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: incurred.” Id. at 1305-07. Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish Energy Northwest III on the basis that it discussed plant modifications instead of cask loading costs. Pis.’ Post-Trial Br. 50-51. However, Plaintiffs do not point to any case exempting cask loading costs from the Federal Circuit’s well established requirement that a utility present a “comparison between the breach and non-breach worlds.” Yankee Atomic, 536 F.3d at 1273. Here, as in a subsequent Energy Northwest case, “the Court has no principled basis (nor have plaintiffs offered one) for treating ‘cask loading’ differently from the ‘plant modification costs’ at issue in [Energy Northwest III] .... ” Energy Nw. v. United States, 115 Fed.Cl. 69, 76 (2014); see also Ala. Power Co. v. United States, 119 Fed.Cl. 615, 629 (2014) (<HOLDING>); Sys. Fuels, Inc. v. United States, 120 Options: A. holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish unconscionability based upon the alleged excessive cost of arbitration because they failed to supply information as to the actual costs that might be incurred B. holding that bankruptcy court could not enter judgment for 7402564 under 107a for incurred costs when such costs had not been incurred C. holding that because plaintiffs failed to prove that their incurred fuel characterization and loading costs would not have been incurred in the nonbreach world plaintiffs were not entitled to recovery for these costs D. holding that the plaintiffs suit for workrelated costs incurred pursuant to a consent decree was a contribution action under 113f E. holding that cleanup costs incurred pursuant to a consent decree were not incurred voluntarily and must be sought through a 113f contribution action

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that because plaintiffs failed to prove that their incurred fuel characterization and loading costs would not have been incurred in the nonbreach world plaintiffs were not entitled to recovery for these costs
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in part is reversed and the complaints are dismissed. Judge Barry dissents. 1 The two complaints, which were heard separately by the administrative law judge, were consolidated on appeal to the PUO. 2 Stray voltage is neutral voltage which cannot return to the utility’s substation through the distribution lines. Stray voltage is grounded by the utility, and travels through the earth as it returns along the distribution circuit. When the stray voltage , runs through any electrical equipment, such as milking machines, it can produce low voltage electrical shock if the equipment is not properly grounded. Stray voltage may also pass through the body of a cow as part of the return circuit, depending in part on the levels of soil moisture. T 34 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 516, 383 A.2d 997 (1978) (<HOLDING>). 6 Because of our disposition of the case on Options: A. holding that the puc may not allocate the amount of a disputed water bill between the utility and the customer where the complainants had not met their burden of proof B. holding that section 523a2c shifts the burden of production and not the burden of proof on the issue of intent only C. holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant D. holding that a letter from the complainants psychiatrist established a nexus between the complainants mental disability and a comfort dog E. holding that the amount of water rights appurtenant to the land is the amount that is being used thereon before and at the time of the sale

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the puc may not allocate the amount of a disputed water bill between the utility and the customer where the complainants had not met their burden of proof
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: local land office. Section 4 of the 1875 Act ... recognized that: all such lands over which such right of way shall pass shall be disposed of subject to such right of way. 43 U.S.C. § 937. By making the disposition of such lands “subject to” the right-of-way, the Act explicitly negated the theory that these lands were not included in the “disposition.” To the contrary, the Act recognized the future disposition of the lands over which the right-of-way passes. Id. at 1314. See also Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. v. Continental Oil Co., 253 F.2d 468 (10th Cir.1958) (oil and gas within right of way under 1875 Act belonged not to railroad but to private owner of the servient estate, who had leased oil and gas rights to Continental Oil); Beres v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 403, 427 (2005) (<HOLDING>). Section 4 of the 1875 Act thus undercuts AT & Options: A. holding under basic principles of property law that easement rights are subject to regulation by the forest service as the owner of the servient estate B. holding that grant of a cart road did not restrict use of easement to horsedrawn vehicles but rather created a general right of way for vehicles and stating that we should be very slow to hold that even ancient rights of way not expressly restricted as to the type of vehicle could not be employed at all for the means of transportation in common use by a succeeding generation C. holding that patents to lands over which rights of way created under 1875 act passed conveyed the servient estate in the right of way D. holding that the burden on the servient estate cannot be increased without the consent of the owners of the servient estate and that the owner of the dominant estate to which the appurtenant easement is attached has no power to convey or expand use of that easement in connection with a tract of land owned by another E. holding that railroad right of way under the act of march 3 1875 ch 152 18 stat 482 vested upon actual construction of the road

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that patents to lands over which rights of way created under 1875 act passed conveyed the servient estate in the right of way
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be deemed to be a contract made under and shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York without regard to conflicts of laws principles (other than Sections 5-1401 and 5-1402 of the General Obligations Law 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Award Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California, without giving effect to the conflict of law principles thereof. For purposes of litigating any dispute that arises under this Award of Restricted Stock or this Award Agreement, the parties hereby submit to and consent to the jurisdiction of the State of California , and agree that such litigation will be conducted in the courts of Santa Clara County, California, or the federal courts for the United States for the Northern District of California, and no other courts, where this Award of Restricted Stock is made and/or to be performed.

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: resident spouse to submit to an EUO, at Citizen’s request. This Court has previously held that an insured’s refusal to submit to an EUO relieves the insurer of its obligation to pay under the policy. Stringer v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 622 So.2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); see also Goldman v. State Farm Fire Gen. Ins. Co., 660 So.2d 300, 303 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (stating that “[a]n insured’s refusal to comply with a demand for an examination under oath is a willful and material breach of an insurance contract which precludes the insured from recovery under the policy”). Although Alexandra assigned her right to benefits under the policy, she did not assign to Haim her obligations under the policy. Marlin Diagnostics v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 897 So.2d 469, 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (<HOLDING>); Shaw v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 37 So.3d Options: A. holding the obligation to attend an euo does not shift to the provider merely because the insured assigned her benefits B. holding that where the insurer retains an attorney to represent the insured pursuant to an insurance policy the attorney acts in the capacity of an independent contractor for the insured C. holding a personal profit exclusion applicable to an insured corporation where the purpose of the exclusion was to exclude coverage when the insured received profits to which the insured was not legally entitled D. holding as unambiguous under iowa law the insurance policys exclusion of coverage to any obligation of the insured to indemnify another because of damages arising out of a bodily injury to any employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of his employment by the insured E. holding that a claimants failure to list an impairment either in her application for disability benefits or through her testimony disposes of the claim because the alj was under no obligation to investigate a claim not presented at the time of the application for benefits and not offered at the hearing as a basis for disability

assistant: The best answer is A. holding the obligation to attend an euo does not shift to the provider merely because the insured assigned her benefits
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: prior to your first use of the skype software and your first use of the qik software , you will be asked to create a user account and choose a user id and password .

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: TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THE PARTIES HERETO HEREBY WAIVE THEIR RESPECTIVE R IGHTS TO A JURY TRIAL OF ANY PROCEEDING (whether in contract, in tort, at law or otherwise) BASED UPON, ARISING OUT OF, OR RELATED TO THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OF THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED BY THIS AGREEMENT. THE SCOPE OF THIS WAIVER IS INTENDED TO BE ALL-ENCOMPASSING OF ANY AND ALL DISPUTES THAT MAY BE FILED IN ANY COURT AND THAT RELATE TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, CONTRACT CLAIMS, TORT CLAIMS, BREACH OF DUTY CLAIMS AND ALL OTHER COMMON LAW AND STATUTORY CLAIMS. THE PARTIES HERETO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS WAIVER IS A MATERIAL INDUCEMENT TO ENTER INTO A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP, THAT EACH HAS ALREADY RELIED ON THE WAIVER IN ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT AND THAT EACH WILL CONTINUE TO RELY ON THE WAIVER IN THEIR RELATED FUTURE DEALINGS. THE PARTIES HERETO FURTHER WARRANT AND REPRESENT THAT EACH HAS REVIEWED THIS WAIVER WITH ITS LEGAL COUNSEL, AND THAT EACH KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVES ITS JURY TRIAL RIGHTS FOLLOWING CONSULTATION WITH LEGAL COUNSEL. THIS WAIVER IS IRREVOCABLE, MEANING THAT IT MAY NOT BE MODIFIED EITHER ORALLY OR IN WRITING, AND THIS WAIVER SHALL APPLY TO ANY SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS, RENEWALS, SUPPLEMENTS OR MODIFICATIONS TO THIS AGREEMENT OR TO ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS OR AGREEMENTS RELATING TO THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY. IN THE EVENT OF LITIGATION, THIS AGREEMENT MAY BE FILED AS A WRITTEN CONSENT TO A TRIAL BY THE COURT.

assistant: Waiver Of Jury Trials
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: It and its Subsidiaries carry insurance on their Projects with financially sound and reputable insurance companies, in such amounts, with such deductibles and covering such risks as are at least comparable to the coverage maintained by institutional owners of similar properties as evidenced by insurance certificates provided to Administrative Agent.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) Navistar Financial will cause any group, property or casualty insurance policy maintained by it on the Collateral to name the Trustee, for the benefit of the Secured Parties, as an additional named insured, loss payee, beneficiary or otherwise, as appropriate, to the extent its interest may appear.

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: did.” Trial Tr. Vol. II at 142. On direct appeal, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) acknowledged that these incidents “did, tangentially, reveal [petitioner’s] pre-arrest silence and lack of cooperation.” Carter v. State, No. F 99-1293, at 4 (Okla.Crim.App. Jan. 4, 2001). However, the OCCA concluded that, in any event, “because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming, any relationship between these comments and [petitioner’s] right to remain silent was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)). The magistrate judge took a similar view in this habeas, proceeding. Noting that this circuit had extended the rule of Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965) (<HOLDING>), and Miranda v., Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 468 n. Options: A. holding fifth amendment prohibits comment on accuseds testimonial silence B. holding fifth amendment prohibits comment on accuseds silence during police custodial interrogation C. holding that the fifth amendment in its direct application to the federal government and in its bearing on the states by reason of the fourteenth amendment forbids either comment by the prosecution on the accuseds silence or instructions by the court that such silence is evidence of guilt D. holding that the fifth amendment forbids either comment by the prosecution on the accuseds silence or instructions by the court that such silence is evidence of guilt E. holding that it is improper for prosecutor to comment on accuseds postarrest silence

assistant: The best answer is A. holding fifth amendment prohibits comment on accuseds testimonial silence
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 which were found by the jury), claiming that because they do not entail physical contact, the misdemeanor provision does not apply. The government contends that “assault” is a term of art encompassing the physical contact rule, so that those “assaults” with physical contact are felonies while those without are not. But “assault” is used twice in § 111. First, “assault” in § 111(a)(1) is a verb proscribing conduct. Second, in the punishment clause of § 111(a), “assault” (“simple assault” actually) is a noun denoting a crime punishable as a misdemeanor. Prior to the 1994 amendment, the first incarnation of “assault” in § 111(a)(1), in addition to the words cited by the government, likewise did not entail physical contact. See United States v. Mathis, 579 F.2d 415, 418 (7th Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>). Because all violations of the statute, Options: A. holding force to be an element of pre1994 amendment 111 which may be satisfied by proof of force or threat of force B. holding that under 521 the coercive force applied against a plaintiff must result in an interference with a separate constitutional or statutory right and it is not sufficient that the right interfered with is the right to be free of the force or threat of force that was applied C. holding that the decision of a police officer to preserve public safety and order through use of commands backed by threat of force or actual use of physical force is a matter of discretion D. holding that where the plaintiffs evidence supported a finding that the defendants had applied force to restrain him the jury must determine not only whether the officers were justified in using force at all but if so whether the degree of force actually used was reasonable E. recognizing that an arrest requires either physical force or where physical force is absent submission to the assertion of authority

assistant: The best answer is A. holding force to be an element of pre1994 amendment 111 which may be satisfied by proof of force or threat of force
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 proceeds from the issuance of the Shares shall be used by the Company to fund its operations and for the payment of fees and expenses associated with the transactions contemplated hereby and shall not be used for any other purpose including, without limitation, the payment of existing indebtedness of the Company.

assistant: Use Of Proceeds
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: federal law, refers to the PADEP and PADEP only. PADEP is the state administrative agency that is charged by the Clean Water Act to issue, condition, or deny water quality certifications, not the EHB. See 33 U.S.C. § 1341. Rather, the EHB’s authority and jurisdiction exist pursuant to state law only. See 35 P.S. § 7514(c). Intervenor argues that this Court should impose an exhaustion requirement on Plaintiff because many of the policy reasons for requiring exhaustion apply here. “Exhaustion concerns apply with particular force when the action under review involves exercise of the agency’s discretionary power or when the agency proceedings in question allow the agency to apply its special expertise.” See McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 145, 112 S.Ct. 1081, 117 L.Ed.2d 291 (1992) (<HOLDING>), superseded by statute, Prison Litigation Options: A. holding that federal prisoners need not exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court B. holding an inmate must exhaust all available administrative remedies before filing suit and if exhaustion was not completed at the time of filing dismissal is mandatory C. holding that a plaintiff need not exhaust his administrative remedies to bring a retaliation claim D. holding there is no statutory requirement that a taxpayer exhaust administrative remedies before filing a complaint in the tax court E. holding that because the fha explicitly provides that an aggrieved party does not need to exhaust parallel administrative remedies provided through hud before commencing a federal action it would seem logical that if an aggrieved party does not need to exhaust hud remedies before filing a federal action he or she should not have to exhaust local remedies

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that federal prisoners need not exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit in federal 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: As of the Effective Date, the Borrower has no Subsidiaries other than those listed on Schedule 4.11 . Each Subsidiary of the Borrower (including any such Subsidiary formed or acquired subsequent to the Effective Date) has complied with the requirements of Section 5.6 .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Provider may not assign, transfer, subcontract or delegate, in whole or in part, any rights, duties, or obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of Health Plan. Subject to the foregoing, this Agreement is binding upon, and inures to the benefit of the Health Plan and Provider and their respective successors in interest and assigns. Neither the acquisition of Health Plan nor a change of its legal name shall be deemed an assignment.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to the diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Because federal courts have jurisdiction in this case under the federal question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the district court erred by applying the domestic relations exception. Nonetheless, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of this case because Plaintiff has not exhausted his tribal court remedies. AFFIRMED. 1 . The record is not entirely clear on the status (Indian or non-Indian) of Defendant Hanson and of Lexie’s maternal grandmother. Determination of those factual questions is unnecessary to the resolution of the issue before us. 2 . Because we have subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331, we need not determine whether an alternative basis for jurisdiction also exists. See Boozer, 381 F.3d at 934 n. 2 Options: A. recognizing that every theory of relief must raise federal issue for claim to arise under federal law B. holding that jurisdiction exists under federal common law and declining to address the plaintiffs alternative jurisdictional theory C. recognizing the common enterprise theory of marriage D. holding that no scholars privilege exists under the first amendment or common law E. holding that plaintiffs are ordinarily entitled to instructions consonant with their theory of the case where evidentiary support for the theory exists

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that jurisdiction exists under federal common law and declining to address the plaintiffs alternative jurisdictional theory
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: derived from his police report of the Kelleher incident, such speech is not protected in the context of public employment. Defs.’ Mem. at 4. In support of their argument they cite Tang v. State of Rhode Island, Dep’t of Elderly Affairs which ruled that an employee’s personal complaints about her working conditions did not constitute a matter of public concern. Tang, 163 F.3d at 12-13. .In Tang, the working conditions complained of included inter alia being placed on administrative leave and being relocated within the building. Id. at 12 .n. 5. There is a First Amendment distinction, however, between complaints about these types of working conditions, which are not protected and complaints about fellow employees’ official misconduct, which are protected. Guilloty Perez, 339 F.3d at 52 (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted); Torres-Rosado v. Options: A. holding that law enforcement agents internal reports of misconduct by fellow officers involved matters of public concern and contrasting such speech with employees complaints in tang B. holding that when a person reports cases of possible patient abuse that speech is a matter of public concern C. holding that alleged misconduct by public officials particularly by law enforcement officials is matter of public concern D. recognizing a public employees first amendment right to address matters of legitimate public concern E. holding that an officers report of misconduct by fellow officer is a matter of public concern

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that law enforcement agents internal reports of misconduct by fellow officers involved matters of public concern and contrasting such speech with employees complaints in tang
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: similar to, but intersects with, the [Equal Employment Opportunity Act] provision directly addressed in Irwin.” Nunnally v. Mac-Causland, 996 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1993); see also id. at 3 n. 3 (explaining that the “interdependence of the two statutes is rooted in their histories”). The First Circuit saw “no principled reason for failing to extend Irwin’s rebuttable presumption” to § 7703(b)(2). Id. at 3. Two other circuits have similarly concluded that the period of limitation in § 7703(b)(2) of the CSRA is subject to equitable tolling. See Blaney v. United States, 34 F.3d 509, 512-13 (7th Cir.1994) (stating that “a time limit like the one in § 7703(b)(2) is not jurisdictional,” but providing no analysis); Williams-Scaife v. Dep’t of Def. Dependent Sch., 925 F.2d 346, 348 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Standing alone is the Sixth Circuit, which Options: A. holding that irwin overruled all prior ninth circuit cases that denied equitable tolling under statutes and regulations relating to federal employee discrimination suits including one which had denied tolling under 7703b2 B. holding title vii subject to equitable tolling C. holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling D. holding that 2244d is subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases E. holding that equitable tolling under 2255 would be allowed if at all only for extraordinary circumstances

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that irwin overruled all prior ninth circuit cases that denied equitable tolling under statutes and regulations relating to federal employee discrimination suits including one which had denied tolling under 7703b2
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: played a significant role in the bulk purchasing, unlocking, reflashing and reselling the Phones with the Marks intact. 7. Actual Confusion “The law is well settled in this circuit that evidence of actual confusion between trademarks is not necessary to a finding of likelihood of confusion.” E. Remy Martin, 756 F.2d at 1529; Montgomery v. Noga, 168 F.3d 1282, 1302 (11th Cir.1999) (“[W]e have held that a plaintiff is not required to provide evidence of actual confusion in order to prove likelihood of confusion.”). Adopting an identical mark “with the intent of deriving benefit from the reputation of [Plaintiffs mark] may alone be enough to justify the inference that there is confusing similarity.” Am-Brit, 812 F.2d at 1542; see also Int’l Cosmetics Exch., Inc., 303 F.3d at 1248-49 (<HOLDING>); Babbit Electronics, Inc., 38 F.3d at 1179-80 Options: A. holding that the use of the shoneys name over any subsidiary product line mark reduces the likelihood of confusion B. holding that as in an action alleging infringement of a mark likelihood of confusion is the essence of an unfair competition claim C. holding that concurrent use of same mark on similar product was sufficient to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion D. holding that since we have already held that the concurrent use of plaintiffs mark by the defendants creates the likelihood of confusion the inescapable conclusion is that there was also irreparable injury E. holding limited use of a mark did not constitute prior use in commerce sufficient to establish rights in the mark

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that concurrent use of same mark on similar product was sufficient to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion
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 the Parties will give prompt notice to the other Parties of any event or circumstance which has given, or would be reasonably likely to give, rise to a breach of any representation, warranty or covenant contained in this Agreement, or of any condition which would reasonably be expected to delay or prevent the Closing hereunder.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: these terms of use apply to all users of the service , including , without limitation , users who are contributors of content , information , and other materials or services on the site , individual users of the service , venues that access the service , and users that have a page on the service

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: Lenders authorize Administrative Agent to release any (i) Lien with respect to any Collateral (a) upon Full Payment of the Obligations; (b) that is the subject of an Asset Disposition which the Borrower certifies in writing to Administrative Agent is a Permitted Asset Disposition or a Lien which the Borrower certifies is a Permitted Lien entitled to priority over Administrative Agent’s Liens (and Administrative Agent may rely conclusively on any such certificate without further inquiry); (c) that does not constitute a material part of the Collateral; (d) as required to effect any sale or other disposition of Collateral in connection with any exercise of remedies of Administrative Agent pursuant to the Security Documents; or (e) with the written consent of the Required Lenders or (ii) Guarantor from its obligations under any Guaranty if such Person ceases to be a Subsidiary as a result of a transaction permitted under the Loan Documents. Lenders hereby authorize Administrative Agent to execute and deliver any instruments, documents and agreements necessary or desirable to evidence and confirm the release of any Collateral or any Guarantor from its obligations under any Guaranty pursuant to the foregoing provisions of this paragraph, all without the further consent or joinder of any Lender. Administrative Agent shall have no obligation whatsoever to any Lenders to assure that any Collateral exists or is owned by the Borrower or a Guarantor, or is cared for, protected, insured or encumbered, nor to assure that Administrative Agent’s Liens have been properly created, perfected or enforced, or are entitled to any particular priority, nor to exercise any duty of care with respect to any Collateral.

assistant: Liens
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: told Acquaah he had done — the motion would have been granted. The key issue on appeal is thus whether Aequaah’s good faith but mistaken belief as to the correct date qualifies as an exceptional circumstance. Although this court has not yet determined what constitutes an exceptional circumstance where an alien has received proper notice of a removal hearing, other circuit courts have set a high threshold and are disinclined to view misunderstandings and communication errors as being sufficient. See, e.g., Dominguez-Capistran v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 876, 877-78 (8th Cir.2006) (determining that an attorney’s “poor calendaring and failure to personally remind” the alien of her hearing date was not an exceptional circumstance); Uriostegui v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 660, 663-64 (7th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Thomas v. INS, 976 F.2d 786, 788-90 (1st Options: A. holding that working conditions were not intolerable to the point of coercion where supervisors yelled at employee told her she was a poor manager gave her poor performance evaluations chastised her in front of customers and once required her to work with an injured back B. holding that relative to the threat that she posed physically separating tina cortez from her telephone taking her by the arm escorting her from her home taking the keys to her home and locking the door and placing her in the locked back seat of a patrol car was excessive force as well as an unlawful seizure under the fourth amendment C. holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment D. holding that an aliens misunderstanding as to the correct month of her hearing as told to her in spanish her native language by an interpreter was not an exceptional circumstance E. holding that allegations that employees supervisors yelled at her told her she was a poor manager and gave her poor evaluations chastised her in front of customers and once required her to work with an injured back were insufficient to state title vii claim

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that an aliens misunderstanding as to the correct month of her hearing as told to her in spanish her native language by an interpreter was not an exceptional circumstance
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 Rule 41 authorized the magistrate judge to issue the warrant. The court is bound to interpret Rule 41 as it is written, not to approve any warrants for which the issuing venue merely appears reasonable. Further, the Government contends that Rule 41 has been interpreted flexibly and has been read as permitting searches not expressly prohibited by the rule or by statute. See U.S. v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159, 169, 98 S.Ct. 364, 54 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977); U.S. v. Koyomejian, 970 F.2d 536, 542 (9th Cir. 1992) (en banc). However, the New York Telephone and Koyomejian cases both involved a kind of search not addressed one way or the other by the text of Rule 41 (the use of a pen register to collect telephone numbers when the definition of “property” did not yet include information 0) (<HOLDING>). Second, even if not a constitutional Options: A. holding that search of middle school student violated her fourth amendment rights B. holding that arrest in backyard violated fourth amendment C. holding detention of passenger for warrant check violated fourth amendment absent reasonable suspicion D. holding that a warrant issued by a judge lacking authority violated defendants fourth amendment rights E. recognizing cause of action for damages against federal agents acting under their authority who allegedly violated plaintiffs fourth amendment rights

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a warrant issued by a judge lacking authority violated defendants fourth amendment rights
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: Grantee acknowledges and agrees that the covenants set forth in Section 16 hereof are reasonable and valid in time and scope and in all other respects and shall be considered and construed as separate and independent covenants. If any portion of the foregoing provisions is found to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction because its duration, the territory, the definition of activities or the definition of information covered is considered to be invalid or unreasonable in scope, the invalid or unreasonable term shall be redefined, or a new enforceable term provided, such that the intent of the Company and Grantee will not be impaired and the provision in question shall be enforceable to the fullest extent of the applicable laws.

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 provision of this Agreement shall be construed in favor of, or against, any particular party by reason of any presumption with respect to the drafting of this Agreement; both parties, being represented by counsel, having fully participated in the negotiation of this instrument.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The balance sheets, and related statements of income, cash flow and shareholder’s equity, of Parent and its Subsidiaries that have been and are hereafter delivered to Agent and Lenders, are prepared in all material respects in accordance with GAAP, except as noted therein, and fairly present in all material respects the financial positions and results of operations of Parent and Subsidiaries at the dates and for the periods indicated. All projections delivered from time to time to Agent and Lenders have been prepared in good faith, based on reasonable assumptions at the time prepared in light of the circumstances at such time. Since December 31, 2015, there has been no change in the condition, financial or otherwise, of Parent or any of its Subsidiaries that could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. Each Obligor is Solvent.

assistant: Financial Statements
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: also could have gone forward with filling its land without a permit. The cease and desist order (or, in this case, the injunction) was the point at which the agency first asserted regulatory jurisdiction over the landowner. Up to that point, no permit was required either in Tabb Lakes or here. To the extent Boise argues that the ESA did hot give the district court the power to enjoin logging without a permit, its argument is not well taken. First, as discussed above, a takings claim before'the Court of Federal Claims cannot ask that court to review the propriety of a district court’s handling of a case. Second, as the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held, the district court did have the authority to enjoin Boise from logging. Marbled Murrelet v. Babbitt, 83 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); see also Defenders of Wildlife v. Bernal, 204 Options: A. holding that a reasonably certain threat of imminent harm to a protected species is sufficient for issuance of an injunction under section 9 of the esa B. holding that even though irreparable harm is not required it had been shown and weighed in favor of issuance of the preliminary injunction C. holding that a threat to harm another person is a crime of violence D. recognizing that irreparable harm is the single most important prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary injunction E. holding that if defendants violated substantive or procedural provision of esa a court does not have traditional equitable discretion instead any threatened harm is per se irreparable harm and public interest always favors the imposition of an injunction

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a reasonably certain threat of imminent harm to a protected species is sufficient for issuance of an injunction under section 9 of the esa
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: Cir.1981) (en banc), this Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. 11 . The Paul Court explained: It is apparent from our decisions that there exists a variety of interests which are difficult of definition but are nevertheless comprehended within the meaning of either "liberty” or "property” as meant in the Due Process Clause. These interests attain this constitutional status by virtue of the fact that they have been initially recogn .1993) ("Notwithstanding the preference state law grants to foster families seeking to adopt their foster children, this priority does not rise to the level of an entitlement or expectancy.”); Wildauer v. Frederick County, 993 F.2d 369, 373 (4th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit has held that Options: A. holding foster parents not liable for willful act of their foster child B. holding that there was no liberty interest for the typical foster parents in question C. recognizing that foster parents do not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in a continued relationship with their foster child D. holding the foster parent did not possess a liberty interest in her relationship with the foster child E. holding there is no protected liberty interest in maintaining the foster family relationship

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that foster parents do not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in a continued relationship with their foster child
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as set forth on Schedule 5.06 , there are no actions, suits, proceedings, claims or disputes pending or, to the knowledge of any Borrower, threatened in writing, at law, in equity, in arbitration or before any Governmental Authority, by or against any Consolidated Party or against its properties or revenues that either individually or in the aggregate, would reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if any provision of these terms is found unenforceable , then that provision will be severed from these terms and not affect the validity and enforceability of any remaining provisions .

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: During the Term, Executive shall devote Executive’s full-time efforts during normal business hours to Olin’s business and affairs, except during vacation periods in accordance with Olin’s vacation policy and periods of illness or incapacity. Nothing in this Agreement will preclude Executive from devoting reasonable periods required for service as a director or a member of any organization involving no conflict of interest with Olin’s interest, provided that no additional position as director or member shall be accepted by Executive during the period of Executive’s employment with Olin without its prior consent.

assistant: Duties
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: South Dakota law and upholding judgment for the plaintiff where the employer manufactured reasons for terminating the plaintiff even though the employer knew that the plaintiffs medical condition made him particularly vulnerable to emotional distress). While no doubt upsetting to Dunn, the School District’s nonrenewal of his contract, even if done on an illegitimate basis, was not done in a manner involving extreme or outrageous conduct “calculated to cause” serious emotional distress. Hauff, 668 N.W.2d at 535; see also Reynolds v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 454 F.3d 868, 873-74 (8th Cir.2006) (applying South Dakota law and stating that “[wjhile termination from a job may be upsetting, this does not in itself constitute extreme or outrageous conduct”); Richardson, 531 N.W.2d at 28-29 (<HOLDING>). As for Eppard’s response to the EEOC, Dunn’s Options: A. holding that isolated incident in which claimant raised voice at his supervisor in private office but in front of two other employees and possibly used profanity did not constitute misconduct sufficient to deny unemployment compensation benefits B. holding employee had cause of action against her employers when nonemployee harassed her and employers failed to take corrective action C. holding that when an employee is injured by his employers tortious conduct his employer owes him damages and compensation under the act D. holding that employer was not liable when employee got into a fight with a third party who challenged the way the employee was doing his job E. holding that employers conduct was not extreme and outrageous where employer terminated employee and had her escorted out of the building but did not raise his voice or use profanity when doing so

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that employers conduct was not extreme and outrageous where employer terminated employee and had her escorted out of the building but did not raise his voice or use profanity when doing so