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: satisfy due process. In doing so, those justices simply followed the Court’s earlier statement in World-Wide Volkswagen that when a manufacturer or distributor attempts to serve a market “directly or indirectly ..., it is not unreasonable to subject it to suit in [that market] if its allegedly defective merchandise has there been the source of injury to its owner or to others.” 444 U.S. at 297, 100 S.Ct. at 567. In any event, the Asahi decision cannot be held to undermine the holding in Giotis. See Dehmlow v. Austin Fireworks, 963 F.2d 941, 946 (7th Cir.1992) (“Because the Supreme Court established the stream of commerce theory, and a majority of the court has not yet rejected it, we consider that theory to be determinative.”); cf. Boit v. Gar-Tec, 967 F.2d 671, 682-83 (1st Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). This court’s decision in Falkirk is similarly Options: A. holding a threejudge panel may not reexamine normally controlling circuit precedent in the face of an intervening united states supreme court decision unless the reasoning or theory of our prior circuit authority is clearly irreconcilable with the reasoning or theory of intervening higher authority B. holding that a three judge panel is not bound by prior circuit precedent if an intervening decision of a higher authority undercuts the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable C. holding that the appellants claim that the circuit court erred in failing to make specific findings of fact as to all claims in the appellants rule 32 petition was not preserved for review because the appellant did not first present the claim to the circuit court D. holding that a later seventh circuit decision could not have overruled an earlier decision without so much as citing it E. holding that asahi did not undermine an earlier first circuit decision that limited the stream of commerce theory

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that asahi did not undermine an earlier first circuit decision that limited the stream of commerce theory
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The provisions of this Agreement are intended to be severable. If any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable in whole or in part in any jurisdiction, such provision shall, as to such jurisdiction, be ineffective to the extent of such invalidity or unenforceability without in any manner affecting the validity or enforceability thereof in any other jurisdiction or the remaining provisions hereof in any jurisdiction.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Executive shall be entitled to coverage under such directors and officers liability insurance policies maintained from time to time by the Company, Bank or any subsidiary for the benefit of its directors and officers. The Company shall indemnify and hold Executive harmless, to the fullest extent permitted by the laws of the State of Delaware, from and against all costs, charges and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees), and shall provide for the advancement of expenses incurred or sustained in connection with any action, suit or proceeding to which the Executive or his legal representatives may be made a party by reason of the Executive’s being or having been a director, officer or employee of the Company, Bank or any of its affiliates or employee benefit plans. The provisions of this Paragraph 16 shall not be deemed exclusive of any other rights to which the Executive seeking indemnification may have under any by-law, agreement, vote of stockholders or directors, or otherwise.

assistant: Indemnifications
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: statement cannot be interpreted as “true threats.” Throughout Plaintiffs briefing, he argues that he obviously was not seriously threatening his fellow students in his communications with Carly Moore. (Response, p. 9). Plaintiff notes that Moore responded with encouragement and laughter, which indicated the comedic nature of their discourse and also the non-threatened response of the listener. (Id.) For example, Moore suggested that Plaintiff should shoot all of the black women because “[t]he death of a black person cracks me up.” (Id.) Plaintiff also claims that his statements could not be considered threats because they were conditional and equivocal. Whether or not a reasonable person would believe the statements were a true threat is a question of law. See Doe, 306 F.3d at 626 (<HOLDING>). In Doe, there was no question that the four Options: A. holding that the narrowing of the use of parnar claims only applies absent a clear expression of legislative intent to the contrary and citing to hrs 37869 as an example of such legislative intent B. holding that in a 18 usc 922g1 prosecution ussg 5k21 upward departure was warranted because the defendant should have foreseen the possibility of serious harm as a result of his actions even though the defendant harbored no intent to harm and was not directly responsible for the death C. holding that even if the trial court erred in excluding a letter from evidence that fell within an exception to the hearsay rule the error was harmless where admission of the letter would not have had a substantial effect on a partys rights D. holding a reasonable recipient would have perceived the letter as a serious expression of an intent to harm E. holding the wifes testimony that husbands release would cause psychological harm to other family members was insufficient to support commitment courts finding that husband would cause serious bodily harm to another person

assistant: The best answer is D. holding a reasonable recipient would have perceived the letter as a serious expression of an intent to harm
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: reiterating the well-established standard of review in zoning cases, opined: The ordinance ... and all similar laws and regulations, must find their justification in some aspect of the police power, asserted for the public welfare.... ... [I]t must be said before the ordinance can be declared unconstitutional, that such provisions are clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. 272 U.S. at 387-95, 47 S.Ct. at 118-21 (emphasis added). See also Brend v. Confederated Tribes and Bans of Yakima Indian Nations, 492 U.S. 408, 109 S.Ct. 2994, 106 L.Ed.2d 343 (1989); Midnight Sessions Ltd. v. City of Philadelphia, 945 F.2d 667, 676 (3d Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. ——, 112 S.Ct. 1668, 118 L.Ed.2d 389 (1992) (<HOLDING>); Elias v. Town of Brookhaven, 783 F.Supp. 758, Options: A. holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property B. holding that a cause of action for damages to property resulting from a permanent nuisance accrues to the owner of the land at the time the injury begins to affect the land and mere transfer of the land by deed does not transfer the claim for damages C. holding that a declaratoryjudgment action against the state that would affect property in which the state had an interest was barred by 14 D. holding that 10113aa does not alter the requirement that the property in question be real property in order for the antimodification provision to apply E. holding that in instances in which a state reasonably concludefs that the health safety morals or general welfare would be promoted by prohibiting particular contemplated uses of land does not require compensation until the adverse affect on the real property interests reaches a certain magnitude

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that in instances in which a state reasonably concludefs that the health safety morals or general welfare would be promoted by prohibiting particular contemplated uses of land does not require compensation until the adverse affect on the real property interests reaches a certain magnitude
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Borrower is an entity as described in the Closing Certificate, duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the jurisdiction of its organization and is duly qualified or licensed to transact businesses in all places where the failure to be so qualified could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect; has the right and power to enter into and discharge all of its obligations under the Loan Documents, each of which constitutes a legal, valid and binding obligation of Borrower, enforceable against it in accordance with its terms, subject only to bankruptcy and similar laws affecting creditors’ rights generally; and has the power, authority, rights and franchises to own its property and to carry on its business as presently conducted. Except as may be otherwise described in the Information Certificate, during the 5 year period prior to the date of this Agreement, Borrower has not been a party to any merger, consolidation or acquisition of all or substantially all of the assets or equity interests of any other Person and has not changed its legal status or the jurisdiction in which it is organized.

assistant: Existence
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: unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” U.S. Const, amend. IV. 27 . There is no contention that defendants here were conducting an administrative inspection of a "closely regulated” industry, a circumstance which would change the analysis. See id. 28 . As Soldal made clear, the Fourth Amendment protects property interests as well as expectations of privacy. See Soldal, 113 S.Ct. at 543. 29 . As noted earlier, we will dismiss plaintiffs’ claims against the Chester County Sheriff's Department as an improper defendant. See supra. As plaintiffs have sued all of the remaining defendants in their official capacities, however, plaintiffs have in essence sued Chester County. See Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Monell, 436 U.S. at 690 n. 55, 98 S.Ct. 2018 Options: A. holding that a damages suit against a state officer in his official capacity was barred because it was functionally a suit against the state B. holding that suit against county sheriff in his official capacity was suit against county C. holding that an official capacity suit should be treated as a suit against the entity D. holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the officials office E. holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the officials office
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: findings may be grounds for rejection.” Id. at Exhibit 37, Section G(l). 102 . 918 F.Supp. 1047 (S.D.Tex.1996). 103 . 1996 WL 752803, No. 96-20358, (Aug. 21 1996). 104 . Docket no. 31. Even Andrade’s counsel conceded during oral argument that a privacy cause of action was not pleaded in the Complaint. 105 . Docket no. 31, at 3. 106 . See Southard v. The Texas Board of Criminal Justice, 114 F.3d 539, 548-49 (5th Cir.1997). 107 . Docket no. 49, at 16. 108 . Even though Andrade filed his lawsuit in state Oklahoma, 520 U.S. at 404-06, 117 S.Ct. 1382, and Dallas I.S.D., 153 F.3d at 216-17. 172 . Board of Commissioners, Bryan County, Oklahoma, 520 U.S. at 404-05, 117 S.Ct. 1382; and Pembaur, 475 U.S. at 483-84, 106 S.Ct. 1292 (plurality). 173 . See Dallas I.S.D., 153 F.3d at 215-17 (<HOLDING>). 174 . Montemayor v. City of San Antonio, 985 Options: A. holding that the district was not liable under respondeat superior for a teachers sexual assault of a student even though it occurred on school grounds and during school hours because the criminal misconduct was not within the scope of the teachers employment B. holding school districts failure to adopt an official policy addressing allegations of sexual assault by teachers on students could not support section 1983 liability where that failure was merely an unintentional negligent oversight C. holding that a students right to bodily integrity under the fourteenth amendment encompasses a students right to be free from sexual assaults by his or her teachers D. holding school district hable for teachers sexual harassment of student only upon knowing failure to act E. holding that a local school district did not delegate final district policymaking authority over complaints of sexual misconduct by teachers against students to campus principals although the district had not adopted a formal policy addressing the manner in which such complaints should be handled

assistant: The best answer is B. holding school districts failure to adopt an official policy addressing allegations of sexual assault by teachers on students could not support section 1983 liability where that failure was merely an unintentional negligent oversight
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 warranties and guaranties and any other contractual rights with respect to defects, deficiencies or non-conformance held by WPPI or any Affiliate of WPPI with respect to any Improvements or the other personal property, to the extent the same are transferable or WPPI obtains any consent necessary to effectuate such a transfer (collectively, the “Warranties”). For avoidance of doubt, the Warranties shall include any and all warranties and guarantees for the benefit of WPPI as provided under the Construction Contract, and/or any other agreements entered into by WPPI and/or its Affiliates with respect to the construction and development of the Hotel (excluding the Architect Agreement) to the extent the same are assignable by WPPI and WPPI obtains consent necessary to effectuate the assignment thereof prior to or after the Closing. It is acknowledged and agreed that the assignment of the foregoing Warranties is subject to the terms and conditions of the respective contracts and Warranties, but WPPI remains responsible for any WPPI obligations under the respective contracts, which obligations are not being assigned or assumed by CWI.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: This case is clearly distinguishable because it involves an attempt to add a new theory of recovery to the complaint after plaintiff rested his case. In the case sub judice, Commerce Center has maintained throughout the proceedings that the various construction defects by Contractor contributed to the leaks. Commerce Center did not allege a new cause of action nor did it present an unforseen argument late in the proceedings. II. Admissibility of Commerce Center’s June 25 and July 26, 1996, Letters The courts favor compromise; accordingly, evidence relating to settlements is generally not admissible to prove liability. Rule 408, SCRE; Hunter v. Hyder, 236 S.C. 378, 114 S.E.2d 493 (1960); Hall v. Palmetto Enterprises II, Inc., of Clinton, 282 S.C. 87, 317 S.E.2d 140 (Ct.App.1984) (<HOLDING>). The June 25, 1996, letter from Commerce Options: A. holding that an offer to compromise is generally not admissible as an admission B. holding that statement within expert report is not a judicial admission but is instead an admission by party C. holding that when an appellant fails to offer an argument on an issue that issue is abandoned D. holding that an offer to donate cannot be an offer to sell E. holding that when an appellant fails to offer an argument on an issue such as cat relief that issue is abandoned

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that an offer to compromise is generally not admissible as an admission
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Borrower: (a) is, as of the Closing Date, and will continue to be (i) a corporation duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the jurisdiction of its incorporation or organization, (ii) duly qualified to do business and in good standing in each other jurisdiction where its ownership or lease of property or the conduct of its business requires such qualification, except where the failure to be so qualified could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, and (iii) in compliance with all Requirements of Law, except to the extent failure to comply therewith could not, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect; and (b) has and will continue to have (i) the requisite corporate power and authority and the legal right to execute, deliver and perform its obligations under the Loan Documents, and to own, pledge, mortgage or otherwise encumber and operate its properties, to lease the property it operates under lease, and to conduct its business as now, heretofore or proposed to be conducted, and (ii) all licenses, permits, franchises, rights, powers, consents or approvals from or by all Persons or Governmental Authorities having jurisdiction over such Borrower that are necessary or appropriate for the conduct of its business.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: except as expressly agreed by the company and you , this eula constitutes the entire agreement between you and the company with respect to the subject matter hereof , and supersedes all previous or contemporaneous agreements , whether written or oral , between the parties with respect to the subject matter herein .

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 Company, through action of the Personnel Committee of its Board of Directors, may, in its sole discretion, amend or terminate the Plan in whole or in part at any time. In addition, without limiting the foregoing, the Committee shall have the power to amend the Plan on behalf of the Company where such amendment would not result in a material increase in the cost of the Plan for the Company. The Plan will also terminate, without notice, upon the total cessation of the business of the Company or upon the bankruptcy, receivership or dissolution of the Company.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of potential bias by the trial court waives his objection and cannot challenge the court’s qualifications on appeal.” In re Welfare of Carpenter, 21 Wn. App. 814, 820, 587 P.2d 588 (1978). A party may not speculate upon what rulings the court will make on propositions involved in the case and, if the rulings do not happen to be in the party’s favor, then for the first time raise the issue on appeal. Id. These and other cases that Dr. Tatham cites as supporting the trial court’s finding of waiver all depend on a demonstration that the waiving party knew of the grounds requiring recusal before the complained-of determination. The burden of establishing a waiver is upon the party asserting that the right has been waived. Cf. State v. Ashue, 145 Wn. App. 492, 502, 188 P.3d 522 (2008) (<HOLDING>). ¶36 Without conducting an evidentiary Options: A. holding that the prior conviction was valid for calculation of the defendants criminal history because his waiver of the right to counsel was valid B. recognizing that the burden to establish a valid waiver of a constitutional right is upon the prosecution C. recognizing the right to trial by jury is a constitutional right to be given the same protections as other constitutional rights D. recognizing burden E. holding that once the defendant raises the issue of intelligent and voluntary waiver with respect to prior guilty pleas the burden is on the state to establish a valid waiver

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that the burden to establish a valid waiver of a constitutional right is upon the prosecution
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Lease may only be terminated as provided in this Section 11 (Term and Termination). Termination by a Party will be without prejudice to any other rights and remedies available to a Party. Neither Party will be obliged to pay any termination charges or demobilization fees to the other Party in connection with any termination of this Lease, except as may be expressly set forth in this Lease.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) Borrower shall cooperate with Lender in obtaining for Lender (to the extent that this Agreement provides that such Proceeds are to be paid to Lender) the benefits of any Proceeds lawfully or equitably payable in connection with the Property, and Lender shall be reimbursed for any expenses incurred in connection therewith (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and disbursements) out of such Proceeds.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: as the center of the private lives of our people.” Id. at 115, 126 S.Ct. 1515 (quotation marks omitted). In the Court’s estimation, the right that a nonconsenting co-occupant has to privacy outweighs any interest the con senting co-oceupant has in allowing the premises to be searched. Id. As Justice Souter, writing for the Court, stated, We therefore hold that a warrantless search of a shared dwelling for evidence over the express refusal of consent by a physically present resident cannot be justified as reasonable as to him on the basis of consent given to the police by another resident. Id. at 120,126 S.Ct. 1515. [¶ 20] Randolph, however, does not require law enforcement to affirmatively seek the consent of physically present co-tenants who may object. Id. at 121-22, 126 S.Ct. 1515 (<HOLDING>). Here, a uniformed officer entered the camp. Options: A. holding that the implied consent law allows law enforcement officers to obtain blood in circumstances in which a warrant or actual consent may otherwise be required B. holding there is no consent as a matter of law where the consent was given under coercion C. holding that the state has no affirmative duty to seek out and gain possession of potentially exculpatory evidence D. holding that there is no need to affirmatively seek the consent of a potentially objecting cotenant when consent has been given by another cotenant unless law enforcement has removed the potentially objecting cotenant E. holding that because consent is not a statement and a request for consent is not an interrogation giving consent to search is a neutral fact which has no tendency to show that the suspect is guilty of any crime

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that there is no need to affirmatively seek the consent of a potentially objecting cotenant when consent has been given by another cotenant unless law enforcement has removed the potentially objecting cotenant
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: it was unreasonable for plan to refuse to consider the effect of plaintiffs “stress,” when the plan did not say that self-reported or subjective factors should be accorded less significance than other indicators); see also Green v. Prudential Ins. Co., 383 F.Supp.2d 980, 997-98 (M.D.Tenn.2005)(Nixon, J.)(where treating physicians and specialists have diagnosed fibromyalgia, and there not objective tests available to prove certain symptoms, it is unreasonable to require objective findings); Pollini v. Raytheon Dis. Employee Trust, 54 F.Supp.2d 54, 59 (D.Mass. 1999)(“the claim administrator’s rejection of a claim solely on the basis of a purported lack of objective evidence is troubling and questionable.”); May v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 2004 WL 2011460, *7 (N.D.Cal. Sept.9, 2004)(<HOLDING>). Moreover, as the Seventh Circuit explained: Options: A. holding that plan administrator could appropriately require objective medical evidence supporting disability claim where such a requirement is not contradicted by any provision of the administrators own policy B. holding that plan administrator abused its discretion when it interpreted plan as giving it the right to subrogation with respect to all claims and not just those claims for medical expenses C. holding that it was wrong for an administrator to require a claimant suffering from fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome to submit objective medical evidence in support of her claim for benefits when the plan did not require such evidence D. holding that metlife abused its discretion by requiring the plaintiff meet an additional requirement for eligibility beyond those imposed by the plan the administrator cannot exclude a claim for lack of objective medical evidence unless the objective medical evidence standard was made clear plain and conspicuous enough in the policy to negate plaintiffs objectively reasonable expectations of coverage E. holding that an insurance company could not deny a claim for longterm disability benefits based on a lack of objective medical evidence when the original policy did not refer to the objective medical evidence standard and never defined that term

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that metlife abused its discretion by requiring the plaintiff meet an additional requirement for eligibility beyond those imposed by the plan the administrator cannot exclude a claim for lack of objective medical evidence unless the objective medical evidence standard was made clear plain and conspicuous enough in the policy to negate plaintiffs objectively reasonable expectations of coverage
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 PARTY ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT ANY CONTROVERSY WHICH MAY ARISE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT IS LIKELY TO INVOLVE COMPLICATED AND DIFFICULT ISSUES, AND THEREFORE EACH SUCH PARTY HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY WAIVES ANY RIGHT SUCH PARTY MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN RESPECT OF ANY LITIGATION DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT, OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED BY THIS AGREEMENT. EACH PARTY CERTIFIES AND ACKNOWLEDGES THAT (a) NO REPRESENTATIVE, AGENT OR ATTORNEY OF ANY OTHER PARTY HAS REPRESENTED, EXPRESSLY OR OTHERWISE, THAT SUCH OTHER PARTY WOULD NOT, IN THE EVENT OF LITIGATION, SEEK TO ENFORCE THE FOREGOING WAIVER, (b) EACH PARTY UNDERSTANDS AND HAS CONSIDERED THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS WAIVER, (c) EACH PARTY MAKES THIS WAIVER VOLUNTARILY, AND (d) EACH PARTY HAS BEEN INDUCED TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT BY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE MUTUAL WAIVERS AND CERTIFICATIONS IN THIS SECTION 8.9 .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that will not render the statute’s application absurd, u s that “[a]ll persons are born equally free, have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of seeking and obtaining safety and happiness.” The scope of the right to enjoy life and pursue happiness stated in Article II, Section 4 of the New Mexico Constitution, and whether violation of that section’s provisions gives rise to a cause of action under the Tort Claims Act, has not been determined. Cf. California First Bank v. State, 111 N.M. 64, 76, 801 P.2d 646, 658 (1990) (refusing to reach issue because not properly raised). But see Oldfield v. Benavidez, 116 N.M. 785, 790, 867 P.2d 1167, 1172 (1994) (<HOLDING>). It is clear, however, that mere references to Options: A. holding the exclusion did not violate the equal protection clause of the wyoming constitution or the fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution B. holding defendant to a preference action has a right to a jury trial pursuant to the seventh amendment of the united states constitution but that right can be waived by filing a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings C. recognizing the fourteenth amendment to the united state constitution embodies a right to familial integrity but stating the parameters of the right have never been clearly established and the right is not absolute or unqualified D. holding that the sixth amendment right to counsel embodies the right to effective assistance of counsel E. holding that the fourteenth amendment incorporated the sixth amendment right to counsel

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing the fourteenth amendment to the united state constitution embodies a right to familial integrity but stating the parameters of the right have never been clearly established and the right is not absolute or unqualified
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: you and we will pay the administrative and arbitrator 's fees and other costs in accordance with the applicable arbitration rules ( including any rules regarding hardship ) ; but if applicable arbitration rules or laws require linden lab to pay a greater portion or all of such fees and costs in order for this arbitration provision to be enforceable , or if the arbitrator ( s ) determine that you would experience an extreme hardship by paying your share of arbitration fees and costs prior to resolution of the dispute , then linden lab will have the right to elect to pay the fees and costs and proceed to arbitration .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Neither Borrower nor any Restricted Subsidiary has received any written notice from any insurer or its agent requiring performance of any work with respect to the Eligible Asset that has not been completed or canceling or threatening to cancel any policy of insurance, and the Eligible Asset complies in all material respects with the insurability requirements of all of Borrower’s insurance carriers.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the defendants say, reliance on that promise was objectively unreasonable. This argument erects, and then attacks, a straw man. As said, the plaintiffs complaint alleges that the defendants falsely implied that SNESL had the capacity to achieve near-term accreditation. This is a meaningful distinction. It is one thing for an actor to demur when asked to guarantee a third party’s actions. It is quite another for an actor to mislead a person into believing that the actor itself possesses means and abilities fully within its control. Given this distinction, the defendants’ reliance on the disclaimer is misplaced: inasmuch as the disclaimer does not cover the alleged misrepresentations, it cannot defeat them. See Hitachi Credit Am. Corp. v. Signet Bank, 166 F.3d 614, 630-631 (4th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). It is, of course, arguable that the proof at Options: A. holding that an intervenor lacked standing to challenge a settlement agreement between the plaintiff and the united states on the grounds that one of the plaintiffs claims was fraudulent because the intervenors were not parties to the settlement and suffered no personal harm from it notwithstanding the potential that its tax dollars went to pay the allegedly fraudulent claim B. holding that a contracting party may recover for fraud notwithstanding specific disclaimers that do not cover the allegedly fraudulent contractinducing representations C. holding that a party may ratify a settlement agreement induced by fraud retain the proceeds and sue to recover fraud damages D. holding fraudulent representations to the fda could not sustain statelaw claims E. holding that the plaintiffs mere failure to execute on a judgment the only allegedly fraudulent act is not fraudulent concealment

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a contracting party may recover for fraud notwithstanding specific disclaimers that do not cover the allegedly fraudulent contractinducing representations
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company’s rights and obligations under this Agreement may not be assigned to any entity other than an Affiliate without the Executive’s consent. The Executive’s duties, responsibilities, authorities, compensation, and benefits are personal to the Executive and may not be assigned to any person or entity without written consent from the Company other than by will or the laws of descent and distribution. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the Executive’s legal representatives.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower agrees to pay to KeyBank, Agent, the Joint Arrangers, and the Bookrunner for their own account certain fees for services rendered or to be rendered in connection with the Loans as provided pursuant to that certain Third Amended and Restated Agreement Regarding Fees dated as of even date herewith among the Borrower, KeyBank and KCM (the “Agreement Regarding Fees”) and any fee letters dated on or near the date hereof between the Borrower and the Joint Arrangers (other than KCM). All such fees shall be fully earned when paid and nonrefundable under any circumstances. The Borrower agrees and acknowledges that no proceeds of the Loans will be used to pay any arrangement fees, and Borrower will pay for such fees out of pocket.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of the events giving rise to the killing. Further, Appellee contends that his trial counsel was derelict in his failure to interview Hammer, which Appellee asserts would have revealed additional inconsistencies and yielded avenues for the impeachment of other witnesses. Appellee stresses that, at the post-conviction hearing, trial counsel could identify no strategic reason for failing to cross-examine Hammer with the inconsistent statements given to state troopers. See N.T., November 22, 2004, at 216. According to Appellee, if the jurors had heard these lies about the events which formed the foundation of the Commonwealth’s case, they would have had an insight into the self-interested motivation for his trial testimony. See Berryman v. Morton, 100 F.3d 1089, 1098-99 (3d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). While Appellee recognizes that trial counsel Options: A. holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel B. holding that counsel was ineffective for inter alia failing to impeach a witness with prior inconsistent statements C. holding in rule 3850 proceeding that trial counsel s failure to impeach witness with statements he made on night of murder was not reasonable under the circumstances D. holding that counsels failure to impeach a witness by showing bias was ineffective assistance E. holding that a witnesss prior inconsistent statement to an officer could be used to impeach her

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that counsel was ineffective for inter alia failing to impeach a witness with prior inconsistent statements
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 71, 74 (2d Cir.2001) (per curiam) (same). In this case, although quantity was alleged in the defendants’ indictments, the District Court instructed the jury that it need not consider the quantity of drugs trafficked by the defendants. Therefore, because we are remanding this case for resentencing so that the District Court may consider “foreign drugs,” when recalculating the sentences the District Court must do so in accord with the principles of Apprendi. Thus, although the District Court may find, by a preponderance of the evidence standard, the quantity of drugs trafficked by the defendants and use this quantity in its calculations under the Sentencing Guidelines, the resulting sentence cannot exceed the statutory maximum. See United States v. Garcia, 240 F.3d 180, 183 (2d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the statutory maximum for Options: A. holding that apprendi has not affected the district courts authority to determine facts for sentencing at or below the statutory maximum B. holding sentences need only be below the statutory maximum C. holding that for purposes of apprendi the statutory maximum is the maximum sentence that may be imposed based solely on the jurys findings D. holding that apprendi does not apply where the defendant was sentenced to less than the statutory maximum E. holding that the sentence was reasonable in part because it was well below the statutory maximum

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that apprendi has not affected the district courts authority to determine facts for sentencing at or below the statutory maximum
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 Program is created, adopted, maintained and governed according to the laws of the State of Delaware. Headings and captions are only for convenience; they do not have substantive meaning. If a provision of this Program is not valid or not enforceable, the validity or enforceability of any other provision is not affected. Use of one gender includes all, and the singular and plural include each other.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if you are a business , government , or non-profit entity , the person whose email address is associated with the account must have the authority to bind the entity to this agreement .

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: except as otherwise specifically described in the service 's privacy statement or any additional terms , your relationship with linden lab is not a confidential , fiduciary , or other type of special relationship and your unsolicited ideas and materials , and anything else submitted by you will be treated as non-confidential and non-proprietary user content -- regardless of whether you mark them `` confidential '' , `` proprietary '' , or the like .

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: the court held that right to federal jurisdiction granted by 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2)(B) cannot be asserted by anyone except for a plan beneficiary or participant. See Northeast, 764 F.2d at 151; see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. The 65 Security Plan, 879 F.2d 90, 94 (3d Cir. 1989). Although the Northeast court refused to allow jurisdiction over an assigned ERISA claim to be predicated on 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), it allowed the trial court to assert jurisdiction over a dispute between two ERISA funds under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, since, in the opinion of the court, the claim was based on federal common law. See Northeast, 764 F.2d at 157 (Becker, J.) and 1165 (Sloviter, J., concurring); cf. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 67, 107 S.Ct. 1542, 1548, 95 L.Ed.2d 55 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Judge VanArtsdalen was forced to reconcile Options: A. holding that 1331 confers jurisdiction over a suit that arises under a right of action created by the apa B. holding that 28 usc 1331 provides jurisdiction over a suit which involves an erisa plan even though the suit purports to raise only state law claims since the suit is necessarily federal in character by virtue of the manifest intent of congress C. holding that suit by a beneficiary to recover benefits from a covered plan falls directly under 502a1b of erisa and therefore was necessarily federal in character and subject to removal to federal court D. holding that a prior suit and a subsequent suit between the same parties did not involve the same claim because the evidence necessary to sustain the subsequent suit was insufficient to entitle the plaintiff to relief in the prior suit E. holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that 28 usc 1331 provides jurisdiction over a suit which involves an erisa plan even though the suit purports to raise only state law claims since the suit is necessarily federal in character by virtue of the manifest intent of congress
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company may terminate this Agreement at any time by written notice to the Investor in the event of a material breach of this Agreement by the Investor. In addition, this Agreement shall automatically terminate on the earlier of (i) the end of the Commitment Period; (ii) the date that the Company sells and the Investor purchases the Commitment Amount; (iii) the date in which the Registration Statement is no longer effective, or (iv) the date that, pursuant to or within the meaning of any Bankruptcy Law, the Company commences a voluntary case or any Person commences a proceeding against the Company, a Custodian is appointed for the Company or for all or substantially all of its property or the Company makes a general assignment for the benefit of its creditors; provided , however , that the provisions of Articles III, IV, V, VI, IX and the agreements and covenants of the Company and the Investor set forth in Article X shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

assistant: Terminations
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: its end of their bargain and to deliver what was promised. The striking feature of a typical no-injury class is that the plaintiffs have either not yet experienced a malfunction because of the alleged defect or have experienced a malfunction but not been harmed by it. Therefore, the plaintiffs in a no-injury products liability case have not suffered any physical harm or out-of-pocket economic loss. Here, the damages sought by the Coghlans are not rooted in the alleged defect of the product as such, but in the fact that they did not receive the benefit of their bargain. Coghlan v. Wellcraft Marine Corp., 240 F.3d 449, 455 n. 4 (5th Cir.2001). The Fifth Circuit also noted that “the determination that there has been no injury in [cases like this] must be an evidentia-ry one.” Id. at 455 (<HOLDING>). Most courts recognize that the failure to Options: A. holding that a trial court entered judgment on the pleadings where the decision did not depend on any document outside the pleadings B. holding that district court acted prematurely by dismissing case on the pleadings C. holding that district court erred in dismissing the indictment based on sufficiency of evidence D. holding court must have evidence to support dismissal before dismissing a case for fraud on the court E. holding that the trial court erred by dismissing the plaintiffs defamation claim

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that district court acted prematurely by dismissing case on the pleadings