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: in the Chapter 7 case would have only created duplicitous litigation and further depleted estate resources. Additionally, Cowin filed his Chapter 7 case in February 2013, but did not file a suggestion of bankruptcy until after the bankruptcy court issued the Countrywide Nondischargeability Opinion. This also demonstrates that Cowin was not harmed by the ongoing litigation of the Countrywide Adversary Proceeding and only sought to enforce the automatic stay to avoid the adverse judgment. See Easley v. Pettibone Mich. Corp., 990 F.2d 905, 911 (6th Cir. 1993) (recognizing an equitable exception to the automatic stay where “the debtor is attempting to use the stay unfairly as a shield to avoid an unfavorable result”); Job v. Calder (In re Calder), 907 F.2d 953, 956-57 (10th Cir. 1990) (<HOLDING>). Cowin has failed to demonstrate that he was Options: A. holding judgment in violation of automatic stay void B. holding that the denial of a motion to find a violation of the automatic stay was a final order C. holding that although the automatic stay only applies to proceedings against the debtor counterclaims seeking affirmative relief against a debtor implicate the automatic stay D. holding that the protections of the automatic stay apply only to actions against the debtor E. holding that the automatic stay did not bar the filing of a proof of claim where the debtor actively litigated a separate action during the pending bankruptcy proceeding because to permit the automatic stay provision to be used as a trump card played after an unfavorable result was reached would be inconsistent with the underlying purpose of the automatic stay

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the automatic stay did not bar the filing of a proof of claim where the debtor actively litigated a separate action during the pending bankruptcy proceeding because to permit the automatic stay provision to be used as a trump card played after an unfavorable result was reached would be inconsistent with the underlying purpose of the automatic stay
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 transactions contemplated by this Agreement are intended to be treated for sales and use tax purposes as a financing (so that transfers of Devices hereunder are not taxable sales) and if not so treated each transfer contemplated hereunder is intended to be an exempt sale for resale for such purposes as the purchaser or transferee intends to re-sell or lease each Device in the same form or condition in which it was transferred to others in the normal course of the transferee's business. Each Originator and each Lessee will cooperate to take all steps to timely prepare and secure any exemption certificate, resale certificate or similar documentation requested or required by any jurisdiction for purposes of qualifying for or documenting any such exemption.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company will, and will cause each of its Subsidiaries to, do or cause to be done all things necessary to preserve, renew and keep in full force and effect its legal existence and all rights, licenses, permits, privileges and franchises except to the extent that the failure to do so could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect; provided that the foregoing shall not prohibit any merger, consolidation, liquidation or dissolution permitted under Section 7.03 .

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: to require a patient’s medical malpractice claims to be arbitrated. The black letter statement of California law in this regard is, ... an agent or other fiduciary who contracts for medical treatment on behalf of his beneficiary retains the authority to enter into an agreement providing for arbitration of claims for medical malpractice. Garrison v. Super. Ct, 132 Cal.App.4th 253, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 350, 358 (2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, under the law of California, agents with authority to admit their principals to medical facilities also had authority to sign arbitration agreements that were included in the admission paperwork as a related healthcare decision. See Hogan v. Country Villa Health Servs., 148 Cal.App.4th 259, 55 Cal. Rptr.3d 450, 453 (2007) (<HOLDING>). These cases support the view that an agent’s Options: A. holding that a healthcare power of attorney conferred by a resident to his wife explicitly limited the powers of the agent to those set out in writing in the document B. holding a power of attorney allows a principal to convey to an agent the authority to act on its behalf in identified matters C. holding that unless that power is restricted by the principal an agent under a california statutory healthcare power of attorney has the power to execute applicable admission forms including arbitration agreements D. holding that a healthcare power of attorney includes the authority to bind the principal to an optional arbitration agreement because among other reasons an agent has authority to do everything necessary or proper and usual in the ordinary course of business for effecting the purpose of his agency and that the decision to enter into such agreements in connection with placement in a healthcare facility is a proper and usual exercise of an agents powers internal quotation marks and citation omitted E. holding police power is restricted by constitutional bill of rights

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that unless that power is restricted by the principal an agent under a california statutory healthcare power of attorney has the power to execute applicable admission forms including arbitration 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: extinct by mutual agreement between the parties” (citation omitted)). Moreover, Settlement Agreement I also stated that “[b]y copy of this agreement, the USPS is formally providing notification to [Plaintiff] that it is moving out of the Detroit, Michigan property on November 30, 2000.” Id. Ex. B H2 (emphasis added). Finally, the USPS’s decision to move out of the facility as of September 1999, and not using the facility thereafter, further evidences the intention of the parties to surrender the lease tenancy on November 30, 2000, not some unknown date in the future. See Gov’t Resp. To PFF H 4; see also Gov’t Resp. To PFF App. at 1-2. Third, Plaintiff argues that by retaining the keys subsequent t ank & Trust Co., 104 Ill.App.3d 636, 60 Ill.Dec. 314, 432 N.E.2d 1213, 1217-18 (Ct.1982) (<HOLDING>); Brennan v. City of New York, 80 A.D. 251, Options: A. recognizing that it is a wellestablished rule that a tenant is estopped from denying the title of his landlord existing at the commencement of the tenancy B. holding that where the landlord was aware the tenant had moved out a tenant who attached a lock to the door and accidentally retained the keys to the lock was not a holdover tenant C. holding the landlord did not trespass when his agent entered the premises for the purpose of showing them to a potential tenant D. holding that the tenant was not a holdover tenant despite retaining keys because the tenant recognized the termination of the tenancy relinquished possession of the premises and the landlord was able to gain access to the property E. recognizing the general rule that the landlord is not liable for dangerous conditions existing once the tenant takes possession of the premises

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the tenant was not a holdover tenant despite retaining keys because the tenant recognized the termination of the tenancy relinquished possession of the premises and the landlord was able to gain access to the property
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: give several reasons for their decision to terminate the plaintiff; namely, that he was over-extended, refused to delegate work, failed to share information, had poor people management skills, and treated 010 employees in an abusive manner. As the “proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back,” defendants also point to, and plaintiff concedes, his use of profanities and abusive language during the phone conversation with Clark. (Doc. 41 at 25.) Defendants were concerned that plaintiffs behavior would result in a lawsuit by Clark or potentially lawsuits by other employees. An employee’s inappropriate behavior toward other employees is a legitimate business reason for termination in the context of a close corporation. See Priebe v. O’Malley, 89 Ohio App.3d 8, 12, 623 N.E.2d 573 (1993) (<HOLDING>). The record demonstrates that defendants acted Options: A. holding that unless a shareholder can show personal cause of action and personal injury claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty belong to the corporation and not the shareholder B. holding that shareholder could not prevail on breachoffiduciaryduty claim against other shareholder because alleged mishandling of funds did not result in any injury to the corporation C. holding that majority shareholders had legitimate business reasons for terminating a shareholder which included the reason that the shareholder was not working well with other employees D. holding that sole shareholder could recover on behalf of company but not in individual capacity for former shareholder and officers misappropriation of corporate assets E. holding that corporate officer and majority shareholder could be held liable for acting in a manner that served his interests at the expense of the other shareholders because his interests and the corporations were not necessarily aligned

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that majority shareholders had legitimate business reasons for terminating a shareholder which included the reason that the shareholder was not working well with other employees
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: 24 . Id. 25 . Utah Code Ann. § 77-32-305.5 (2003) (emphasis added). 26 . Id. 27 . Id. § 77-32-304.5(f) (2003). 28 . State v. Carreno, 2005 UT App 208, ¶¶ 9-10, 113 P.3d 1004 (citing State v. Hancock, 874 P.2d 132, 135-36 & n. 3 (Utah Ct.App.1994)). 29 . Hancock, 874 P.2d at 135 n. 3. 30 . Supra ¶¶ 13-15. 31 . Utah Code Ann. § 77-32-301(3) (2003). 32 . See Carreno, 2005 UT App 208, ¶ 10, 113 P.3d 1004 (emphasis added). 33 . See id. 34 . State v. Robbins, 709 P.2d 771, 773 (Utah 1985); accord State v. Cramer, 2002 UT 9, ¶ 28, 44 P.3d 690 ("[I]f an appellant fails to provide an adequate record on appeal, this court must assume the regularity of the proceedings below.”). 35 . Carreno, 2005 UT App 208, ¶ 10, 113 P.3d 1004. 36 . See Barney v. State, 698 S.W.2d 114, 126 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (<HOLDING>). 37 . See Roberts v. State, 252 Ga. 227, 314 Options: A. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion for additional funds where defendant had not shown exhaustion of the 500 granted B. holding that the district court did not err by concluding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance motion to withdraw and motion for reconsideration and rehearing C. holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint D. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion for continuance when not in proper affidavit form E. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to strike when movant failed to show prejudice

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion for additional funds where defendant had not shown exhaustion of the 500 granted
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 378 U.S. 550 84 S.Ct. 1910 12 L.Ed.2d 1035 Reginald M. GREEN et al.v.VIRGINIA. No. 761. Supreme Court of the United States June 22, 1964 Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III and Roland D. Ealey, for petitioners. Reno S. Harp III, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Virginia, for respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. PER CURIAM. 1 The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the judgments are vacated and the case remanded to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia for consideration in light of Peterson v. City of Greenville, 373 U.S. 244, 83 S.Ct. 1119, 10 L.Ed.2d 323, and Robinson v. Florida, 378 U.S. 153, 84 S.Ct. 1693. 2 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS would reverse outright on the basis of the views expressed in his opinion in Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 242, 84 S.Ct. 1823.

assistant: 2
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: child support arrearage at the rate of $200 monthly without interest. He was also ordered to maintain medical insurance on the children and to reimburse the wife 100 percent of all out-of-pocket medical expenses. The court found the $36,000 buy-out the husband received from his former firm, Warner, Gallas-py and Lobel [WGL], was a marital asset and ordered the husband to pay the wife $18,000 at the rate of $350 p on, 675 So.2d 1370 (Fla.1996); see also Sunday v. Sunday, 610 So.2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (entry of fee award without a determination of reasonable rate and hours expended requires remand). Remand for the requisite findings is not appropriate here because the wife failed to bring forth any evidence to support such findings. See Davis v. Davis, 613 So.2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (<HOLDING>); Wiley v. Wiley, 485 So.2d 2 (Fla. 5th DCA Options: A. holding evidence which was similar to the evidence offered here to be factually sufficient to support an award of attorneys fees B. holding that where there is competent evidence to support the courts findings the admission of incompetent evidence is not prejudicial C. holding that while remand is appropriate where the record may contain substantial competent evidence to support findings as to the rowe factors reversal is required where the record is devoid of any evidence to support the award of attorneys fees D. holding that a public administrator was not entitled to attorneys fees in a claim against the estate of a former guardian where the case was not one where attorneys fees were authorized and there was no evidence to support the award E. holding merely that the evidence was sufficient to support the award of attorneys fees

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that while remand is appropriate where the record may contain substantial competent evidence to support findings as to the rowe factors reversal is required where the record is devoid of any evidence to support the award of attorneys 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: this case from Wyman by suggesting that "the County's program requires fraud investigators ... to detect and report evidence of welfare fraud and other crimes.” Dissent at 11532. This suggestion, however, simply does not square with the record. Project 100% does not affirmatively require that D.A. investigators look for evidence of welfare fraud or other crimes; rather, it is simply the duty of the investigators, as sworn peace officers, to report perceived evidence of unlawful activity. As Luis Aragon, the Chief of the D.A.'s Public Assistance Fraud Division, testified, the investigators are not tasked with "develop [ing] ... evidence ... that can be used in any other type 115 S.Ct. 2386, 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995) (same); see also United States v. Gonzalez, 300 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Wyman, however, still controls this case Options: A. holding that warrantless searches of cell phones incident to arrest should not be allowed because such searches cannot be justified by officer safety or the preservation of evidence given the privacy implications inherent in cell phone data searches B. holding that consensual random drug testing of students participating in extracurricular activities were searches under the fourth amendment even though they were not part of a criminal investigation and a positive test resulted only in suspension from participation C. holding a person may consent to warrantless searches as a condition of a suspended sentence D. holding that consensual suspicionless searches of government employees personal belongings in the workplace were searches even though refusal to consent carried no criminal penalty and the searches were not for law enforcement purposes E. holding that consent searches do not require probable cause to justify the search of a home

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that consensual suspicionless searches of government employees personal belongings in the workplace were searches even though refusal to consent carried no criminal penalty and the searches were not for 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) Each of Holdings and the Borrower shall, and shall cause each Restricted Subsidiary to, do or cause to be done all things necessary to preserve, renew and keep in full force and effect its legal existence in its jurisdiction of organization, except as otherwise expressly permitted under Section 6.03.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding between you and the Company with respect to the subject matter hereto and supersedes all prior oral and written agreements, promises and/or representations on that subject. This Agreement is not an agreement of employment and will not confer upon you any right to be retained by or in the employ of the Company and will not interfere in any way with the right of the Company to terminate your employment or service arrangement at any time or for any reason. This Agreement will be binding upon any surviving entity resulting from a Change in Control of the Company and upon any other person who is a successor by merger, acquisition, consolidation or otherwise to the business formerly carried on by the Company without regard to whether or not such person or entity actively assumes the obligations hereunder. The terms of this Agreement, and any action arising hereunder, will be governed by and construed in accordance with the domestic laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts without giving effect to any choice of law or conflict of law provision or rule (whether of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or other jurisdiction) that would cause the application of the laws of any jurisdiction other than the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and you hereby expressly consent to the personal jurisdiction and venue of the state and federal courts located in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for any lawsuit filed there against you by Company arising from or related to this Agreement.

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

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 362 U.S. 605 80 S.Ct. 923 4 L.Ed.2d 987 LOCAL 24, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA et al.v.OLIVER et al. No. 813. Decided May 16, 1960. Rehearing Denied June 27, 1960. See 363 U.S. 858, 80 S.Ct. 1611. Messrs. David Previant, Robert C. Knee, Bruce Laybourne and David Leo Uelmen, for petitioners. Messrs. Bernard J. Roetzel and Charles R. Iden, for respondents. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion for leave to use record in No. 49, October Term, 1958, is granted. The petition for certiorari is also granted. After our remand to the Court of Appeals of the State of Ohio, Ninth Judicial District, for proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of this Court, 358 U.S. 283, 79 S.Ct. 297, 3 L.Ed.2d 312, the Court of Appeals set aside its previous order 'as it concerns and applies to Revel Oliver, appellee, as a lessor-driver' but continued the order in full force and effect 'as it concerns and applies to Revel Oliver, appellee, as a lessor-owner and employer of drivers of his equipment.' We read the judgment of the Court of Appeals as enjoining petitioner and respondents A.C.E. Transportation Co. and Interstate Truck Service, Inc., for enforcing against respondent Oliver those parts of Article 32 which provide that hired or leased equipment, if not owner-driven, shall be operated only by employees of the certificated or permitted carriers and require those carriers to use their own available equipment, before hiring any extra equipment. Art. 32, §§ 4 and 5, 358 U.S. at 298—299, 79 S.Ct. at pages 305—306. While we do not think the issue was tendered to us when the case was last here, we are of opinion that these provisions are at least as intimately bound up with the subject of wages as the minimum rental provisions we passed on then. Accordingly, as in the previous case, we hold that Ohio's antitrust law here may not 'be applied to prevent the contracting parties from carrying out their agreement upon a subject matter as to which federal law directs them to bargain.' 358 U.S., at page 295, 79 S.Ct. at page 304. 2 The judgment accordingly is reversed. 3 Reversed. 4 Mr. Justice WHITTAKER dissents. 5 Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER and Mr. Justice STEWART took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

assistant: 10
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 bind and inure to the benefit of the successors and assignees of the Company. The Grantee may not sell, assign, transfer, pledge or otherwise dispose of the Units, except to a successor grantee in the event of the Grantee’s death.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: refused” to participate in the takedown costs at the beginning of the trial and in a pretrial pleading and acknowledging that “silence is not an express refusal,” but not mentioning any ruling by the trial court at the commencement of the trial that appellant had expressly refused to participate); Tow, 180 Ga. App. at 610 (denying appellant’s request to compel appellee to authorize the court reporter to prepare a transcript, based on testimony at a post-trial hearing that appellant declined in open court to participate in the takedown costs, without addressing whether the trial court ruled at the commencement of trial that appellant had expressly refused to participate in the takedown costs). See Moore v. Center Court Sports & Fitness, 289 Ga. App. 596, 600, n. 6 (657 SE2d 548) (2008) Options: A. recognizing that tow and ruffin appear to have applied the harrington rule without considering giddingss requirement that there be a ruling by the trial court at the commencement of the proceedings that the losing party expressly refused to participate in the takedown costs B. holding that a party failed to preserve error by not pursuing a ruling at trial where the courts motion in limine ruling invited the party to attempt to admit the evidence during trial C. holding that the exception to the general rule applied even though the court did not specifically rule the evidence was inadmissible because the ruling was definitive and reached the ultimate issue of admissibility D. holding that upon the request of the losing party on a motion to suppress evidence the trial court shall state its essential findings E. holding that an exception to the general rule applied when counsel asked the court whether its ruling was the final order of the court and the court responded yes

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that tow and ruffin appear to have applied the harrington rule without considering giddingss requirement that there be a ruling by the trial court at the commencement of the proceedings that the losing party expressly refused to participate in the takedown costs
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed by one or more of the parties to this Agreement on any number of separate counterparts, and all of said counterparts taken together shall be deemed to constitute one and the same instrument. Delivery of an executed signature page of this Agreement by facsimile or other electronic transmission (e.g., in “pdf” or “tif” format) shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart hereof.

assistant: Counterparts
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: Buyer acknowledges that Seller is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a publicly traded company and, as such, may be required to publicly disclose the execution of this Agreement and the consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, in each case, including, but not limited to, the location of Real Property, purchase price and Buyer’s name and a description of the material terms of this Agreement (such as the purchase price), and may be required to publicly file this Agreement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Buyer hereby forever releases and discharges Seller and its partners, shareholders, members, officers, directors, agents and employees, controlling persons and affiliates from responsibility or claims arising out of the disclosure that Buyer or its successors and assigns may have against Seller now or in the future based on such disclosure. The provisions of this Section 31 shall survive closing.

assistant: Disclosures
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 FLSA and Nebraska law. See Filing No. 186—Brief p. 10. Furthermore, the plaintiffs contend their state law claims do not “stand as an obstacle” to implementation of the federal law, particularly where the FLSA contains a savings clause, which explicitly allows states to provide for more beneficial minimum wages and maximum work week hours. Id. at 11-12. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs assert only state laws providing less beneficial minimum wages and maximum work week hours are preempted. Id. at 18. The parties each cite cases that support their respective positions, indicating the area of law is unsettled. In fact, only two circuit courts of appeal have reviewed the issue, with divergent results. See Anderson v. Sara Lee Corp., 508 F.3d 181, 192-95 (4th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); Williamson v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 208 F.3d Options: A. holding that the flsa preempted plaintiffs fraud claim B. holding under flsa C. holding state law fraud and deceit claims to be preempted D. holding that the flsa preempted plaintiffs wage and invasionofprivacy claims E. holding flsa enforcement scheme preempted contract negligence and fraud claims

assistant: The best answer is E. holding flsa enforcement scheme preempted contract negligence and fraud claims
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: results in a work-related “injury” or not — are entitled to a maximum of 100% of their back pay, as long as that sum does not lead to double recovery. Duplicative benefits must be deducted, as the district court did here. We reach the same conclusion on a second, independent ground. As we have noted above, relief under Title VII in the form of back pay is purely “equitable” in nature. See supra pp. 514-15. By contrast, relief under FECA consists of “compensation” (i.e., damages) defined as a per centage of the employee’s monthly salary. Because the exclusivity provisions of FECA are limited solely to other forms of “compensation,” they are simply not applicable to the types of “equitable” relief authorized by Title VII. See, e.g., Smith v. Barton, 914 F.2d 1380, 1337 (9th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1217, 111 S.Ct. 2825, Options: A. holding that compensatory time used by plaintiff police officers can be deducted from award of back pay B. holding that exhaustion is required under the plra even if the plaintiff seeks only money damages and money damages are not available as relief C. holding that compensatory money damages are generally distinct from equitable forms of relief such as injunctions or back pay D. holding that money damages do not qualify as equitable relief within the meaning of 1132a3 E. holding that equitable relief under 502a3 does not include compensatory and punitive damages

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that compensatory money damages are generally distinct from equitable forms of relief such as injunctions or back pay
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 “all forms of pornography, including legal adult pornography”); Farrell v. Burke, 449 F.3d 470, 486 (2d Cir.2006) (noting that the Second Circuit has “strongly suggested] that the term ‘pornography’ is inherently vague for defendants whose statute of conviction does not define it.” (citing United States v. Simmons, 343 F.3d 72 (2d Cir.2003)); ' United States v. Cabot, 325 F.3d 384 (2d Cir.2003)); see also United States v. Perazza-Mercado, 553 F.3d 65, 74-76 (1st Cir.2009) (vacating a condition of supervised release that banned the “possession of any kind of pornographic material” because the district court did not provide an explanation for this condition, and “no evidence in the record ... justifies the ban”); cf. United States v. Armel, 585 F.3d 182, 185-87 (4th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). But see United States v. Boston, 494 F.3d Options: A. holding rule 2119f statement must contain factual averments which suggest that sentencing code was compromised merely stating that sentencing court abused its discretion in imposing excessive sentence is inadequate B. holding district court abused its discretion in admitting state court findings of fact C. holding that a trial court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of an expert witness where the testimony would have been relevant to show that the defendant breached a duty of care D. holding that sentencing court abused its discretion by imposing an unexplained threeyear prohibition on adult pornography where defendant had been convicted of threatening federal officials E. holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that sentencing court abused its discretion by imposing an unexplained threeyear prohibition on adult pornography where defendant had been convicted of threatening federal officials
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: about the Cypher stent is just a thinly veiled way of claiming that the FDA would not have approved the Cypher in the absence of fraud — a claim that is squarely foreclosed by Buckman. See Clark v. Medtronic, Inc., 572 F.Supp.2d 1090, 1095 (D.Minn.2008) (rejecting the argument that the defendant fraudulently concealed problems with its device from the FDA both because the record did not support his claim and because such a claim would be barred under Buckman). Riley also argues that, because the Cypher stent is coated with a drug, the preemption analysis of § 360k(a) is inapplicable, and the Court must instead undertake the implied-preemption analysis that applies to claims relating to federally regulated drugs. Cf. Wyeth v. Levine, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1187, 1204, 173 L.Ed.2d 51 (2009) (<HOLDING>). But the Cypher stent is not merely a drug or Options: A. holding state failuretowarn claims were preempted because any warning label linking said drugs to suicide would have been false and misleading B. holding that erisa preempted state law claim brought by employer against insurance company for wrongful claims processing C. holding misrepresentation claim to be preempted D. holding that a failuretowarn claim against a pharmaceutical company was not impliedly preempted E. holding that failuretowarn claims based on theory that faarequired warnings are insufficient are preempted

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a failuretowarn claim against a pharmaceutical company was not impliedly preempted
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 district court lacked jurisdiction to consider it. The criminal rules do not explicitly provide for rehearing or reconsideration of a criminal judgment; however, the Supreme Court has allowed such motions. See United States v. Cook, 670 F.2d 46, 48 (5th Cir.1982) citing United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 225, 80 S.Ct. 282, 286, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960) and Browder v. Director, Department of Corrections of Illinois, 434 U.S. 257, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978). These motions are within the district court’s jurisdiction to consider, but only if timely filed. As we stated in Russo, the “motion for reconsideration ... filed over ten days after entry of the order was therefore untimely.” Russo, 760 F.2d at 1230, citing United States v. Cook, 670 F.2d 46, 48 (5th Cir. 1982) (<HOLDING>). In Cook, the Fifth Circuit persuasively held Options: A. holding no court has jurisdiction to hear an untimely pcra petition B. holding that untimely petition for postconviction petition divests trial court of jurisdiction C. holding that the untimely petition in that case tolled the aedpa statute of limitations D. holding that an untimely postjudgment motion does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal and that this court has no jurisdiction over an untimely filed appeal E. holding that an untimely petition for a rehearingreconsideration of a motion in a criminal case was beyond the district courts jurisdiction

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an untimely petition for a rehearingreconsideration of a motion in a criminal case was beyond the district courts jurisdiction
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: Employee agrees that any breach or threatened breach of Section 8 of this Agreement would result in irreparable harm to the Company; therefore, in addition to its other remedies at law or in equity, the Company shall be entitled to injunctive or other equitable relief in order to enforce or prevent any violations of the provisions of Section 8, without the posting of any bond.

assistant: Remedies
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 person who is or shall have been a member of the Committee and each delegate of such Committee shall be indemnified and held harmless by the Company against and from any loss, cost, liability, or expense that may be imposed upon or reasonably incurred by him or her in connection with or resulting from any claim, action, suit, or proceeding to which he or she may be made a party or in which he or she may be involved in by reason of any action taken or failure to act under the Plan and against and from any and all amounts paid by him or her in settlement thereof, with the Company’s approval, or paid by him or her in satisfaction of any judgment in any such action, suit, or proceeding against him or her, provided that the Company is given an opportunity, at its own expense, to handle and defend the same before he or she undertakes to handle and defend it personally. The foregoing right of indemnification shall not be exclusive and shall be independent of any other rights of indemnification to which such persons may be entitled under the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation or By-laws, by contract, as a matter of law, 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each person who is or shall have been a member of the Committee and each delegate of such Committee shall be indemnified and held harmless by the Company against and from any loss, cost, liability, or expense that may be imposed upon or reasonably incurred by him or her in connection with or resulting from any claim, action, suit, or proceeding to which he or she may be made a party or in which he or she may be involved in by reason of any action taken or failure to act under the Plan and against and from any and all amounts paid by him or her in settlement thereof, with the Company’s approval, or paid by him or her in satisfaction of any judgment in any such action, suit, or proceeding against him or her, provided that the Company is given an opportunity, at its own expense, to handle and defend the same before he or she undertakes to handle and defend it personally. Such foregoing right of indemnification shall not apply in circumstances involving such person’s bad faith or willful misconduct. The foregoing right of indemnification shall not be exclusive and shall be independent of any other rights of indemnification to which such persons may be entitled under the Company’s Articles of Incorporation or By-laws, by contract, as a matter of law, 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Employer shall employ Executive, and Executive shall serve as the COO Sales of the Company, commencing upon the Effective Date and continuing thereafter for a two (2)-year term (the “ Term ”), unless earlier terminated under Article 4 ; provided that the Term shall automatically renew for additional two (2)-year periods unless the Employer or Executive gives notice of non-renewal at least thirty (30) days prior to expiration of the Term (as it may have been extended by any renewal period).

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: Every provision of this Assignment is intended to be severable. If any term or provision hereof is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or invalid, such illegal or invalid term or provision shall not affect the other terms and provisions hereof, which terms and provisions shall remain binding and enforceable.

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: By accepting the Resricted Stock Units, you agree to comply with applicable Brazilian laws and to pay any and all applicable taxes associated with the vesting of the Restricted Stock Units, the receipt of dividends and/or the sale of Shares acquired under the Plan.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: parties resolve the matter. Indeed, the stipulation called for resolution “without court intervention.” Thus, Shirley Hageness is not prevented from maintaining an action for breach of contract. Ill [¶ 16] Although Shirley Hageness is entitled to bring a separate action for breach of contract, she is not entitled to prevail. The “contract” embodied in this stipulation is essentially an unenforceable agreement to agree. See Clooten v. Clooten, 520 N.W.2d 843, 848-49 (N.D.1994) (noting statement by former spouse to “work something out” was unenforceable agreement to agree); Super Hooper, Inc. v. Dietrich & Sons, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 152, 155-56 (N.D.1984) (reasoning agreements to agree are “rarely enforceable”). But see Lire, Inc. v. Bob’s Pizza Inn Rest, Inc., 541 N.W.2d 432, 434 (N.D.1995) (<HOLDING>); Coldwell Banker v. Meide & Son, Inc., 422 Options: A. recognizing an agreement to agree is enforceable if its terms are reasonably definite and certain B. holding that if the contract can be given a definite and certain meaning or interpretation the contract is not ambiguous and will be construed by the court as a matter of law C. holding that a court may only enforce a settlement agreement if it constitutes an enforceable contract D. holding that a settlement agreement in which the parties failed to agree upon the terms of a release was unenforceable E. holding that in order for a contract to be enforced it is necessary that all the essential terms of the contract must first be established by competent evidence and shown to be definite certain clear and unambiguous

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing an agreement to agree is enforceable if its terms are reasonably definite and certain
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: GHM is a limited liability company duly organized, validly existing, and in good standing under the laws of the State of Florida and has all the necessary corporate powers to own properties and carry on a business, and is duly qualified to do business and is in good standing in Florida.

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: Regardless of any action the Company or any of its Subsidiaries takes with respect to any or all income tax, social insurance, payroll tax, payment on account or other tax-related items related to the Participant’s participation in the Plan and legally applicable to the Participant (“Tax-Related Items”), the Participant acknowledges that the ultimate liability for all Tax-Related Items is and remains the Participant’s responsibility and may exceed the amount actually withheld by the Company or any of its Subsidiaries. The Participant further acknowledges that the Company and/or its Subsidiaries (1) make no representations or undertakings regarding the treatment of any Tax-Related Items in connection with any aspect to the Restricted Stock Units, including, but not limited to, the grant, vesting or settlement of the Restricted Stock Units, the issuance of Shares upon settlement of the Restricted Stock Units, the subsequent sale of Shares acquired pursuant to such issuance and the receipt of any dividends and/or dividend equivalents; and (2) do not commit to and are under no obligation to structure the terms of any Award to reduce or eliminate Participant’s liability for Tax-Related Items or achieve any particular tax result. Further, if the Participant becomes subject to tax in more than one jurisdiction between the date of grant and the date of any relevant taxable event, the Participant acknowledges that Company and/or its Subsidiaries may be required to withhold or account for Tax-Related Items in more than one jurisdiction.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: With respect to each Plan, the Borrower and all ERISA Affiliates have paid all required minimum contributions and installments on or before the due dates provided under Section 430(j) of the Code and could not reasonably be subject to a lien under Section 430(k) of the Code or Title IV of ERISA. Neither the Borrower nor any ERISA Affiliate has filed, pursuant to Section 412(c) of the Code or Section 302(c) of ERISA, an application for a waiver of the minimum funding standard. No ERISA Event has occurred or is reasonably expected to occur that, when taken together with all other such ERISA Events for which liability is reasonably expected to occur, could reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Erisa
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 Grantor will pay when due all taxes, assessments and governmental charges and levies upon the Collateral owned by such Grantor, as applicable, except (i) those which are being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings and with respect to which adequate reserves have been set aside in accordance with GAAP and with respect to which no Lien exists, and (ii) those as to which the failure to pay when due could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Taxes