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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: which permits us to take into account documents “whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the [plaintiffs] pleading.” In re Silicon Graphics Inc. Sec. Litig., 183 F.3d 970, 986 (9th Cir.1999) (quoting Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir.1994)) (alteration in original). We have extended the “incorporation by reference” doctrine to situations in which the plaintiffs claim depends on the contents of a document, the defendant attaches the document to its motion to dismiss, and the parties do not dispute the authenticity of the document, even though the plaintiff does not explicitly allege the contents of that document in the complaint. Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); see also Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, Options: A. holding that documents integral to the complaint are properly considered on a motion to dismiss B. holding that unauthenticated documents may be considered in support of a motion for summary judgment where the documents were not objected to or their authenticity disputed C. holding that plan documents could be considered without converting the motion to one for summary judgment even though the complaint referred only to the plan and not its associated documents D. holding that the district court properly considered documents attached to a motion to dismiss that described the terms of plaintiffs group health insurance plan where plaintiff alleged membership in the plan his claims depended on the conditions described in the documents and plaintiff never disputed their authenticity E. holding that it was appropriate for the district court to refer to the documents attached to the motion to dismiss since the documents were referred to in the complaint

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the district court properly considered documents attached to a motion to dismiss that described the terms of plaintiffs group health insurance plan where plaintiff alleged membership in the plan his claims depended on the conditions described in the documents and plaintiff never disputed their authenticity
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement constitutes the sole and complete Agreement between the Company and Employee and supersedes all other agreements, both oral and written, between the Company and Employee with respect to the matters contained herein including, without limitation any severance agreements or arrangements between the parties. No verbal or other statements, inducements, or representations have been made to or relied upon by Employee. The parties have read and understand this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Tenry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.2003) (internal quotations omitted). Moncriefs argument concerning the timeliness of her failure to promote claim is unavailing. To state a timely Title VII claim, a plaintiff must file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 300 days of the allegedly discriminatory employment practice. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(l). The most recent date upon which Moncrief was denied a promotion was April 2002, and she filed her EEOC charge in May 2004, more than two years later. Therefore, this claim was time-barred, and the district court correctly dismissed it. See Alleyne v. American Airlines, Inc., 548 F.3d 219, 220 (2d Cir.2008)(per curiam) (<HOLDING>). As to Moncriefs wrongful termination claim, Options: A. holding that a party must file an eeoc charge within 180 days from the date the unlawful act occurred or lose the ability to recover for it B. holding that the timely filing of an eeoc charge pursuant to 706 of title vii 42 usc 2000e5 did not toll the statute of limitations for an action brought on the same facts under 42 usc 1981 C. holding that the conduct complained of must be an unlawful employment practice under title vii D. recognizing that under 42 usc 2000e5el a title vii claim is timely where the eeoc charge was filed within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice E. holding that statute of limitations barred title vii claim where the plaintiff would have been aware of discrimination more than 300 days before eeoc charge filed

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that under 42 usc 2000e5el a title vii claim is timely where the eeoc charge was filed within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice
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: SAL is a corporation duly organized, existing and in good standing under the laws of Hong Kong, with full power and authority (corporate and other) to own, lease, use and operate its properties and to conduct its business as it is currently conducted. SAL is duly qualified to do business and is in good standing in each jurisdiction where its activities would require qualification, except where the failure to qualify would not have a material adverse effect upon SAL's business or financial condition, or on the ability of the Parties to consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement ("SAL Material Adverse Effect"). SAL is not in default of any provision of its Certificate of Incorporation, Bylaws or other agreements relating to corporate governance or organization. ZZLL is a corporation duly organized, existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of Nevada with full power and authority (corporate and other) to own, lease, use and operate its properties and to conduct its business as it is currently conducted. ZZLL is duly qualified to do business and is in good standing in each jurisdiction where its activities would require qualification, except where the failure to qualify would not have a material adverse effect upon ZZLL's business or financial condition, or on the ability of the Parties to consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement ("ZZLL Material Adverse Effect"). ZZLL is not in default of any provision of its Certificate of Incorporation, Bylaws or other agreements relating to corporate governance or organization.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The execution, delivery and performance of the Transaction Documents by the Company and any of its Subsidiaries parties to any of the Transaction Documents and the consummation by the Company and any of its Subsidiaries of the transactions contemplated hereby and thereby (including, without limitation, the issuance of the Offered Notes and reservation for issuance and issuance of the Conversion Shares) will not (i) result in a violation of the Articles of Incorporation (as defined in Section 3(r)) or Bylaws (as defined in Section 3(r)), any memorandum of association, certificate of incorporation, certificate of formation, bylaws, any certificate of designations or other constituent documents of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, any capital stock of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries or the articles of association or bylaws of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries or (ii) except as set forth on Schedule 3(d) , conflict with, or constitute a default (or an event which with notice or lapse of time or both would become a default) in any respect under, or give to others any rights of termination, amendment, acceleration or cancellation of, any agreement, indenture or instrument to which the Company or any of its Subsidiaries is a party, or (iii) result in a violation of any law, rule, regulation, order, judgment or decree (including foreign, federal and state securities laws and regulations and the rules and regulations of the OTCQB (the “ Principal Market ”) and including all applicable foreign, federal and state laws, rules and regulations) applicable to the Company or any of its Subsidiaries or by which any property or asset of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries is bound or affected except, in the case of clause (ii) or (iii) above, to the extent such violations that would not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: v. Boeing Co., 437 F.Supp. 1138, 1191 (E.D.Pa.1977). The Supreme Court, however, has stated that there must exist some nexus between alleged improper conduct and a term, condition, or privilege of employment. Of course, ... not all workplace conduct that may be described as “harassment” affects a “term, condition, or privilege” of employment within the meaning of Title VII. Vinson, 477 U.S. at 67, 106 S.Ct. at 2405. Moreover, the “mere utterance of an ethnic or racial epithet which engenders offensive feelings in an employee” does not sufficiently affect the conditions of employment to violate Title VII. Rogers v. EEOC, 454 F.2d at 238, quoted with approval in, Vinson, 477 U.S. at 67, 106 S.Ct. at 2405, see also, Cariddi v. Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, 568 F.2d 87 (8th Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court has decided that for racial Options: A. holding that supervisors routine vulgar references to plaintiff could not support a hostile work environment claim because plaintiff was unaware of the comments and to show that he or she perceived the environment as hostile a title vii plaintiff must at least have been aware of those comments B. holding that relief granted under title vii is against the employer not individual employees whose actions constituted a violation of title vii emphasis in original C. holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii D. holding that an employer alone is liable for a violation of title vii by supervisory employees E. holding that employers occasional reference to plaintiff as dago and to other italianamerican employees as the mafia constituted isolated or sporadic derogatory ethnic comments as part of casual conversation that did not rise to level necessary for violation of title vii

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that employers occasional reference to plaintiff as dago and to other italianamerican employees as the mafia constituted isolated or sporadic derogatory ethnic comments as part of casual conversation that did not rise to level necessary for violation of title vii
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 demands, notices, communications and instructions upon or to the Depositor, the Servicer, the Issuer, the Owner Trustee, the Indenture Trustee or any Rating Agency under this Agreement shall be in writing, personally delivered, faxed and followed by first class mail, or mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested (or with respect to any Rating Agency, electronically delivered), and shall be deemed to have been duly given upon receipt (a) in the case of the Depositor, to 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92612, Attention: President and Secretary; (b) in the case of the Servicer and HCA, to 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1900, Irvine, California 92612, Attention: Treasurer; (c) in the case of the Issuer or the Owner Trustee, to U.S. Bank Trust National Association, 300 Delaware Avenue, 9 th Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801, Attention: Corporate Trust Administration; (d) in the case of Moody’s, to Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., ABS Monitoring Department, 7 World Trade Center, 250 Greenwich Street, 25 th Floor, New York, NY 10007; (e) in the case of the Indenture Trustee, at the Corporate Trust Office; and (f) in the case of S&P, via electronic delivery to Servicer_reports@sandp.com or at the following address: 55 Water Street (40th Floor), New York, New York 10041, Attention: ABS Surveillance Department; or, as to each of the foregoing, at such other address as shall be designated by written notice to the other parties.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: there is no evidence that the family planning committee will follow through with its December 1, 2003 threat of sterilization (in the event Lin should “twice” not “show up”) if Lin returns to China. Furthermore, this court could not find and the parties do not cite any case indicating that an alien should be granted asylum on the basis of one conditional “threat” contained in a notice to appear. See Boykov v. I.N.S., 109 F.3d 413, 417 (7th Cir.1997) (upholding the BIA’s conclusion that an alien’s “account of vague threats, without more is not a basis for fearing persecution in the future”). Courts generally have concluded that aliens have a well-founded fear of future persecution in cases that involve more than mere threats. See, e.g., Lim v. I.N.S., 224 F.3d 929, 934-35 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). In a similar case cited by Lin in support of Options: A. holding that absent past persecution an alien can demonstrate eligibility for asylum based on a wellfounded fear of future persecution by demonstrating that he or she subjectively fears persecution and that this fear is objectively reasonable B. holding that alien who had received numerous death threats and whose colleagues were murdered by the military had not proven past persecution C. holding that threats standing alone generally do not constitute past persecution D. holding that harassment threats and one beating did not constitute persecution E. holding that an alien had a reasonable fear of future persecution because he had received death threats was followed appeared on a death list and because his colleagues who received similar threats were killed

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an alien had a reasonable fear of future persecution because he had received death threats was followed appeared on a death list and because his colleagues who received similar threats were killed
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: also , note that in the event that blizzard entertainment is contacted by governmental authorities and/or parties seeking information or legal redress against you for a violation committed by you or alleged to have been committed by you involving your use of world of warcraft , blizzard entertainment will cooperate fully with all governmental authorities ensuring an adequate level of protection as required under article 25 of european directive 95/46/ec , and any lawful orders of the court with regard to the release of information that relates to you and your use of world of warcraft , including but not limited to user internet protocol ( ip ) addresses , associated personal information and all other user information on file .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be effective as of the date hereof (the “Start Date”); however, that date in which the Company closes on at least $5 million in equity financing shall be defined as the official Effective Date of the Agreement (the “Effective Date”). The Term of this Agreement shall commence on the Start Date and continue for a period of two years from the Effective Date. This Agreement will automatically renew for annual periods at the end of the initial Term unless either the Board or the Employee provides notice of termination to the other in writing no less than 60 days before the end of such term.

assistant: Terms
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: law, it does not supersede the defendant’s causal responsibility in criminal law. We therefore find no error in the trial court’s instructions on the subject of seat belt usage or in its denial of defendant’s motion for new trial. Ill Our holding does not foreclose a trial judge with sentencing discretion from considering in mitigation that a victim’s injuries would have been less severe, had the victim worn a seat belt or otherwise acted with reasonable care. See A.R.S. § 13-702(E) (1992); cf. State v. Currie, 150 Ariz. 59, 60, 721 P.2d 1186, 1187 (App.1986) (serious nature of victim’s injury properly used as aggravating factor in sentencing). In this case, however, as previously noted, the trial judge lacked sentencing discretion. He was statutorily obliged, on 2d 257, 265 (1987) (<HOLDING>). We need not engage in fundamental error Options: A. holding that release status must be proven by clear and convincing evidence through reliable documentary evidence B. holding that fraud on the court must be supported by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence C. holding that a bad faith claim must be met through the clear and convincing evidence standard D. holding that reliance must be proven by some evidence E. holding that whether adverse possession was proven by clear and convincing evidence is a factual determination made by the chancellor

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that release status must be proven by clear and convincing evidence through reliable documentary evidence
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 allegations do not support an inference that any of the named plaintiffs have been personally injured such as to provide them with the causes of action asserted in Counts III and IV under the laws of California, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee and Vermont, plaintiffs lack standing to bring those claims, and the claims asserted in Counts III and IV as to those jurisdictions will be dismissed. B. Antitrust injury under state antitrust claims States may, but need not, follow the rule of Illinois Brick in enforcing their own state antitrust laws. California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93, 105-06, 109 S.Ct. 1661, 104 L.Ed.2d 86 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Several states expressly do not adhere to the Options: A. holding flsa did not preempt state law fraud claim B. holding that fehba does not completely preempt state law C. recognizing that rationales behind illinois brick might not be apply in all cases but standing by illinois brick regardless D. holding that illinois brick did not preempt state laws that permit suits by plaintiffs with passedon injuries E. holding that the federal cigarette labeling and advertising act did not preempt plaintiffs state law claims

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that illinois brick did not preempt state laws that permit suits by plaintiffs with passedon injuries
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 term of the Employee’s employment with the Company under this Agreement will commence on the Start Date and continue until the first (1 st ) anniversary thereof, unless the Employee’s employment is earlier terminated by the Employee or the Company, in either case with or without “Cause” (as such term is defined in Section 9(c)) or reason (the term of the Employee’s employment, the “ Term ”). After the expiration of the initial Term, the Term shall automatically renew for additional one (1) year periods on each anniversary of the Start Date, unless either party to this Agreement gives written notice of non-renewal to the other party at least sixty (60) days prior to the applicable anniversary of the Start Date. The Employee acknowledges that the Employee’s employment hereunder is terminable at will, subject to the terms and conditions herein.

assistant: Terms
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: Notwithstanding any elected Payment Option or deemed elected Payment Option (made or deemed made), if the Member incurs a Disability under the Plan, the balance of the Member’s Account shall be paid in accordance with the Payment Option elected the January following the Disability, except with respect to Grandfathered Amounts shall be payable in accordance with the terms of that Prior Plan. Section 6.3 shall not apply to any In Service Transfer to PSSP or Transfer to PSSP.

assistant: Disability
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 the Committee determines, in its sole discretion, that you have, at any time, willfully engaged in conduct that is harmful to the Company (or any Related Company), the Committee may declare that all or a portion of the NSO is immediately forfeited. If the Committee determines, in its sole discretion, that you have willfully engaged in conduct that is harmful to the Company (or any Related Company), you shall repay to the Company all or any shares of Common Stock acquired through the exercise of the NSO or all or any of the amount realized as a result of the sale of Common Stock acquired through the exercise of the NSO, to the extent required by the Committee. Repayment or forfeiture required under this Section shall be enforced by the Board or its delegate, in the manner the Board or its delegate determines to be appropriate. Your acceptance of the award reflected in this Award Agreement constitutes acceptance of the forfeiture and repayment provisions of this Section.

assistant: Forfeitures
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: projections, forecasts, and assumptions therein to be reliable.” However, contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertions, these excerpts from the record do not contradict the District Court’s ultimate findings. The record amply supports the District Court’s concern that, although DeRamus was generally aware of the circumstances under which the SBP was created and the purposes for which it was used, he lacked critical information that would be necessary for Eaton to effectively cross-examine him. An expert’s “lack of familiarity with the methods and the reasons underlying [someone else’s] projections virtually preclude[s] any assessment of the validity of the projections through cross-examination.” TK-7 Corp. v. Estate of Barbouti 993 F.2d 722, 732 (10th Cir.1993); compare Autowest, 434 F.2d at 566 (<HOLDING>). Here, DeRamus knew that the SBP was presented Options: A. holding that alleged misconduct by public officials particularly by law enforcement officials is matter of public concern B. holding that projections of company officials were admissible where such officials set out at length the bases from which they derived their figures and consequently the opposing party was able to crossexamine them vigorously C. holding that sovereign immunity barred a suit against state officials when the relief sought required state officials to retroactively pay federal benefits D. holding that plaintiffs complaint against tribal officials was barred under doctrine of sovereign immunity because the officials votes individually had no legal effect and it was the official action of the band following the officials votes that caused plaintiffs injuries E. holding suits against state officials for prospective injunctive relief are permissible because they are in effect suits against the officials in their individual capacities

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that projections of company officials were admissible where such officials set out at length the bases from which they derived their figures and consequently the opposing party was able to crossexamine them vigorously
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: triggers the mandatory life sentence is significantly lower than the quantity for powder cocaine, and because the majority of the individuals convicted of offenses involving crack cocaine are black. This court has previously considered and rejected this equal-protection argument. See United States v. Hill, 79 F.3d 1477, 1488 (6th Cir.1996) (“This circuit has repeatedly found that the challenged provision of section 841(b) does not violate equal protection guarantees under the Fifth Amendment.”) (collecting cases). Finally, Wimbley claims that his life sentence is cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. But a sentence is not cruel and unusual simply because it is mandatory. Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 994-95, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991) (<HOLDING>). In fact, this court specifically held in Options: A. holding life sentence mandatory under 21 usc 841b and district court could not depart from the mandatory life sentence unless government made a motion B. holding that an effective life sentence of fortyfive years for seconddegree forgery was excessive and that a life sentence was cruel and unusual in violation of the eighth amendment C. recognizing possession of cocaine as a lesserincluded offense of possession of cocaine with intent to sell D. holding that a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole for possession of 650 or more grams of cocaine is so grossly disproportionate that it violates the prohibition of cruel or unusual punishment in const 1963 art 1 16 E. holding that a mandatory life sentence for cocaine possession is not unusual in the constitutional sense

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a mandatory life sentence for cocaine possession is not unusual in the constitutional sense
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: we will use reasonable endeavours to respond to all customer support queries within a reasonable time frame but we make no guarantees or warranties of any kind that any customer support queries will be responded to within any particular time frame and/or that we will be able to satisfactorily answer any such queries .

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: The interpretation, performance and enforcement of this Grant Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Delaware without regard to principles of conflicts of laws. The Holder may only exercise his or her rights in respect of the Plan, the Grant Agreement and these Units to the extent that it would be lawful to do so, and Mattel would not, in connection with this Grant Agreement, be in breach of the laws of any jurisdiction to which the Holder may be subject. The Holder shall be solely responsible to seek advice as to the laws of any jurisdiction to which he or she may be subject, and participation by the Holder in the Plan shall be on the basis of a warranty by the Holder that the Holder may lawfully so participate without Mattel being in breach of the laws of any such jurisdiction.

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: points. It is undisputed that Chief Quijas was the sole decision maker with respect to Dunn’s termination, and Dunn has not come forward with any evidence that Chief Quijas was motivated by racial bias. Instead, Dunn asserts that Lieutenant Nunn, the officer who conducted the criminal investigation into Dunn’s conduct, was racially biased and that Chief Quijas’s decision was based on Nunn’s investigation. The court recognizes that “there are situations in which the forbidden motive of a subordinate employee can be imputed to an employer because under the circumstances of the case, the employer simply acted as the ‘cat’s paw of the subordinate.” Willis v. Marion County Auditor’s Office, 118 F.3d 542, 547 (7th Cir. 997). See, e.g., Shager v. Upjohn Co., 913 F.2d 398, 405 (7th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Here, however, Dunn has failed to raise a Options: A. holding that city managers single unconstitutional action was sufficient for the imposition of municipal liability B. holding districtwide class certification not appropriate where the claims were based on oral conversations in which store managers allegedly deviated from company policy C. holding that if the review committee was unaware of district managers agebased animus and acted as the conduit of the managers prejudice his cats paw then innocence of the members would not spare the company from liability D. holding that under praprotnik a town charters directive that city managers personnel decisions be based on merit and fitness did not preclude city managers final policymaking authority where no other town officials were empowered to enforce that provision E. holding that affidavits from 25 of the potential class did not support the plaintiffs assertion of widespread violations resulting from a common policy or plan where allegation was that individual managers required employees to work offtheclock

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that if the review committee was unaware of district managers agebased animus and acted as the conduit of the managers prejudice his cats paw then innocence of the members would not spare the company from 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement contains all of the covenants, conditions and agreements between the parties and shall supersede all prior correspondence, agreements and understandings, both oral and written, with respect to the termination of the Lease.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: . Id. at 1007 (citing City of Whittier v. Whittier Fuel & Marine Corp., 577 P.2d 216, 223 (Alaska 1978). 40 . Alaska R. Civ. P. 41(a). 41 . Alaska R. Civ. P. 41(b). 42 . Alaska R. Civ. P. 41(e)(1)(A)-(B). 43 . Shiffman v. K, Inc., 657 P.2d 401, 403 (Alaska 1983). 44 . Arbelovsky v. Ebasco Servs., Inc., 922 P.2d 225, 227 (Alaska 1996) (internal citations omitted). 45 . Honda Motor Co., Ltd. v. Salzman, 751 P.2d 489, 492 (Alaska 1988). 46 . Otis Elevator Co., Inc. v. Garber, 820 P.2d 1072, 1074 (Alaska 1991). 47 . For example, Azimi attributed his failure to file timely jury instructions to confusion about the trial process: "I thought maybe the day comes and we're going to talk and ask questions and then we pick the jury." 48 . Collins v. Arctic Builders, 957 P.2d 980, 982 (Alaska 1998) (<HOLDING>). 49 . Civil Rule 41(b) was amended in January Options: A. holding that the superior court must inform a pro se litigant of the specific defects in his notice of appeal and give him an opportunity to remedy those defects before dismissal of the litigants claims for want of prosecution and untimeliness B. holding that pro se litigants should be given reasonable opportunity to remedy the defects in their pleadings C. holding that although pro se litigants are entitled to liberal construction of their pleadings pro se litigants must follow procedural rules D. holding a court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond E. holding that although a pro se litigants pleadings are construed liberally a pro se litigant must still follow the same rules that govern other litigants including the requirement of constructing and supporting arguments with legal authority

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the superior court must inform a pro se litigant of the specific defects in his notice of appeal and give him an opportunity to remedy those defects before dismissal of the litigants claims for want of prosecution and untimeliness
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In addition to the remittances described in Section 2.6, Borrower may make additional payments on the Credit Facility. Any optional or mandatory payment received after 11:00 A.M. (Eastern Time) (including any payment in full of the Obligations and collections received in the Controlled Account) shall be deemed received on the immediately following Business Day. At the option of Lender, all payments on account of the Credit Facility may be first applied to Expenses (a hereinafter defined), then to accrued and unpaid interest and then to the principal balance thereof. Borrower shall pay Expenses, principal, interest and other amounts payable hereunder without any deduction, setoff, recoupment or counterclaim. Lender’s records of advances and payments under the Credit Facility shall be deemed correct and binding upon Borrower.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: in exchange for use of the rovio services , and to the extent that your contributions through use of the rovio services give rise to any copyright , design right or any other intellectual or industrial property right you hereby grant rovio an exclusive , royalty-free , perpetual , irrevocable , fully transferable and sub-licensable worldwide right and license to use your contributions in any way and for any purpose including , but not limited to the rights to reproduce , copy , adapt , modify , perform , display , publish , broadcast , transmit , or otherwise communicate to the public by any means whether now known or unknown and distribute your contributions without any further notice or compensation to you of any kind for the whole duration of protection granted to intellectual and industrial property rights by applicable laws and international conventions .

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: Kothe, 152 S.W.3d at 63. B. Detention During Delay in Investigation Although the length of a detention may render a traffic stop unreasonable, there is no rigid, bright-line time limitation. United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 679, 105 S.Ct. 1568, 1571, 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985). Instead, common sense and ordinary human experience must govern over rigid criteria. Id. at 685, 105 S.Ct. at 1575. The reasonableness of the duration of a detention depends on whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant. Id. at 686, 105 S.Ct. at 1575. In determining the reaso 834, at *1 (Tex.App.-Austin Mar. 7, 2007, pet. refd) (mem.op.) (not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>); Dickson v. State, No. 03-06-00126-CR, 2006 WL Options: A. holding delay in dwi investigation primarily for arrival of rookie officer for purpose of training was reasonable because delay furthered legitimate law enforcement purposes B. holding that delay while awaiting arrival of dwi enforcement officer was for legitimate law enforcement purposes because dwi officer was more experienced and could complete dwi investigation faster C. holding approximately twentyminute delay in dwi investigation primarily to await arrival of dwi enforcement officer was reasonable because delay furthered reasonable law enforcement purposes D. holding fiveto fifteenminute delay in dwi investigation primarily so that another officer could bring a video camera to the scene was reasonable because delay furthered legitimate law enforcement purposes E. holding that delay while awaiting arrival of dwi enforcement officer even though officer who initiated the stop was qualified to perform dwi investigation was for legitimate law enforcement purposes because dwi officer brought greater expertise to scene and could complete dwi investigation more rapidly

assistant: The best answer is A. holding delay in dwi investigation primarily for arrival of rookie officer for purpose of training was reasonable because delay furthered legitimate law enforcement purposes
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: Corp. v. Tilghman Wheelabrator Ltd., 709 F.2d 190 (3d Cir.1983). Coastal Steel involved a contract between two parties for the manufacture of a product for plaintiff. The court held that plaintiff was a third party beneficiary to that contract, and bound plaintiff, who was not a party to the contract, to the choice of law clause therein. In distinguishing Coastal Steel, the Third Circuit in E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Rhone Poulenc Fiber & Resin Intermediates, S.A.S. stated, “if it was not the promisee’s intention to confer direct benefits upon a third party, but rather such third party happens to benefit from the performance of the promise either coincidentally or indirectly, then the third party will have no enforceable rights under the contract.” 269 F.3d 187, 196 (3d Cir.2001)(<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the Restatement of Contracts Options: A. holding that where a third partys conduct is closely related to the contractual relationship or the contractual dispute and where the third party enjoys financial benefit from the contract the forum selection clause applies to the third party B. holding that the party did not waive its right to enforce the arbitration clause C. holding that the parent of a company that entered a contract with a third party could not enforce the contractual arbitration clause because there was no evidence that the parent was anything more than an incidental beneficiary D. recognizing that a forum selection clause also applies to a nonsignatory third party where the third partys conduct is closely related to the contractual relationship or the contractual dispute and where the third party enjoys financial benefit from the contract E. holding that an incidental beneficiary does not have standing to sue for breach of a contract

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the parent of a company that entered a contract with a third party could not enforce the contractual arbitration clause because there was no evidence that the parent was anything more than an incidental beneficiary
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Unless otherwise consented to in writing by the Lenders, the Company shall use FIFTEEN MILLION U.S. DOLLARS (US$15,000,000) of the Loan Amount to pay the Initial Civil Penalty provided for in the Consent Decree, dated January 11, 2017, entered into by the Company and Federal Communications Commission (the “Consent Decree”) in accordance with the payment requirements set forth in the Consent Decree, and the remainder of the Loan Amount for general corporate purposes and working capital needs, including payment of the Expense Amount.

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: 440 must be examined to determine the resulting consequences. Section 440.09(l)(d), Florida Statutes (1999), provides in pertinent part, that: [I]f an accident happens while the employee is employed elsewhere than in this state, which would entitle the employee or his or her dependents to compensation if it had happened in this state, the employee or his or her dependents are entitled to compensation if the contract of employment was made in this state, or the employment was principally localized in this state. § 440.09(l)(d), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). Thus, based on the plain language of the statute, if a contract is formed in Florida, the accident is compensable under Florida workers’ compensation law. See Johnson v. Florida Senior Residence, 642 So.2d 104, 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (<HOLDING>). The employment contract between Appellant and Options: A. holding that florida courts would apply florida law to contracts insuring real property located within the state B. holding that defendants bank account and open line of credit in florida utilized to transfer money in international commerce was insufficient to confer jurisdiction under section 481932 florida statutes where defendant operated its business in honduras had no employees or agents in florida and did not advertise or solicit business in florida C. holding that when an accident occurs outside florida workers compensation benefits are payable only if the contract of employment was made in florida or if the employees employment is principally located in florida D. holding new york could lawfully modify a florida custody decree because florida court had right under florida law to change the decree E. recognizing that publication in the laws of florida or the florida statutes gives all citizens constructive notice of the consequences of their actions

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that when an accident occurs outside florida workers compensation benefits are payable only if the contract of employment was made in florida or if the employees employment is principally located in florida
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 AND REMANDED. NO COSTS. 1 . Pacific must shield funds in the separate account from its general liabilities and expenses, and use it only to fund the variable universal insurance contracts. See 15 U.S.C. § 80a-2(a)(37); 17 C.F.R. § 270.0-1 (e). The separate account is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as a unit investment trust under the Investment Company Act of 1940. See Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. SEC, 326 F.2d 383, 388 (3d Cir.1964). 2 . Plaintiffs don't dispute that variable universal policies are covered securities. We therefore have no cause to consider whether or not we agree with our sister circuits, though our precedent suggests we would. See Patenaude v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the United States, 290 F.3d 1020, 1022 (9th Cir.2002)(<HOLDING>), abrogated on other grounds by Kircher v. Options: A. holding security interest in insurance premiums perfected by creation of security interest B. holding that a closing protection letter offering to indemnify a mortgage company was not an insurance contract where although issued by an insurance company there was no distribution of the risk C. holding that plaintiff could recover medical fees not actually paid by the insurance company pursuant to an insurance contract D. holding a variable annuity issued by an insurance company to be a covered security E. holding airport security company protected by the convention

assistant: The best answer is D. holding a variable annuity issued by an insurance company to be a covered security
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: 10th letter did not “use[] the catchword ‘report,’ ” “it is hard to imagine that Congress would have intended for such specificity,” given that “the statute itself does not prescribe the manner in which such a report must be made.” R.191 at 21. The district court concluded that the October 10th letter to the Coast Guard satisfied this requirement. In that letter, the plaintiffs did not merely seek information. Rather, they made a specific complaint “about the limited endorsement on the COI and sought its removal: they reported what they believed was a violation of a safety law.” Id. Whether a particular form of communication qualifies as a “report” under § 2114 is a question of law that we review de novo. See Olson v. Risk Mgmt. Alternatives, Inc., 366 F.3d 509, 511 (7th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). As always, when approaching a question of Options: A. recognizing de novo standard of review B. holding we review claim construction de novo on appeal C. holding that we review agency determinations of law de novo D. holding that we review constitutional challenges de novo E. holding that we review issues of statutory interpretation de novo

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that we review issues of statutory interpretation de novo
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 so long as the Silver Lake Group collectively Beneficially Owns any Notes, the Company shall not make any amendment or supplement to, or consent to a waiver of any provision of, the Indenture or the Securities (as defined in the Indenture) of a type to which the first or second sentence of Section 9.02 of the Indenture applies, without the written consent of the holders of a majority in aggregate principal amount of the outstanding Notes (including, for the avoidance of doubt, Notes Beneficially Owned by the Silver Lake Group). The Company shall keep the Purchaser reasonably informed with respect to the Transactions.

assistant: Cooperation