applied for purposes of collateral estoppel. See Baez-Cruz v. Municipality of Comerio, 140 F.3d 24, 29 (1998). Similarly, the requirement of mutuality — that there be the “most perfect identity” between the parties — has also been relaxed. Id.; Schneider v. Colegio de Abogados, 670 F.Supp. 1098, 1103 (D.P.R.1987) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, when an issue “essential to the Options: A. holding that even without satisfying the perfect identity of persons things and issue a party may still invoke collateral estoppel B. holding that collateral estoppel applies to 1983 claims C. recognizing the doctrine of collateral estoppel in agency proceedings D. holding collateral estoppel elements met considering changed circumstances in the context of an exception to the general rule of collateral estoppel E. holding that the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted must have been a party to the prior action

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that even without satisfying the perfect identity of persons things and issue a party may still invoke collateral estoppel
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 RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES HEREUNDER SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED AND INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK WITHOUT REGARD TO THE PRINCIPLES OF CONFLICTS OF LAWS (OTHER THAN SECTION 5-1401 OF THE NEW YORK GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW).

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: those who run the program to act out of a concern for lawsuits rather than effective preparation of competent law enforcement officers. Although our courts have not previously considered the enforceability of an exculpatory agreement in this or any other similar context, we do not find similarities in those situations where exculpatory agreements have been stricken because of the public interest. The experiences of our courts with exculpatory agreements have largely been on opposite ends of the spectrum. That is, we have considered and negated these agreements when extracted from an individual seeking a necessity, such as a place to live during a housing shortage, Kuzmiak, supra, 38 N.J.Super. at 587, 111 A.2d 425. See also Horelick v. Pa. R.R. Co., 13 N.J. 349, 357, 99 A.2d 652 (1953) (<HOLDING>); Tunkl, supra, 32 Cal.Rptr. 33, 383 P.2d at Options: A. holding it against public policy for a common carrier to stipulate for exemption of liability in the event its negligence results in injury to its passengers B. holding that the basis of liability is negligence and not injury C. holding that congress did not intend to preempt state common law actions for personal injury based on the negligence of the airline or its employees D. holding that there is no common law duty of a carrier or its agents to advise an insured concerning the possible need for higher policy limits upon renewal of the policy absent a special relationship E. holding the measure of damages in a negligence action is the reasonable necessary cost of restoring the injured automobile to its condition prior to its injury thereby giving it the same value it possessed immediately before its injury

assistant: The best answer is A. holding it against public policy for a common carrier to stipulate for exemption of liability in the event its negligence results in injury to its passengers
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 section and other headings in this Agreement are inserted solely as a matter of convenience and for reference, are not a part of this Agreement, and shall not be deemed to affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. As used in this Agreement, unless otherwise provided to the contrary, (a) all references to days will be deemed references to calendar days unless expressly stated otherwise and (b) any reference to a “ Section ” or Schedule shall be deemed to refer to a section or schedule of this Agreement. The Recitals and Exhibits to the Agreement are part of the Agreement and are hereby incorporated herein by reference. Unless the context otherwise requires, as used in this Agreement, all terms used in the singular will be deemed to refer to the plural as well, and vice versa. The words “ hereof, ” “ herein ” and “ hereunder ” and words of similar import referring to this Agreement refer to this Agreement as a whole and not to any particular provision of this Agreement. Whenever the words “ include, ” “ includes ” or “ including ” are used in this Agreement, they will be deemed to be followed by the words “ without limitation. ” References in this Agreement to “ $ ” will be deemed a reference to United States dollars.

assistant: Headings
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: release benefits only those persons specifically designated in the release document. There is a rebuttable presumption that a general release benefits only those persons specifically designated. As noted recently by our Court of Appeals, there are three approaches to determining the scope of a general release. See Perea v. Snyder, 117 N.M. 774, 778, 877 P.2d 580, 584 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 118 N.M. 90, 879 P.2d 91 (1994). These three approaches are known as the absolute or flat bar rule, the intent rule, and the specific identity rule. See id. at 778-79, 877 P.2d at 584-85 (discussing the three approaches). In Perea the Court of Appeals reasoned that our decisions in Mark V and C.R. Anthony indicated New Mexico should fol d 196, 77 Ill.Dec. 738, 740-41, 461 N.E.2d 361, 363-64 (1984) (<HOLDING>); Aid Ins. Co., 426 N.W.2d at 633-34 (holding Options: A. holding that release must specifically name or otherwise specifically identify the persons to be discharged B. holding that release must specifically identify persons to be discharged in order to ensure that intent of parties is fulfilled C. holding that release discharges only those tortfeasors specifically named in the release agreement D. holding that in order to fulfill legislative intent to abolish commonlaw release rule general release must specifically identify parties to be released E. holding that general release must name or specifically describe parties to be discharged

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that in order to fulfill legislative intent to abolish commonlaw release rule general release must specifically identify parties to be released
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: some rational basis rather than be arbitrary and capricious). Petitioner’s prior escape, his history of attempted escapes, and possession of escape paraphernalia, guns and ammunition did provide a rational basis for initially placing him in CM status and for confining him there for some period of time. However, these violations are over ten years old, and petitioner has had only one minor disciplinary infraction since. Consequently, we believe a substantial question exists on whether the Assignment Team’s assessment that petitioner remains a severe escape risk provides a sufficient rational basis to support his continued confinement in CM in the absence of any reported objective evidence other than these ten-year old violations. B. Due Process Petitioner next asserts that hi ir.1981) (<HOLDING>) In Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 103 S.Ct. Options: A. recognizing that the due process clause protects the interests in fair notice and repose that may be compromised by retroactive legisla tion B. holding that the fourteenth amendment protects property interests however only from a deprivation by state action C. holding that the due process clause protects only those liberty interests created by the state D. holding that the federal due process clause protects a state employee who under state law has a legitimate claim of entitlement to state employment E. holding the right to marry is a central part of the liberty protected by the due process clause

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the due process clause protects only those liberty interests created by the state
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All representations, warranties, covenants, conditions and agreements contained herein which either are expressed as surviving the Expiration Date or which, by their nature, are to be performed or observed, in whole or in part, after the termination or expiration of this Lease, shall survive the termination or expiration of this Lease.

assistant: Survival
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: § 212(c) relief then waived his right to administrative appeal of his deportation order. See id. at 64. As a result of this waiver, Copeland was caught between a procedural rock and a hard place in pursuing judicial review via habeas. On the one hand, if Copeland filed a habeas petition asserting his right to § 212(c) consideration, he faced a likely administrative exhaustion challenge. See id. at 69; see also Theodoropoulos v. INS, 358 F.3d 162, 171 (2d Cir.2004). On the other hand, if he tried to cure his exhaustion failure by filing a motion to reopen his administrative proceedings, he could (and did) find himself deported before he could avail himself of habeas review. See United States v. Copeland, 376 F.3d at 69-70; see also Swaby v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 156, 160 n. 8 (2d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). The court recognized that Copeland might have Options: A. holding that second and third state habeas petitions that were dismissed as impermissible successive petitions were properly filed B. holding that federal courts have statutory habeas jurisdiction over petitions filed by guantanamo detainees C. holding that so long as the petitioner is subject to a final order of deportation an alien is deemed to be in custody1 for purposes of the ina D. recognizing that habeas petitions filed by aliens subject to ina 106 may be mooted by deportation E. holding that under permanent rules of hrira the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction over claims of aliens ordered deported for crimes listed in ina and holding that district courts retain habeas jurisdiction over deportation orders of criminal aliens

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that habeas petitions filed by aliens subject to ina 106 may be mooted by deportation
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All Revolving Borrowings, continuations and conversions shall require advance written notice to the Administrative Agent (which shall promptly notify the Revolving Lenders) in the form of Exhibit B-1 hereto (or telephonic notice promptly confirmed by such a written notice), which in each case shall be irrevocable, from the Borrower to be received by the Administrative Agent not later than 11:00 a.m. Houston, Texas time on the date of each Revolving Borrowing of Base Rate Loans and not later than 12:00 p.m. Houston, Texas time three Business Days prior to the date of each Revolving Borrowing of Eurodollar Loans, continuation or conversion. Without in any way limiting the Borrower’s obligation to confirm in writing any telephonic notice, the Administrative Agent may act without liability upon the basis of telephonic notice believed by the Administrative Agent in good faith to be from the Borrower prior to receipt of written confirmation. In each such case, the Borrower hereby waives the right to dispute the Administrative Agent’s record of the terms of such telephonic notice except in the case of gross negligence or willful misconduct by the Administrative Agent.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Executive’s execution of a complete and general release of any and all of his potential claims (other than for benefits and payments described in this Agreement or any other vested benefits with the Employees and/or their affiliates) against the Employer, any of its affiliated companies, and their respective successors and any officers, employees, agents, directors, attorneys, insurers, underwriters, and assigns of the Employer or its affiliates and/or successors, is an express condition of Executive’s right to receive termination payments, vesting, and benefits under this Agreement. Executive shall be required to execute within 45 days after Executive’s termination of employment a general waiver and release agreement which documents the release required under this Section 6(i) , the form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

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

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 458 U.S. 591 102 S.Ct. 3503 73 L.Ed.2d 994 Richard W. VELDE, et al., petitioners,v.NATIONAL BLACK POLICE ASSOCIATION, INC., et al No. 80-1074 Supreme Court of the United States June 30, 1982 On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for further consideration in light of Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). 2 Opinion on remand, 229 U.S.App.D.C. 255, 712 F.2d 569. 3 Justice POWELL and Justice STEVENS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

assistant: 8
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: as “more a matter of when the court should exercise its discretion to decline jurisdiction, rather than its lack of jurisdiction under the principles of justiciability.” Id. B. Whether Count II Of Hartford’s Complaint Is Ripe Reviewing Hartford’s claim for indemnification asserted in Count II of its Complaint in light of the circumstances of this case and the applicable law, the Court concludes that Count II is not ripe for adjudication at this time. Under the first prong of the Step-Saver analysis, the parties’ interests are considered adverse when actual harm will result if the declaratory judgment is not granted. 912 F.2d at 647-648. In this case, the Court concludes that Hartford has not demonstrated the actual harm required to establish adversity. Perlberger, 900 F.Supp. at 773 (<HOLDING>); Westport Ins. Corp. v. Howell, 2005 WL Options: A. holding that where all necessary parties including the insurer the insured and the third party claimant had stipulated to the material facts in the dispute a declaratory judgment action on the insurers duty to indemnify could proceed B. holding that insurer had no duly to indemnify insured in view of the parties stipulation of fact C. holding on summary judgment before the question of the insurers obligation to indemnify was decided that the insurer was liable for the costs of the insured in defending the declaratory judgment action because it breached its duty to defend D. holding that the adversity of the parties interests as to the duty to indemnify will not be complete until after the resolution of the underlying action when it will be clear whether the insured can assert a claim for indemnity from his insurer E. holding that an insurer had a duty to defend the insured until it could establish that those claims were not supported by the facts

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the adversity of the parties interests as to the duty to indemnify will not be complete until after the resolution of the underlying action when it will be clear whether the insured can assert a claim for indemnity from his insurer
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: Tenant shall deliver to Landlord, by the Early Entry Date, a certificate of insurance evidencing that the Additional Premises are included within and covered by Tenant's insurance policies required to be carried by Tenant pursuant to the Lease. Such insurance, to the extent it remains in effect and in compliance with the Lease, shall satisfy any requirements of Landlord regarding insurance Tenant is required to carry with respect to the Additional Premises during the Lease Term.

assistant: Insurances
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: are intended to protect consumers against misrepresentations of material fact; statements of opinion alone are generally insufficient to rise to the level of actionable misrepresentations under the DTPA. See Pennington v. Singleton, 606 S.W.2d 682, 687 (Tex.1980) (noting that misrepresentations of material fact are actionable under sections 17.46(b)(5) and (7) so long as they are not merely “puffing” or opinion); cf. Latham v. Castillo, 972 S.W.2d 66, 69-70 (Tex.1998) (allowing claim for mental anguish damages against attorney under uneonscio-nability section of pre-1995 version of DTPA). Gertrude identified no particular statements by DKW about the settlement agreement’s “characteristics” or “benefits,” or about any “rights, remedie 52 (Tex.App.—Eastland 1985, writ ref d n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>); see also Humble Nat’l Bank v. DCV, Inc., 933 Options: A. holding that when an insurer files suit to cancel a policy the entire liability of the insurer both on the policy and under the statute is put in issue B. holding negligent misrepresentation sufficient C. holding insurer not liable for misrepresentation based solely on general statement that policy was adequate or sufficient D. holding that insurer was liable for amount in excess of policy limits because it breached its duty to defend E. holding that misrepresentation was essential to plaintiffs claim

assistant: The best answer is C. holding insurer not liable for misrepresentation based solely on general statement that policy was adequate or sufficient
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: further , it is up to you to take precautions to ensure that whatever links you select or software you download ( whether from this website or other websites ) is free of such items as viruses , worms , trojan horses , defects and other items of a destructive nature .

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: Neither party will be deemed to be in breach of its obligations hereunder or have any liability for any delay, cancellation, or damage arising in whole or in part from any act of God, act of nature, acts of civil or military authority, civil unrest, war, terrorism, strike or labor dispute, mechanical failure, lack of essential supplies or parts, or for any cause, whether similar or dissimilar to any of the foregoing, beyond the reasonable control of such party. The time required for any performance hereunder shall be extended by the duration of any such event(s).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company will pay Employee a base salary at the rate of $425,000.00 (Four-Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents) per year, payable in accordance with the regular payroll practices of the Company (as may be adjusted, from time to time, the “Base Salary”).

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No term or condition of this Plan shall be deemed to have been waived, nor shall there be an estoppel against the enforcement of any provision of this Plan, except by written instrument of the party charged with such waiver or estoppel. No such written waiver shall be deemed a continuing waiver unless specifically stated therein, and each such waiver shall operate only as to the specific term or condition waived and shall not constitute a waiver of such term or condition for the future or as to any act other than that specifically waived. Any waiver by any party hereto of a breach of any provision of the Plan by any other party shall not operate or be construed as a waiver by such party of any subsequent breach thereof.

assistant: Waivers
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 variances in dot intensities that cannot be predicted prior to the analysis, dot-intensity analysis disintegrates as a reliable and useful test.” Post at 169, 699 A.2d at 620-21. According to Dr. Shaler, the PM test of the box spring supported a calculation only of “all the second donor types which would be possible” to fill out the necessary alleles. Defendant also asserts that c t defendant’s challenge to techniques of RFLP analysis, including interpretation of autorads, concerns weight and not admissibility of DNA typing evidence under Frye); State v. Schweitzer, 533 N.W.2d 156, 160 (S.D.1995) (reasoning that DNA-expert’s conclusions regarding results of DNA test were issue of weight for jury to consider); State v. Kalakosky, 121 Wash.2d 525, 852 P.2d 1064, 1072 (1993) (<HOLDING>). As such, the ultimate determination of these Options: A. holding as to the admissibility of prior bad acts that allegedly took place fourteen and twelve years before the acts alleged in that case that the lapse of time between the defendants sexual acts goes to the weight of the evidence not to its admissibility B. holding statistical conclusions admissible and questions regarding the size of a tests database goes to the weight not admissibility of the evidence C. recognizing if a person is qualified by learning and experience the lack of board certification or licensure goes to the weight of the experts testimony not its admissibility D. holding that allegations of tampering went to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility E. holding that defendants assertions that specific laboratory procedures utilized to analyze dna sam pie were flawed goes to weight of evidence not admissibility

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that defendants assertions that specific laboratory procedures utilized to analyze dna sam pie were flawed goes to weight of evidence not admissibility
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: Cas. and Sur. Co., 435 F.3d 252, 260 (3d Cir.2006) (“It has long been the rule in this Circuit that insurance policies are considered part of the property of a bankruptcy estate”) (citing Estate of Lellock v. The Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 811 F.2d 186, 189 (3d Cir.1987)); In re Louisiana World Exposition, Inc., 832 F.2d 1391, 1399 (5th Cir.1987); In re SN Liquidation, Inc., 388 B.R. 579, 583-584 (Bankr.D.Del.2008) ("Insurance policies purchased and paid for by a debtor are property of the estate.”); In re World Health Alternatives, Inc., 369 B.R. 805, 809 (Bankr.D.Del.2007) ("It is clear that insurance policies purchased and paid for by a debtor are property of the estate."); In re A (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1999) (same); but see In re Circle K Corp., 121 B.R. 257 (Bankr.D.Ariz.1990) (<HOLDING>). 31 . See In re Allied Digital, 306 B.R. at Options: A. holding the real estate sale proceeds B. holding that where the policy names only the directors or officers as insured the proceeds are not property of the estate C. holding that because proceeds of a letter of credit were not secured by estate collateral the proceeds were not property of the estate D. holding that the proceeds of a liability insurance policy were not property of the estate E. holding directors and officers liability policy was not property of the estate because it did not increase or decrease the worth of the bankruptcy estate

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the proceeds of a liability insurance policy were not property of the estate
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: amended ordinance contained the identical provision defining “sewage works” as “all facilities for collecting, transporting, pumping, treating, and disposing of sewage.” (emphasis added). Yet, the landowners complain the system that was actually constructed by the Southgate Board does not treat sewage, but merely drains liquids from septic tanks after the waste is treated within the septic tank. ¶ 11. In response, the Lowndes County Board of Supervisors argues the circuit court correctly held the Board of Supervisors has the power and authority to enact the ordinance at issue and to impose misdemeanor penalties for failure to comply with the ordinance. In support of this argument, the Board of Supervisors cites Lepre v. D’Iberville Water & Sewer Dist., 376 So.2d 191, 195 (Miss.1979) (<HOLDING>); Hutchinson v. City of Valdosta, 227 U.S. 303, Options: A. holding that the court has no independent authority to compel arbitration of a class claim B. holding that simply because claimants had diverted the entire run of the water at issue did not give them the ability to claim a right to all the water when they could not and had not put it to beneficial use C. holding the court had the authority to compel the property owner to connect to the water districts system and pay all back service charges which had accrued D. holding substantial completion had occurred because water district took possession of all the lines filled them with water and began using them to serve the customers of the water district E. holding the fact that an exempt owner who acquired legal title after date when liability for current taxes had accrued was the equitable owner did not make the exemption applicable

assistant: The best answer is C. holding the court had the authority to compel the property owner to connect to the water districts system and pay all back service charges which had accrued
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 otherwise provided in subparagraphs (b) and (d) below, you will vest in the Performance Units earned (if any) for the Performance Period only if you are an employee of the Company or a Subsidiary on the date such earned Performance Units are paid, as provided in Paragraph 3 below.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: dismiss. See Riley, supra, 61 N.J. at 228, 294 A.2d 7 (“[A] court should be slow to hold that a suit may not proceed as a class action.”). Plaintiffs suggest the “circumstances in Riley, where premature dismissal was reversed, are identical, if not less egregious than, those in this case.” Although we agree courts must liberally view class allegations and allow reasonable inferences to be gleaned from the complaint’s allegations and search for a possible basis for class relief so as to avoid premature dismissals, Carter-Reed, supra, 203 N.J. at 505-06, 518, 4 A.3d 561 we do not abide a view that precludes dismissal, following the required analysis, when a court determines alleged claims do not properly lend themselves to class certification. See Riley, supra, 61 N.J. at 225, 294 A.2d 7 (<HOLDING>). In Riley, the Court examined the pre-trial Options: A. holding that district court in making class certification decision should avoid focusing on merits of underlying class action B. holding that a district of columbia consumer protection statute that authorized representative actions and did not reference class action requirements or mandate class certification was a separate and distinct procedural vehicle from a class action and thus did not constitute a class action under cafa C. holding that it is elementary that in order to maintain a class action the class sought to be represented must be adequately defined and clearly ascertainable D. holding a class action should lie unless it is clearly infeasible E. holding that the right of all putative members of a proposed class in an action filed pursuant to kansass class action rule of civil procedure to file a separate action is preserved pending the determination of whether the initial case shall be maintained as a class action

assistant: The best answer is D. holding a class action should lie unless it is clearly infeasible
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 purpose of this Section 13 is to protect the Company and its subsidiaries and affiliates from Injurious Conduct. To the extent that this Section 13 is not fully enforceable as written, the unenforceable provisions shall be modified so as to provide the Company with the fullest protection permitted by law. The Committee may waive any provisions of this Section 13, as the Committee deems appropriate.

assistant: Enforceability
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: Borrower will do all acts and execute all documents for the better and more effective carrying out of the intent and purposes of this Agreement, as Lender shall reasonably require from time to time, and will do such other acts necessary or desirable to preserve and protect the collateral at any time securing or intending to secure the Note, as Lender may require.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the scope of the duty to avoid causing emotional distress that results from negligence. A. Duty and Foreseeability In general, courts rely on the concept of “foreseeability” to determine whether the defendant owed a duty to the claimant in a negligence action and examine whether the risk to the claimant was “reasonably foreseeable” to the defendant. See, e.g., District of Columbia v. Shannon, 696 A.2d 1359, 1366 (D.C.1997); Haynesw orth, v. D.H. Stevens Co., 645 A.2d 1095, 1098 (D.C.1994). If the injury that befell the plaintiff was “reasonably foreseeable” to the defendant, then courts will usually conclude that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to avoid causing that injury; if the injury was not “reasonably foreseeable,” then there was no duty. Compare Shannon, 696 A.2d at 1366 (<HOLDING>), with Galloway v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 632 Options: A. holding that the defendants motion for discharge was premature and thus properly denied by the trial court B. holding that defendants failure to renew their motion for judgment as a matter of law which was denied by the district court when they made it at the close of the evidence limited the relief the appellate court could grant to a new trial C. holding that a successive 3850 motion can be denied on the ground that it is an abuse of process if there is no reason why the issue could not have been raised in a previous motion D. holding that the trial court may not grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the motion E. holding that because playground accident due to poor maintenance could have been reasonably foreseeable to the district trial court properly denied districts motion for judgment on the ground it owed no duty to child using playground

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that because playground accident due to poor maintenance could have been reasonably foreseeable to the district trial court properly denied districts motion for judgment on the ground it owed no duty to child using playground
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any question or dispute regarding the administration or interpretation of the Notice, the Plan, the Partnership Agreement or this Agreement shall be submitted by the Grantee, the Partnership or the Company to the Committee. The resolution of such question or dispute by the Committee shall be final and binding on all persons.

assistant: Interpretations
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: it “provide[s] a remedy for a violation of that policy”). Wal-Mart relies on Silva v. Albuquerque Assembly & Distribution Freeport Warehouse Corp., 106 N.M. 19, 738 P.2d 513 (1987), and McGinnis v. Honeywell, Inc., 110 N.M. 1, 791 P.2d 452 (1990), for the proposition that the tort of retaliatory discharge will not lie where an employee is protected against wrongful discharge by another cause of action (in those cases, breach of an employment contract). We agree with WalMart’s position to the extent it intimates that a plaintiff cannot recover twice for the same harm — once under the employment contract (or the Human Rights Act, as the case may be) and again under the tort: “It is clear that McGinnis cannot recover more than one compensatory-damage award[.]” Id. at 8, 791 P.2d at 459 (<HOLDING>). The holding in Silva echoes this concern: Options: A. holding that conduct must be beyond the fraud which supported compensatory damages to award punitive damages B. holding that a plaintiff who proves a cause of action under 1981 may recover punitive damages where the plaintiff is entitled to an award of compensatory damages even if nominal C. holding that because plaintiff recovered compensatory damages on breach of contract award the intended protection afforded by the retaliatory discharge action is unnecessary and inapplicable quoting silva 106 nm at 21 738 p2d at 515 D. recognizing that breach of contract cause of action accrues at time of the breach E. holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that because plaintiff recovered compensatory damages on breach of contract award the intended protection afforded by the retaliatory discharge action is unnecessary and inapplicable quoting silva 106 nm at 21 738 p2d at 515
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: v. Madigan, Cir.) (same), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 531, 157 L.Ed.2d 412 (2003). Nonetheless, the court in Theodoropoulos II also recognized an exceedingly narrow exception. It stated that although “as a general rule, courts are required to strictly enforce statutory exhaustion requirements[,]” there are “some limited circumstances in which an exception to the general rule might apply.” 358 F.3d at 172-73. We invoke the narrow leeway afforded by Theodoropoulos II and hold that in light of the unusual facts of Pichardo’s case, an exception is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. Courts have historically interpreted procedural rules to prevent a fundamental miscarriage of justice. See, e.g., Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991) (<HOLDING>); McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 494, 111 Options: A. holding that in the case of state procedural default a federal habeas review of the claims is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate among other things that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice B. holding that failure to consider an improper jury instruction would constitute a miscarriage of justice C. holding that federal review of claims is barred where those claims have been defaulted in state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule unless the petitioner can demonstrate cause and prejudice D. holding that courts may only review claims for fundamental miscarriage of justice E. holding that a prisoners failure to pursue an appeal in state court is a procedural bar to federal habeas relief unless the petitioner shows both cause for failing to bring the state claim and actual prejudice from the failure to consider his federal claims

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that in the case of state procedural default a federal habeas review of the claims is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate among other things that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice