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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Vendor shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain complete and accurate books and records regarding its performance of the Services and compliance with this Agreement covering all activities and transactions arising out of or relating to this Agreement and shall keep such records for not less than [*] years after termination. Natera and its duly authorized representatives shall have the right, upon [*] days prior notice, during normal business hours for the Term, not more than [*] and for a period of [*] years following the termination hereof for any reason, to examine and copy (without charge to Natera) such books and records, and all other documents and materials in the possession or under the control of Vendor, with respect to the subject matter and terms of this Agreement that reasonably have a bearing on or pertain to matters, rights, duties or obligations covered by this Agreement. Natera and its authorized representative, in a manner agreed to by the Parties, shall have access to Vendor’s facilities, shall be permitted by Vendor to interview current or former employees of Vendor with respect to matters pertinent to Vendor’s performance of this Agreement, shall have access to all necessary records, and shall be furnished, without charge, adequate and appropriate workspace in order to perform the examinations provided for under this subsection. The cost for any such on-site audit shall be borne by Natera. The exercise by Natera of any right to audit under this or any other Section of this Agreement at any time or times or the acceptance by Natera of any statement or the payment thereof by Natera shall be without prejudice to any of Natera’s rights or remedies and shall not bar Natera from thereafter disputing the accuracy of any payment or statement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If either you or Tyson violates any of the terms of this Agreement, such violating party will indemnify the other for the expenses, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by the other in enforcing this Agreement.

assistant: Enforcements
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: who are represented by a lawyer. Such a holding could have significant consequences beyond this case. Direct communication between parties, without the intermediation of their lawyers, is often a bad idea, regardless of whether any of the parties is a lawyer. On the other hand, direct communication between the principals — leaving the lawyers out of the room — is sometimes the path to settlement of a dispute. Under the principle implicitly embraced by the hearing judge, the latter option would never be available if one or more of the parties happened to be a member of the bar, even if not acting in that capacity in the dispute. We hesitate to say that Rule 4.2 always forbids such communication. See HTC Corp. v. Technology Properties, Inc., 715 F.Supp.2d 968, 972 & n. 1 (N.D.Cal.2010) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the issue has not been briefed in Options: A. holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt B. holding a settlement privilege exists as to thirdparty discovery of settlement negotiations C. holding that under delaware law the fiduciary duties of officers are the same as those of directors D. holding that similar california rule did not bar corporate chairman who happened to be member of the bar from directly contacting management of adversary company in litigation about settlement as application of the rule in those circumstances effectively would prevent persons licensed to practice law from serving as officers or directors in corporations and engaging in settlement conversations outside of the presence of counsel E. recognizing exceptions in rule 408 as applying to settlement agreements and the occurrence of settlement talks

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that similar california rule did not bar corporate chairman who happened to be member of the bar from directly contacting management of adversary company in litigation about settlement as application of the rule in those circumstances effectively would prevent persons licensed to practice law from serving as officers or directors in corporations and engaging in settlement conversations outside of the presence of counsel
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 3.07, no authorization, consent, approval, waiver, license, qualification or written exemption from, nor any filing, declaration, qualification or registration with, any Governmental Authority or any other Person is required in connection with (a) the execution, delivery or performance by any of the General Partner or the Partnership of any of the Basic Documents, (b) the General Partner’s issuance at the Anadarko Closing (whether in a Separate Closing or as part of a Dual Closing) and sale of the Class A Common Interests or Class B Common Interests, or (c) the Partnership’s issuance at (i) the Anadarko Closing (whether in a Separate Closing or as part of a Dual Closing) of the non-economic general partner interest and the Common Units to be issued to the Common Unit Purchaser pursuant to Section 2.01(a) (ii) the Anadarko Closing (whether in a Separate Closing or as part of a Dual Closing) and, if occurring the KNOC Closing (whether in a Separate Closing or as part of a Dual Closing), of the Preferred Units to be issued to the Preferred Unit Purchasers pursuant to Section 2.01(a) and, if applicable, Section 2.02(a).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Nevada without reference to the principles of conflict of laws thereof. In the event of any dispute or controversy arising out of or relating to this Agreement that is not an Arbitrable Claim, the Parties mutually and irrevocably consent to, and waive any objection to, the exclusive jurisdiction of any court of competent jurisdiction in Clark County, Nevada, to resolve such dispute or controversy.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Their claim is that the government unjustifiably interfered with their relationship with counsel and their ability to mount the best defense they could muster. The government, relying on Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617, 109 S.Ct. 2646, 105 L.Ed.2d 528 (1989), contends that a defendant has no Sixth Amendment right to a defense funded by someone else’s money. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to retain counsel of choice was not violated when the funds he earmarked for defense were seized under a federal forfeiture statute, because title to the forfeitable'assets had vested in the United States. Id. at 628, 109 S.Ct. 2646; see also United States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600, 616, 109 S.Ct. 2657, 105 L.Ed.2d 512 (1989) (<HOLDING>). The government focuses on the following Options: A. holding that trial court erred by entering restraining order against former husbands current wife who was not a party or served with process as a court is without jurisdiction to issue an injunction which would interfere with the rights of those who are not parties to the action B. holding injunction was proper after state court entered a temporary restraining order against defendants many of whom were also defendants in a federal multidistrict action because the restraining order would interfere with the multidistrict courts ability to dispose of the action before it C. holding that a determination of probable cause does not bar a state law malicious prosecution claim where the claim is based on the police officers supplying false information to establish probable cause D. recognizing that a stay contained in anex parte order did not serve to suspend the effectiveness of the restraining notice otherwise any judgment debtor could obtain such an order without notice to the court that a restraining notice had been served or to the judgment creditor and recover his property theretofore properly made the subject of the restraining notice E. holding that pretrial restraining order based on showing of probable cause that property is forfeitable does not arbitrarily interfere with a defendants fair opportunity to retain counsel

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that pretrial restraining order based on showing of probable cause that property is forfeitable does not arbitrarily interfere with a defendants fair opportunity to retain counsel
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 notices, demands, requests, consents, approvals, and other communications required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and, unless otherwise specified herein, shall be (i) personally served, (ii) delivered by reputable overnight courier service with charges prepaid, or (iii) transmitted by fax, addressed, if to the Company, to Chief Financial Officer, EuroSite Power Inc., 45 First Avenue, Waltham, MA 02451, fax: (781) 622-1027, and if to a Subscriber, to such Subscriber at the address set forth on the signature pages hereto or to such other address as such party shall have specified most recently by written notice.

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: as a user of this website , including instant booking , you understand and agree that : ( 1 ) neither tripadvisor nor its affiliates will have any liability to you or others for any unauthorized transactions made using your password or account ; and ( 2 ) the unauthorized use of your password or account could cause you to incur liability to both tripadvisor and other users .

assistant: Limitation of liability
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: exercise our discretion to address the error. The state posits only one reason why we should not correct the error: “[d]espite several opportunities to bring the alleged error to the trial court’s attention— by demurring to the indictment, excepting to the jury instructions, moving for judgment of acquittal or requesting merger at the sentencing hearing, defense counsel failed [to] alert the court below to the error defendant now claims was obvious.” Although defendant’s failure to preserve the error is an appropriate consideration, see Ailes, 312 Or at 382 n 2, we have repeatedly held that, in most circumstances, the state does not have a compelling interest in salvaging multiple convictions when only one is lawful. See, e.g., State v. Donner, 230 Or App 465, 469, 215 P3d 928 (2009) (<HOLDING>). In our view, that is the overriding factor at Options: A. holding that tgiven that our burden in reviewing and correcting the error is minimal and that sentencing defendant according to the law serves the ends of justice we elect to exercise our discretion to correct the error here B. holding that we must first determine our jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits of the appeal C. recognizing that we may not substitute our judgment for that of the alj D. holding we elect to adhere to our precedent in newman E. holding the burden is on the defendant to demonstrate the error satisfies each prong of the plain error test

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that tgiven that our burden in reviewing and correcting the error is minimal and that sentencing defendant according to the law serves the ends of justice we elect to exercise our discretion to correct the error here
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: was to obtain injunctive relief, not whether plaintiffs will ultimately prevail or the possible size of the damage award. See id. at 1234-35. The Court concludes that under the specific facts and circumstances of this case, Plaintiff has failed to show that her primary goal in bringing this action was to obtain injunc-tive relief. Although the prayer for relief in the Complaint “prays that Defendant be permanently enjoined from marketing Pantene Pro-V as products able to strengthen hair,” the prayer for relief also repeatedly requests damages, including punitive damages. (Compl. at 13-14.) The facts of this case are wholly unlike the facts of cases in which certification under Rule 23(b)(2) has been permitted despite the fact that damages were also sought. Cf. Dukes, 474 F.3d at 1235 (<HOLDING>); Molski, 318 F.3d at 950 (concluding that Options: A. holding that the filing of a class action by a class representative without standing tolls the period of limitations with regard to all asserted members of the class and that the amendment of the complaint by the addition of a class member with standing relates back to the original complaint B. holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification C. holding that logic supports the conclusion that the suit by current and former employees seeking to end employers practice of gender discrimination would be primarily motivated by the desire to protect those class members that are suffering as they once did D. holding that it is error to certify class when named class representatives are not members of the class they purport to represent E. holding that defining the class to include anyone who received such a call without prior express consent means that only those potential members who would prevail on this liability issue would be members of the class

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that logic supports the conclusion that the suit by current and former employees seeking to end employers practice of gender discrimination would be primarily motivated by the desire to protect those class members that are suffering as they once did
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: For purposes of this Agreement, “ Confidential Information ” includes, but is not limited to, all information not generally known to the public, in spoken, printed, electronic or any other form or medium, relating directly or indirectly to: information concerning customers or vendors (including special terms and deals), employees, marketing plans, business plans, operations, pricing, promotions, policies, publications, services, strategies, techniques, contracts, transactions, negotiations, trade secrets, financial information, employee lists, internal controls, security procedures, market studies, sales information, customer lists, distributor lists, and buyer lists of Company or its businesses or any existing or prospective customer, supplier, investor or other associated third party, or of any other person or entity that has entrusted information to Company in confidence. Executive understands that the above list is not exhaustive, and that Confidential Information also includes other information that is marked or otherwise identified as confidential or proprietary, or that would otherwise appear to a reasonable person to be confidential or proprietary in the context and circumstances in which the information is known or used. Executive understands and agrees that Confidential Information includes information developed by Executive in the course of Executive’s employment by Company as if Company furnished the same Confidential Information to Executive in the first instance. Confidential Information shall not include information that is generally available to and known by the public at the time of disclosure to Executive; provided that such disclosure is through no direct or indirect fault of Executive or person(s) acting on Executive’s behalf.

assistant: Definitions
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 closing of the Exchange (the “ Closing ”) shall take place on September 29, 2017, or on such other date as shall be mutually agreed to by the Company and the Holders (the “ Closing Date ”), at the offices of Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP, 1325 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York, or such other place as shall be mutually agreed to by the Company and the Holders.

assistant: Closings
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: Cote’s bias, Hayat alleges, first, that Cote made “several inappropriate racial and religious comments during deliberations.” Hayat presented evidence from Jurors L. and B., as well as from Juror H. via an affidavit by Ha-yat’s private investigator, that Cote made a “racial” comment during deliberations. B. declared that “[d]uring the deliberation process, ... Cote[ ] made the statement they all looked the same when wearing a costume or when put in a costume. I believe Mr. Cote made this statement in connection with a discussion of witness Naseem Khan’s claim that he had seen Ayman al-Zawahiri in Lodi.” Similarly, L. stated that “[djuring deliberations Mr. Cote made racial slurs. As an example, on one occasion ... he said in front of the entire group that they a 236-39 (10th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Where, however, “a juror has been asked Options: A. holding rule 16a1a does not include statements made by coconspirators even if those statements can be attributed to the defendant for purposes of the rule against hearsay B. holding that rule 606b contains no exception for racially biased statements made during jury deliberations and expressing skepticism about whether constitutional concerns can ever override the rule C. holding that federal rule of evidence 8034 the hearsay exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment does not apply to statements made by doctors D. recognizing rule E. holding that the arkansas counterpart to cre 606b applies whether a verdict is reached or a mistrial declared and under the extraneous information exception allows jurors to testify about statements made during deliberations

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that rule 606b contains no exception for racially biased statements made during jury deliberations and expressing skepticism about whether constitutional concerns can ever override the rule
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 was negotiated, entered into and is performable, in whole or in part, in Texas and therefore shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas, without giving effect to conflict of law principles.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: violated the express provisions of its own written personnel policy. Golden has not presented any genuine issues of material fact, and Northwestern is entitled to summary judgment on Golden’s WDEA claims. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that NorthWestern’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 23) is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED. All pending motions are DENIED as moot, and all dates and deadlines in this case are VACATED. 1 . Plaintiff also filed a claim for negligence, which the Court has dismissed. (Doc. 10.) 2 . The Court notes that Golden does not have to establish pretext in order to survive summary judgment as to good cause, despite Northwestern’s claims to the contrary on pages 24-25 of its brief, (Doc. 24), and elsewhere. See Marcy v. Delta Airlines, 166 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir.1999) Options: A. recognizing that one way to prove pretext is by showing that similarlysituated employees were treated differently B. holding that proof that the employer acted in bad faith by using a pretext to discharge its employee is only one possible way of demonstrating that the employers stated reason was not a legitimate one C. holding that an employee may establish that the legitimate reason for an employment decision offered by an employer is pretextual by showing by a preponderance of the evidence either that the discrim inatory reason was the true reason motivating the employers conduct or that the profferred legitimate reason was false D. holding that plaintiff can show pretext by demonstrating that an employers proffered reason for an adverse employment action has no basis in fact E. holding that to determine whether the employer intentionally discriminated against the employee the court examines if there is evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the employers stated reason for the firing is pretext

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that proof that the employer acted in bad faith by using a pretext to discharge its employee is only one possible way of demonstrating that the employers stated reason was not a legitimate one
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: clams per square foot. Manila clams are the only species for which the district court made such a finding. Because there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the district court’s finding, we conclude that the district court clearly erred. No witness gave an opinion as to the density of manila clams necessary for a successful commercial harvest. No document in the record sets forth any analysis of what density is necessary for commercial success. There is a document in the record which purports to show the densities of twelve manila clam beds leased from the State of Washington, but twelve beds is far too small and unrepresentative a sample of commercial beds to support a reliable finding of fact. See, e.g., National Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 434 n. 52 (D.C.Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). Moreover, there is no Options: A. holding that a warrant to obtain a blood sample was valid despite a reference to a urine sample in the addendum to the affidavit because the minor inconsistency did not seriously undermine the information underlying the probable cause determination B. holding defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in blood sample drawn by hospital C. recognizing problems with generalizing from an extremely limited sample when a broader sample can be readily obtained and when no showing of the representativeness of the sample is made D. holding that a test of a urine sample implicates the fourth amendment E. holding blood sample does not constitute compelled testimony

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing problems with generalizing from an extremely limited sample when a broader sample can be readily obtained and when no showing of the representativeness of the sample is made
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 court must decide whether, in its discretion, it will impose the newly calculated sentence or retain the original sentence. Id. at 781. The court should make this determination in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Id. A sentencing adjustment pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) is not a de novo resentencing. Id. Where a retroactively applicable Guideline amendment reduces a defendant’s base offense level, but does not alter the sentencing range upon which his sentence was based, the district court is not authorized to grant a sentence reduction pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). Moore, 541 F.3d at 1330. This includes the situation in which a retroactive amendment of § 2Dl.l(c) would result in a lower base offense level, but the defendant was sentenced as a career offender. See id. at 1326-30 (<HOLDING>). In Moore, this court noted that we undertake Options: A. holding that while amendment 706 was applica ble to the defendants in question because it reduced their base offense levels a reduction was not authorized because the amendment did not have the effect of lowering their applicable guideline ranges because of the application of the career offender guideline B. holding a reduction in defendants sentence as a career offender was not authorized under 3582c2 because amendment 706 did not lower his applicable guideline range under the careeroffender guidelines C. holding that amendment 706 did not have the effect of lowering the applicable guideline range where the defendants received statutory mandatory minimum sentences and thus the defendants were not eligible for relief under 3582 D. holding that while amendment 706 was applicable to the defendants in question because it reduced their base offense levels a reduction was not authorized because the amendment did not have the effect of lowering their applicable guideline ranges because of the application of the career offender guideline E. holding that a defendant whose original sentence was based upon the careeroffender guideline and not 2d11 could not receive a sentence reduction based on amendment 706 because it did not have the effect of lowering the applicable guideline range

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a defendant whose original sentence was based upon the careeroffender guideline and not 2d11 could not receive a sentence reduction based on amendment 706 because it did not have the effect of lowering the applicable guideline range
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 paragraph four, which deals with the defendant's "intent that the plaintiff take a course of action (he)(she) might not take if (he)(she) knew the actual facts," not in paragraph five, which deals with reliance. Second, an inquiry guided by only what putative class members "might" do would allow class certification, even though evidence showed that at least some reasonable class members would do otherwise. 'Plaintiffs cite no Colorado authority, nor are we aware of any, predicating relief on unreasonable action. 1 35 Nor does the trial court's reasonableness approach lack precedential support. In Garcia v. Medved Chevrolet, Inc., 263 P.3d 92, 99, 99 n. 5 (Colo.2011), the supreme court cited with approval Peterson v. H & R Block Tax Servs., Inc., 174 F.R.D. 78, 85 (N.D.Ill.1997) (<HOLDING>), and Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of of N. Options: A. holding that the amount of sanctions is appropriate only when it is the minimum that will serve to adequately deter the undesirable behavior B. recognizing the logical nexus test as appropriate C. holding inference appropriate when reliance is the only logical explanation to explain behavior D. holding that it is appropriate to remand to the plan administrator when the administrative record is incomplete E. holding that a district courts choice of deterrent is appropriate when it is the minimum that will serve to adequately deter the undesirable behavior

assistant: The best answer is C. holding inference appropriate when reliance is the only logical explanation to explain behavior
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except for any premerger notifications required under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by Stryker and each Ancillary Agreement to which Stryker is a party do not and will not require any consent, approval, authorization or other order of, action by, filing with or notification to, any Governmental Authority, except (a) where failure to obtain such consent, approval, authorization or action, or to make such filing or notification, would not (i) prevent or materially delay the consummation by Stryker of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement and the Ancillary Agreements or (ii) have a Material Adverse Effect, or (b) as may be necessary as a result of any facts or circumstances relating solely to Purchaser or any of its Affiliates.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except for the Indemnification Agreement and any agreement or document expressly incorporated herein, this Agreement supersedes any and all prior oral or written agreements and sets forth the entire agreement between Biogen and you with respect to your separation from Biogen, including without limitation, any severance plan or policy. Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing sentence to the contrary, your obligations under the PII, the Noncompete Agreement and the Indemnification Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. No variations or modifications may be effective unless reduced to writing and signed by both parties.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: . § 2615(a)(1). 46 . § 2615(a)(2). 47 . § 2617(c)(1). 48 . § 2617(c)(2). 49 . (Doc. 71, Ex. A.) While plaintiff refers to this document as a “memo,” there is no “to” or "from” line and no indication who wrote it. 50 . Shaub v. Newton Wall Co/UCAC, 153 Fed.Appx. 461, 464 (10th Cir.2005) (quoting Hullman v. Bd. of Trustees of Pratt Cmty. Coll., 950 F.2d 665, 668 (10th Cir.1991); Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(e)). 51 . (Doc. 53 at 8.) 52 . Plaintiff refers the Court to her affidavit at ¶¶ 71-72, where she asserts that Moser told her in March 2004 that if she made another error she was going to be fired and that he changed her quotas unfairly. Even if Moser told plaintiff this information in March, this does not explain either the April email or the fact that plaintiff F.Supp.2d 1235, 1242 (D.Kan.1999) (<HOLDING>). 62 . No. 03-2348-GTV, 2004 WL 2634444, at *10 Options: A. holding that plaintiff failed to establish a constructive discharge claim because she did not assert that her employer was motivated by a desire to avoid pretermination procedures without considering whether plaintiff could alternatively allege only that she was forced to choose between resignation and termination B. holding claim accrued when employee tendered letter of resignation not when resignation became effective C. holding that defendant interfered with plaintiffs right when the employer forced her to choose between resignation and working without leave D. recognizing constructive discharge where employer rather than acting directly deliberately makes employees working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable employee would be forced into involuntary resignation E. holding employee resigned and was not constructively discharged because there was no evidence that employer deliberately created working conditions that led to her resignation

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that defendant interfered with plaintiffs right when the employer forced her to choose between resignation and working without leave
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: F.2d at 453 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). This Court held similarly in Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. v. Train, That no plant in a given industry has adopted a pollution control device which could be installed does not mean that that device is not “available.” Congress did not intend to permit continuance of pollution by industries which have failed to cope with and attempt to solve the problem of polluted water. 537 F.2d 620, 636 (2d Cir.1976); see also Cal. & Hawaiian Sugar Co. v. EPA, 553 F.2d 280, 286 (2d Cir.1977) (technology used “ ‘in other industries with similar raw waste characteristics’ ” was “available” (quoting Liquid and Crystalline Cane Sugar Refining Subcategory, 39 Fed.Reg. 10,522, 10,522 (1974))); Am. Petrol. Inst. v. EPA, 858 F.2d 261, 264-65 (5th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). For a technology in one industry to be Options: A. recognizing mackey is not consistent with our decision in wood v national basketball assn B. holding that a determination of residual functional capacity must include a discussion of why reported daily activity restrictions are or are not reasonably consistent with the medical evidence quoting avery 797 f2d at 29 C. holding that the interpretation of statutory language should be consistent with the legislatures purpose and intent D. holding that a process can be deemed available even if it is not in use at all because such an outcome is consistent with congress intent to push pollution control technology quoting assn of pac fisheries v epa 615 f2d 794 816 9th cir1980 weyerhaeuser co v costle 590 f2d 1011 1061 dccir1978 E. holding that it is not

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a process can be deemed available even if it is not in use at all because such an outcome is consistent with congress intent to push pollution control technology quoting assn of pac fisheries v epa 615 f2d 794 816 9th cir1980 weyerhaeuser co v costle 590 f2d 1011 1061 dccir1978
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: long enough for the police to ask questions about the reasons for speeding and to conduct a variety of checks about licenses, registration, insurance and so on. We underline that the police are not constitutionally required to move at top speed or as fast as possible. For the police to be vigilant about crimes is, at least broadly speaking, a good thing. And at a traffic stop, the police can occasionally pause for a moment to take a breath, to think about what they have seen and heard, and to ask a question or so. The police are authorized to detain traffic violators for a reasonable amount of time. United States v. Hernandez, 418 F.3d 1206, 1212 n. 7 (11th Cir.2005) (internal citation omitted); see also United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686, 105 S.Ct. 1568, 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985) (<HOLDING>). This analysis applies with particular force Options: A. holding that a detention was not unreasonable where officers though slowed down were diligent in their investigation B. holding that twentysevenminute detention for dwi investigation after traffic stop was not unreasonable C. holding that an officers diligent pursuit of an investigation during the detention is a factor in determining the reasonableness of an investigatory stop D. holding that it was unreasonable for officers to break down doors that they already knew were open E. holding warrant check not unreasonable where detention not extended solely for that purpose

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a detention was not unreasonable where officers though slowed down were diligent in their investigation
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 Loan Party will, nor will it permit any Subsidiary to, enter into any arrangement, directly or indirectly, whereby it shall sell or transfer any property, real or personal, used or useful in its business, whether now owned or hereafter acquired, and thereafter rent or lease such property or other property that it intends to use for substantially the same purpose or purposes as the property sold or transferred (a “ Sale and Leaseback Transaction ”), except for any such sale of any fixed or capital assets by the Borrower or any Subsidiary that is made for cash consideration in an amount not less than the fair value of such fixed or capital asset and is consummated within 90 days after Borrower or such Subsidiary acquires or completes the construction of such fixed or capital asset.

assistant: Sales
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 Purchaser, severally and not jointly with the other Purchasers, covenants that neither it nor any Affiliate acting on its behalf or pursuant to any understanding with it will execute any purchases or sales, including Short Sales of any of the Company’s securities during the period commencing with the execution of this Agreement and ending at such time that the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are first publicly announced pursuant to the initial press release as described in Section 4.3 . Each Purchaser, severally and not jointly with the other Purchasers, covenants that until such time as the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are publicly disclosed by the Company pursuant to the initial press release as described in Section 4.3 , such Purchaser will maintain the confidentiality of the existence and terms of this transaction and the information included in the Disclosure Schedules. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement to the contrary, the Company expressly acknowledges and agrees that (a) no Purchaser makes any representation, warranty or covenant hereby that it will not engage in effecting transactions in any securities of the Company after the time that the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are first publicly announced pursuant to the initial press release as described in Section 4.3 , (b) no Purchaser shall be restricted or prohibited from effecting any transactions in any securities of the Company in accordance with applicable securities laws from and after the time that the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are first publicly announced pursuant to the initial press release as described in Section 4.3 and (c) no Purchaser shall have any duty of confidentiality or duty not to trade in the securities of the Company to the Company or its Subsidiaries after the issuance of the initial press release as described in Section 4.3 . Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the case of a Purchaser that is a multi-managed investment vehicle whereby separate portfolio managers manage separate portions of such Purchaser’s assets and the portfolio managers have no direct knowledge of the investment decisions made by the portfolio managers managing other portions of such Purchaser’s assets, the covenant set forth above shall only apply with respect to the portion of assets managed by the portfolio manager that made the investment decision to purchase the Securities covered by this Agreement.

assistant: Confidentiality
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: truecaller and its licensors shall retain ownership in and to the services and to all related intellectual property rights , including without limitation copyrights , trademarks , trade names , database rights and patents .

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: where using price that had been allocated for tax reasons to the property in question would result in an unduly low option exercise price with "windfall” effect, declining to regard allocated price as conclusive); Wilber Lime Products, Inc. v. Ahrndt, 268 Wis.2d 650, 673 N.W.2d 339, 343 (2003) (exercising a fair market value methodology and "recogniz[ing] the possibility that the acres being sold are not all of equal value”). 41 . Consortium Brief at 17. 42 . Consortium Reply Brief, filed August 29, 2006, at 3 (ECF # 11889) (explaining that the price increase was due to adjustments that Time Warner had provided). 43 . Responsive Brief of Time Warner, filed August 29, 2006, at 7 (ECF # 11890). 44 . Id. at 15-16. 45 .See Gleason v. Norwest Mortgage, Inc., 243 F.3d 130, 140 (3d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Pantry Pride, 806 F.2d at 1231 (holding in a Options: A. holding gratuitous transfer of real property to hospital did not trigger right of first refusal B. holding in a package deal case that a right of first refusal empowers the rights holder with a preferential right to repurchase the property subject to the right of first refusal on the same terms offered by a bona fide purchaser C. holding that transfer of property from an individual to a corporation wholly owned by the same individual was not a sale triggering a right of first refusal D. holding that when determining the proper amount for a burdened property that was purchased in a package only two methods suggest themselves as arguably appropriate 1 a determination of the fair market value of the property burdened by the right of first refusal or 2 a determination of the portion of the purchase price which based on the percentage of the fair market value of the entire package represented by the property burdened by the right of first refusal should be allocated to the property burdened by the right of first refusal E. holding right of first refusal only applied to a voluntary sale and taking of property by condemnation is involuntary therefore right of first refusal not triggered

assistant: The best answer is B. holding in a package deal case that a right of first refusal empowers the rights holder with a preferential right to repurchase the property subject to the right of first refusal on the same terms offered by a bona fide purchaser
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 Participant acknowledges and agrees that the Company has the right to deduct from payments of any kind otherwise due to the Participant any federal, state, local, or other taxes of any kind required by law to be withheld with respect to the vesting of the Granted PBRSUs. As of the date on which the Granted PBRSUs vest, the Company shall deliver written notice to the Participant of the amount of withholding taxes due with respect to the vesting of the Granted PBRSUs that vest on such date. The Participant shall satisfy such tax withholding obligations by transferring to the Company, on each date on which Granted PBRSUs vest under this Agreement, such number of shares that are issuable on such date as have a fair market value (calculated using the last reported sale price of the Common Stock of the Company on the New York Stock Exchange or the NASDAQ, as applicable (or, if the Company’s Common Stock is not then traded on the New York Stock Exchange or the NASDAQ, then on any other United States stock exchange upon which the Company’s Common Stock is then listed, or otherwise as reported through the facilities of the OTC Markets Group, Inc.) on the trading date immediately prior to such vesting date) equal to the amount of the Company’s tax withholding obligation in connection with the vesting of such Granted PBRSUs (such withholding method, a “ Surrender ”), unless, prior to any vesting date, the Committee determines that a Surrender shall not be available to the Participant, in which case, the Participant shall be required to satisfy the Participant’s tax obligations hereunder in a manner permitted by the Plan upon the vesting date.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: failure to establish requirements or policies has allowed private driver education schools to be inaccessible. Thus, the DOJ’s interpretative guidance indicates that the TEA is not accountable for the driver education schools’ inaccessibility because the TEA’S requirements and policies have not caused it. Finally, as to case law, the named plaintiffs cite two lottery cases as their primary authority for finding that driver education is a program of the TEA. In those state supreme court cases, each court held that the state lottery was a program of the state lottery commission, so the ADA relationship, courts have routinely held that a public entity is not hable for a licensed private actor’s behavior. See, e.g., Noel v. N.Y.C. Taxi & Limousine Comm’n, 687 F.3d 63, 72 (2d Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>); Bascle v. Parish, No. 12-CV-1926, 2013 WL Options: A. holding that public entity is not liable for inaccessible taxi companies it licenses and regulates B. holding that city is not liable for inaccessible restaurants and liquor stores it licenses C. holding that the crucial distinction that rendered the public entity liable for a private actors inaccessibility was that the public entity had contracted with the private actor for it to provide aid benefits or services to beneficiaries of the public entitys redevelopment program D. holding that public utility company is not liable for inaccessible bus company it licenses where there is no contract between them E. holding that if property is not property1 of the public entity then the public entity cannot be subject to suit under the dangerous condition waiver

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that public entity is not liable for inaccessible taxi companies it licenses and regulates