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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The parties hereto shall execute such other documents as may be reasonably necessary or as may be reasonably required, in the opinion of counsel to Agent, to effect the transactions contemplated hereby and to protect the liens and security interests of Lenders under the Loan Documents, the insurance thereof and the liens and/or security interests of all other collateral instruments, all as modified by this Amendment.

assistant: Further Assurances
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 Guarantor has heretofore furnished to the Lender a copy of its (a) consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated balance sheets of its consolidated Subsidiaries for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, and the related consolidated statements of income and retained earnings and of cash flows for Guarantor and its consolidated Subsidiaries for such fiscal year, setting forth in each case in comparative form the figures for the previous year, with the opinion thereon of Deloitte & Touche LLP and (b) consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated balance sheets of its consolidated Subsidiaries for the such monthly periods of the Guarantor up until March 31, 2014, and the related consolidated statements of income and retained earnings and of cash flows for the Guarantor and its consolidated Subsidiaries for such monthly periods, setting forth in each case in comparative form the figures for the previous year. All such financial statements are complete and correct and fairly present, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Guarantor and each Borrower and its Subsidiaries and the consolidated results of their operations as at such dates and for such monthly periods, all in accordance with GAAP applied on a consistent basis. Since March 31, 2014, there has been no material adverse change in the consolidated business, operations or financial condition of the Guarantor and its consolidated Subsidiaries taken as a whole from that set forth in said financial statements nor is the Guarantor aware of any state of facts which (without notice or the lapse of time) would or could result in any such material adverse change or could have a Material Adverse Effect. The Guarantor does not have, on March 31, 2014, any liabilities, direct or indirect, fixed or contingent, matured or unmatured, known or unknown, or liabilities for taxes, long-term leases or unusual forward or long-term commitments not disclosed by, or reserved against in, said balance sheet and related statements, and at the present time there are no material unrealized or anticipated losses from any loans, advances or other commitments of the Guarantor except as heretofore disclosed to the Lender in writing.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Court, however, need not decide the issue on this record. 9 . The two sections may simply reflect legislative changes in the bills. The original bills, S. 830 and S. 788, contained the provisions of § 633(a), but neither § 633(b) nor § 626(d). Those provisions were added subsequent to hearings. Section 633(b), added in response to testimony concerning § 633(a), is not necessarily intended to be distinct from § 626. 10 . Current case law has only dealt with § 626(d) as jurisdictional. (Hiscott, supra; Powell v. Southwestern Bell, 494 F.2d 485 (5 Cir. 1974); Edwards v. Kaiser Aluminum, 515 F.2d 1195 (5th Cir. 1975)). In addition, there has been some tendency to isolate § 626(d) as containing the jurisdictional prerequisites. (See Ott v. Midland Ross Corp., 523 F.2d 1367 (6th Cir. 1975) (<HOLDING>)). 11 . 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(c) (See fn. 3, Options: A. holding that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional B. holding that the aedpa statute of limitations is not jurisdictional C. holding that exhaustion of issues is jurisdictional D. holding immunity from liability is not jurisdictional E. holding that while 626d is jurisdictional 626e is not

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that while 626d is jurisdictional 626e is not
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 covenants, agreements, representations and warranties made by the Borrower herein and in the certificates or other instruments delivered in connection with or pursuant to this Agreement shall be considered to have been relied upon by the Lender and shall survive the execution and delivery of this Agreement and the making of the Loans. The provisions of Section 7.3 shall survive and remain in full force and effect regardless of the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, the repayment of the Loans or the termination of this Agreement or any provision hereof.

assistant: Survival
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 decision of the Court of Appeals that the plaintiffs’ records must be disclosed, but reject its analysis. We remand this case to the trial court with orders to release the records in an unedited format, subject to the redactions discussed above. Mallett, C.J., and Riley, and Weaver, JJ., concurred with Brickley, J. 1 216 Mich App 79; 549 NW2d 15 (1996). 2 416 Mich 661; 331 NW2d 184 (1983). 3 Id. at 86. 4 Id. at 93. 5 Booth Newspapers, Inc v Univ of Michigan Bd of Regents, 444 Mich 211, 231; 507 NW2d 422 (1993). 6 MCL 15.231(2); MSA 4.1801(1)(2). 7 With the exception of its ruling regarding the redactions, discussed below. 8 In a reverse FOIA action, the plaintiffs seek to enjoin rather than compel disclosure of public records. Tobin, n 2 supra at 670-671. 9 Tobin, n 2 supm at 669 (<HOLDING>). 10 Id. 11 MCL 15.233; MSA 4.1801(3). 12 Options: A. holding that foia exemptions are not mandatory bars to disclosure because the purpose of foia is to provide broad disclosure of government documents B. holding that unauthorized disclosure of documents does not constitute a waiver of the applicable foia exemption C. holding that the government must provide the party seeking disclosure with a detailed index describing the documents the government claims are exempt from disclosure under foia D. holding there is no duty to third parties on the part of a premises owner who could not have foreseen the criminal acts of third parties E. holding that ajny asserted right by third parties to prohibit disclosure must have a basis independent of the foia

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that ajny asserted right by third parties to prohibit disclosure must have a basis independent of the foia
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: Guarantor shall remain obligated hereunder notwithstanding that, without any reservation of rights against Guarantor, and without notice to or further assent by Guarantor, any demand for payment of any of the Obligations made by Buyer may be rescinded by Buyer and any of the Obligations continued, and the Obligations, or the liability of any other party upon or for any part thereof, or any collateral security or guarantee therefor or right of offset with respect thereto, may, from time to time, in whole or in part, be renewed, extended, amended, modified, accelerated, compromised, waived, surrendered or released by Buyer, and any Governing Agreement and any other document in connection therewith may be amended, modified, supplemented or terminated, in whole or in part, as Buyer may deem advisable from time to time, and any collateral security, guarantee or right of offset at any time held by Buyer for the payment of the Obligations may be sold, exchanged, waived, surrendered or released. Buyer shall have no obligation to protect, secure, perfect or insure any lien at any time held by it as security for the Obligations or for this Guarantee or any property subject thereto. When making any demand hereunder against Guarantor, Buyer may, but shall be under no obligation to, make a similar demand on any Seller, any Parent or any other Person, and any failure by Buyer to make any such demand or to collect any payments from any Seller, any Parent or any such other Person or any release of any Seller, any Parent or such other Person shall not relieve Guarantor of its Obligations or liabilities hereunder, and shall not impair or affect the rights and remedies, express or implied, or as a matter of law, of Buyer against Guarantor. For the purposes hereof “demand” shall include the commencement and continuance of any legal proceedings.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as set forth on Schedule 3.1(a) , the Company has no Subsidiaries. The Company owns, directly or indirectly, all of the capital stock or other equity interests of each Subsidiary, and all of the issued and outstanding shares of capital stock of each Subsidiary are validly issued and are fully paid, non-assessable.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Athletic Director and removed her from the position of Women's Athletic Coordinator. Finally, Lowrey alleged that the discrimination and retaliation of which she complains escalated after she participated in a civil rights complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Education. 2 . In this regard, it is noteworthy that rule 15(a) authorizes amended pleadings "only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party.” Insofar as Tarleton consented to the proposed amendments, therefore, the district court disregarded the express terms of the rule by denying the motion to amend. Moreover, the proposed amendment merely stated alternative legal theories for recovery on the same underlying facts, rather than fundamentally altering the nature of the case. Cf. Patterson, 90 F.3d at 934 (<HOLDING>); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 952 F.2d 841, 846 Options: A. holding that an employer in an employment discrimination case may not justify its conduct based on evidence that did not motivate it at the time of the employment decision B. holding that a claim for discrimination in private employment is not preempted by title vii C. holding that defendants were not prejudiced by amendments to an employment discrimination claim because the original claim gave notice of the nature of the case D. holding that the most analogous claim for relief under new york law is a claim for employment discrimination E. holding the defendants claim that he was denied the right to testify was appropriate for direct review when the record was adequately developed to permit full consideration of the defendants claim the pertinent facts were undisputed a pcr hearing was not necessary to resolve a factual dispute and would not aid in the application of the law and the defendants claim was presented not as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim but rather as an error committed by the trial court in excluding the defendants testimony which was not an appropriate basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that defendants were not prejudiced by amendments to an employment discrimination claim because the original claim gave notice of the nature of the case
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: reference to representation before the Court that could reasonably be said to have induced the appellant to miss the filing deadline. See Butler v. Derwinski, 960 F.2d 139, 141 (Fed.Cir.1992) (“[although often effecting a seemingly harsh result, courts cannot disregard jurisdictional requirements[,] established by Congress[,] out of sympathy for particular litigants”), overruled in part on other grounds by Bailey, 160 F.3d at 1368; see also Baldwin Cty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 152, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984) (per curiam) (“[procedural requirements established by Congress for gaming access to the federal courts are not to be disregarded by courts out of a vague sympathy for particular litigants”); cf. Gilbert v. Secretary of HHS, 51 F.3d 254, 257 (Fed.Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). The appellant further asserts that errors Options: A. recognizing doctrine B. holding that equitabletolling doctrine cannot apply where attorney misread statute C. holding that even if the court were to apply the apex doctrine the doctrine would not preclude the deposition of two corporate executives in that case D. holding that the doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply where promise was supported by bargained for consideration E. holding that the doctrine does not apply in such circumstancesi

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that equitabletolling doctrine cannot apply where attorney misread statute
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 of Appeals interpreted an assault and battery exclusion in a case stemming from an assault in a nightclub. There, club staff allowed persons previously removed from the club due to an altercation to reenter the club. Id. at 108. The two involved in the previous altercation again confronted one another and patrons “informed [club] security personnel of the ensuing melee, but they failed to take any action.” Id. Interpreting the language of the policy, the Court of Appeals held that the insurer had no duty to defend because the negligence claim by the injured patron fell within the “based on assault and/or battery” exception. Id. at 109, 111. Numerous other cases have similar holdings. See, e.g., Detweiler v. J.C. Penney Cas. Ins. Co., 110 Wn.2d 99, 109, 751 P.2d 282 (1988) (<HOLDING>); Krempl v. Unigard Sec. Ins. Co., 69 Wn. App. Options: A. holding that 1109a requires causal connection between breach and loss B. holding that there must be some causal connection between the accident and the automobile allegedly involved for coverage to exist C. holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury D. holding that there must be a causal connection between the advertising activity and the injury alleged in the underlying complaint E. holding that liability arises out of an event so long as there is a causal connection between the event and the liability

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that liability arises out of an event so long as there is a causal connection between the event and the liability
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Sellers and Purchaser shall use commercially reasonable efforts to cooperate with each other (at no cost or expense to the Parties whose cooperation is requested, other than any de minimis cost or expense or any cost or expense which the requesting Party agrees in writing to reimburse) to provide written notice to any Person under any Facility Contracts, Tenant Leases, Licenses and Permits or Resident Agreements and to effect any required registrations or filings with any Governmental Authority or other Person, regarding the change in ownership of the Assets.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall commence on the date hereof immediately upon (and only upon) the Closing (the “ Effective Date ”). This Agreement shall be null and void and of no effect if the Purchase Agreement is terminated at any time prior to the Closing.

assistant: Effective Dates
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: Purchaser is neither an “employee benefit plan” as defined in Section 3(3) of ERISA nor a “benefit plan investor,” as defined in Section 3(42) of ERISA and 29 C.F.R. Section 2510.3-101 and Purchaser is acting for its own account in connection with the consummation of the transactions contemplated herein.

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: There is no action, claim, dispute, arbitration, audit, hearing, inquiry, investigation, administrative enforcement proceeding, litigation or suit (whether civil, criminal, administrative or investigative) (“ Litigation ”) commenced, brought, conducted, or heard by or before, or otherwise involving, any governmental or arbitration tribunal pending or, to the knowledge of Seller, threatened against Seller, and there is no judgment, decree or order against Seller, in each case, that would be reasonably likely to adversely affect Seller’s ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement or prohibit or make void the Transfer.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: “protracted” is “to draw out or lengthen in time; prolong.” Id. Following the same logic, we held in Fleming v. State that the word “impairment” means “[t]he fact or state of being damaged, weakened, or diminished” for purposes of the aggravated battery statute. 833 N.E.2d 84, 89 (Ind.Ct.App.2005). Smith argues that Officer Wheeler’s injury cannot fall under the second prong of the aggravated battery statute because “the tooth was neither a bodily member or organ.” Appellant’s Br. p. 8. While there is no Indiana precedent for the notion that a tooth is a bodily member or organ for purposes of our aggravated battery statute, several other jurisdictions have analyzed similar statutes and arrived at that conclusion. See, e.g., Rivers v. State, 255 Ga.App. 422, 565 S.E.2d 596, 597 (2002) (<HOLDING>); McBeath v. State, 739 So.2d 451, 455 Options: A. holding that the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for aggravated battery when the bodily member that is lost or rendered useless in the battery is a tooth B. holding that aggravated battery of peace officer encompasses both insulting or provoking contact and battery resulting in bodily harm C. holding that tooth was a member and loss of tooth consti tuted serious bodily injury for purposes of aggravated battery statute D. holding that aggravated battery is a lesser included offense of manslaughter E. holding that battery is an inherently included offense of aggravated battery

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for aggravated battery when the bodily member that is lost or rendered useless in the battery is a tooth
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as disclosed in the SEC Documents, none of the officers, directors, employees or affiliates of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries is presently a party to any transaction with the Company or any of its Subsidiaries (other than for ordinary course services as employees, officers or directors), including any contract, agreement or other arrangement providing for the furnishing of services to or by, providing for rental of real or personal property to or from, or otherwise requiring payments to or from any such officer, director, employee or affiliate or, to the knowledge of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, any corporation, partnership, trust or other Person in which any such officer, director, employee or affiliate has a substantial interest or is an employee, officer, director, trustee or partner.

assistant: Transactions With Affiliates
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 the Company nor Employee shall have the right to assign this Agreement or its respective rights or interests hereunder without the prior written consent of the other Party. Any purported assignment or transfer in violation of this Paragraph 20 shall be null and void.

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: Provided there is an outstanding balance (the “ Outstanding Balance ”) on the Initial Payment Date (as defined below), within three (3) Trading Days thereafter Borrower shall deliver to Lender a number of Conversion Shares (as defined below) to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 6. Borrower shall pay to Lender the entire remaining Outstanding Balance of this Note in cash on or before July 15, 2016 (the “ Maturity Date ”). Borrower will make all payments of sums due hereunder to Lender at Lender’s address set forth in the Purchase Agreement, or at such other place as Lender may designate in writing. Unless otherwise agreed or required by applicable law, payments will be applied first to any unpaid collection costs and late charges, then to accrued interest and finally to principal.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: when these terms mention `` airbnb , '' `` we , '' `` us , '' or `` our , '' it refers to the airbnb company you are contracting with .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be amended or modified, and Borrower, the bank, and the other Subsidiaries may take any action herein prohibited, or omit to perform any act herein required to be performed by it, only if Borrower shall obtain the prior written con-sent of Lender to that specific amendment, modification, action or omission to act, and no course of dealing between Borrower, the Bank, or the other Subsidiaries and Lender shall operate as a waiver of any right, power or privilege granted to Lender under this Agreement or under any other Loan Document, or available to Lender at law or in equity.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: 17.1 to contact skype in relation to the skype software or `` skype '' branded products , please submit a support request to support.skype.com .

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: these requirements, our “discretion is appropriately exercised only when failure to do so would result in a miscarriage of justice, such as when the defendant is actually innocent or the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 555 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Memminger asserts that the district court plainly erred in concluding that the predicate offenses set forth in the information filed pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851 (2000) qual plainly erred in relying on the predicate offenses to sentence him to a statutory mandatory minimum sentence because the offenses were not charged in the indictment. His argument is foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349 (4th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm Memminger’s conviction Options: A. holding that there is no sixth amendment error when the sentence does not exceed the maximum authorized by facts the defendant admitted B. holding that district court may enhance sentence based on fact of prior convictions under 924e regardless of whether admitted by defendant or found by jury C. holding that a sentence may be enhanced based on a prior conviction that was not alleged in the indictment admitted on the record or proved beyond a reasonable doubt D. holding that sixth amendment not violated when sentence enhanced based on prior convictions that were not charged in indictment or admitted by defendant E. holding that defendants sixth amendment right to trial by a jury was not violated by district courts reliance on his prior convictions for purposes of sentencing under the acca even though convictions were neither charged in indictment nor admitted

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that sixth amendment not violated when sentence enhanced based on prior convictions that were not charged in indictment or admitted by defendant
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: factors,” the resulting sentence is procedurally reasonable. Geiner, 498 F.3d at 1114. As long as the court takes into account all of the relevant considerations, the order in which it does so is unimportant. We do not suggest that a heartland comparison is sufficient, by itself, to satisfy the district court’s responsibility to weigh all the relevant factors. When the Guidelines were mandatory, a court could not depart from the recommended range unless the case was exceptional. If the court determined that the case was within the heartland, then its analysis was effectively over. Now that the Sentencing Guidelines are only advisory, there are no mandatory requirements as to when a district court may sentence a defendant to an above- or below-Guidelines sentence. Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 595 (<HOLDING>) Even in routine, heartland cases, the district Options: A. holding that sentence within guidelines range enjoys a presumption of reasonableness B. holding sentencing courts decision to impose a sentence six years longer than advisory guidelines range was reasonable because district court employed 3553based reasoning to justify the variance C. holding that we may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within the guidelines range D. holding that requiring extraordinary circumstances to justify a variance comes too close to creating an impermissible presumption of unreasonableness for sentences outside the guidelines range E. holding that the district court committed procedural error by failing to provide an indication of what facts it relied on to make a significant variance from the advisory guidelines range

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that requiring extraordinary circumstances to justify a variance comes too close to creating an impermissible presumption of unreasonableness for sentences outside the guidelines range
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: City of Weatherford v. Catron, 83 S.W.3d 261, 272-73 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 2002, no pet.) 8 . Hagedorn v. Tisdale, 73 S.W.3d 341, 353 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2002, no pet.); see also Hays & Martin, L.L.P. v. Ubinas-Brache, 192 S.W.3d 631, 636 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, pet. denied), and Burnside Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc. v. T.S. Young Corp., 113 S.W.3d 889, 897-98 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.). 9 . Residential Dynamics, LLC v. Loveless, 186 S.W.3d 192, 198 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2006, no pet.); Haynes v. City of Beaumont, 35 S.W.3d 166, 178 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, no pet.). 10 . Jones v. American Airlines, Inc., 131 S.W.3d 261, 271 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, no pet.). 11 . See Columbia Rio Grande Reg’l Hosp. v. Stover, 17 S.W.3d 387, 397-98 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); see also Farley v. Farley, 731 S.W.2d 733, 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 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 C. holding merely that the evidence was sufficient to support the award of attorneys fees D. holding that an award of attorneys fees under supreme court rule 38 precursor to rule 222 did not preempt an award of attorneys fees to which one is otherwise entitled and thus appellant could seek an award of attorneys fees pursuant to section 1577300 which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency E. holding attorneys testimony on all work performed sufficient to support attorneys fees award even though no time records presented

assistant: The best answer is A. holding evidence which was similar to the evidence offered here to be factually sufficient to support an 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: of whether Kinkus committed disorderly conduct. See Bentley v. Grange Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 119 Ohio App.3d 93, 694 N.E.2d 526, 530 (1997) (providing that under Ohio law, collateral estoppel applies to facts that: “(1) [were] actually and directly litigated in the prior action, (2) [were] passed upon and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, and (3) when the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party in privity with a party to the prior action”). Thus, Kinkus cannot contest the accuracy of Popp’s police report which served as the basis for Prosecutor Thomas’s decision to bring the disorderly conduct charge. Since Popp supplied only truthful information to Prosecutor Thomas, he cannot be subject to a malicious prosecution claim. See McKinley, 404 F.3d at 444 (<HOLDING>); Darrah v. City of Oak Park, 255 F.3d 301, 312 Options: A. holding that a prosecutors threat to bring more serious charges to induce a plea bargain no more than openly presented the defendant with the unpleasant alternatives of forgoing trial or facing charges on which he was plainly subject to prosecution B. holding that the defendant could not be liable for malicious prosecution where the plaintiff presented no evidence suggesting that defendants conspired with influenced or even participated in the prosecutors decision to bring charges against him C. holding that a police officer cannot be held liable for malicious prosecution when he did not make the decision to prosecute the plaintiff D. holding the same for malicious prosecution E. holding that action could not form the basis of a malicious prosecution claim where criminal information was dismissed as insufficient to support the charges without prejudice and the prosecutors did not amend or refile

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the defendant could not be liable for malicious prosecution where the plaintiff presented no evidence suggesting that defendants conspired with influenced or even participated in the prosecutors decision to bring charges against him
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Notwithstanding any provision of this Section 2 to the contrary, in the event the Participant’s employment with Linde or any successor thereto is terminated (a) by action of Linde other than for Cause or (b) by the Participant with Good Reason, in each case, within two (2) years following the Change in Control but prior to (insert date) , this Award shall become immediately vested (y) if the effective date of such termination is prior to the first anniversary of the Grant Date, as to (insert fraction) of the RSUs subject to this Award (rounded down in the event of fractional Shares), and the remaining RSUs shall be immediately forfeited, or (z) if the effective date of such termination is on or after the first anniversary of the Grant Date, as to all of the RSUs subject to this Award, and as soon as practicable thereafter, shall be settled by payment to the Participant of a number of Shares (or such other form of payment having an equivalent value as may be authorized by the Committee in its sole discretion) equal to the number of RSUs vesting under this Award.

assistant: Change In Control
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 contract without paying for the expenses that Coastal had incurred up to that point. This dispute is thus governed by local, not federal, law.” Id. at 917. Lack of jurisdiction over a contract dispute can in no way create a lack of jurisdiction over a criminal matter in which federal statutes are implicated. Mem. & Order of March 25, 1998 at 3-4. Mrs. Koenig has presented nothing to cause the court to reconsider this ruling. Materiality Finally, Esther Koenig argues that the government failed to establish the materiality of the fraudulent statements. “Materiality” means the statements were capable of influencing the matter within the jurisdiction of HUD. See United States v. Greber, 760 F.2d 68, 72-73 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 988, 106 S.Ct. 396, 88 L.Ed.2d 348 (1985) (<HOLDING>). A reasonable jury could find that the Options: A. holding that materiality is not an element of 1542 because any false statement is sufficient B. holding that section 1001 controls over the limitations provision of the wrongful death statute C. holding that materiality necessary element of section 1001 D. holding that materiality is an element of false statement prosecutions which must be submitted to the jury E. holding that unlike 1001 1542 does not have a materiality requirement

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that materiality necessary element of section 1001
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: Subject to the terms of this letter, upon the earlier of (a) the mutual written agreement of the Parties hereto; (b) the giving of notice by either Party of the termination of negotiations of a Purchase Agreement; (c) the failure of Purchaser to pay the Deposit or Additional Deposit when required or (d) the failure by the Parties hereto to execute and deliver the formal Purchase Agreement within 45 days after the execution of this letter, this letter shall terminate and the Parties shall be released from all liabilities and obligations with respect to the subject matter hereof, except as provided in the second paragraph of page 1 of this letter.

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: Borrower shall promptly give Lender notice of the actual or threatened commencement of any condemnation or eminent domain proceeding affecting the Property (a “ Condemnation ”) and shall deliver to Lender copies of any and all papers served in connection with such Condemnation. Following the occurrence of a Condemnation, Borrower, regardless of whether an Award is available, shall promptly proceed to restore, repair, replace or rebuild the Property in accordance with Legal Requirements to the extent practicable to be of at least equal value and of substantially the same character (and to have the same utility) as prior to such Condemnation.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: need only allege-not prove-reasonably specific, non-conclusory facts that, if true, would entitle him to relief.” Id. at 715 n. 6 (emphasis in original). “A hearing is not required on patently frivolous claims or those which are based upon unsupported generalizations. Nor is a hearing required where the petitioner’s allegations are affirmatively contradicted in the record.” Holmes v. United States, 876 F.2d 1545, 1553 (11th Cir.1989) (citation omitted) (remanding for evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel claim that counsel failed to inform appellant of statutory parole consequences before entering a guilty plea because record did not conclusively show that appellant was entitled to no relief); see also Lynn v. United States, 365 F.3d 1225, 1238-39 (11th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Tejada v. Dugger, 941 F.2d 1551, 1559 (11th Options: A. recognizing that evidentiary hearing is not required when 2255 petitioner offers nothing more than conclusoiy allegations B. holding that the lower court was not required to hold a hearing on a motion to transfer C. holding that district court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing based on 2255 petitioners mere eonclusory allegations in his affidavit D. holding that conclusory allegations in an affidavit have no probative value and a nonmoving party cannot rely on the eonclusory allegations to avoid summary judgment E. holding that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing because the petitioners allegations were not implausible and a final determination of the merits of petitioners claim would be best served by greater development of the facts many of which the government disputes

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that district court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing based on 2255 petitioners mere eonclusory allegations in his affidavit
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: to be effective , a counter notification must be in writing , provided to 9gag 's designated agent through one of the methods identified immediately above , and include substantially the following information :

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 will note counsel’s confusion of his client's gender as yet another of the many inconsistencies within the Complaint. 23 . The Court notes that this quote is essentially identical to the briefs quoted in Rivera, 637 F.Supp.2d at 268-69 and Martino, 639 F.Supp.2d at 494-95. 24 . See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 353 and comment a ("Recovery for emotional disturbance will be excluded unless the breach also caused bodily harm or the contract or the breach is of such a kind that serious emotional disturbance was a particularly likely result.... Damages for emotional disturbance are not ordinarily allowed.”). 25 . See Ogbin v. Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard, PC, No. 08-4138, 2009 WL 1587896 at *3-4, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46954 at *9-10 (D.N.J. May 29, 2009) (Cavanaugh, D.J.) (<HOLDING>). 26 . The careful reader will note that this Options: A. holding that punitive damages award against vicariously liable law firm was not excessive in part because the award is proportionate to the law firms financial position B. holding that the plaintiffs met their burden by highlighting the experience and qualifications of plaintiffs counsels firm and the firms long history of practice in this area of law C. holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law D. holding that law firm who was plaintiffs adversary in foreclosure proceeding owed no duty to plaintiffs as law firm could not have expected that plaintiffs would rely on law firms representations about payoff amounts E. holding that plaintiffs law firm was subject to disqualifica tion when after unsuccessful mediation the plaintiffs firm hired the mediator appointed to settle the case

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that law firm who was plaintiffs adversary in foreclosure proceeding owed no duty to plaintiffs as law firm could not have expected that plaintiffs would rely on law firms representations about payoff amounts
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 acknowledges that a breach by it of its obligations hereunder will cause irreparable harm to the Buyer by vitiating the intent and purpose of the transaction contemplated hereby. Accordingly, the Company acknowledges that the remedy at law for a breach of its obligations under this Agreement, the Note or the Warrant will be inadequate and agrees, in the event of a breach or threatened breach by the Company of the provisions of this Agreement, the Note or the Warrant, that the Buyer shall be entitled, in addition to all other available remedies at law or in equity, and in addition to the penalties assessable herein, to an injunction or injunctions restraining, preventing or curing any breach of this Agreement, the Note or the Warrant and to enforce specifically the terms and provisions hereof, without the necessity of showing economic loss and without any bond or other security being required.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: his Fourth Amendment protections. See id. We agree with the district court’s conclusion that Crowder did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the Mustang after he turned it over to the shipper. The doors were left unlocked, the driver of the car carrier was given the keys, and Crowder knew that the driver would enter the Mustang and drive it. We conclude that no one could have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of a vehicle under those circumstances. Although there is no evidence that Crowder directly authorized the driver to search the vehicle, in light of the circumstances described above it is clear that the driver was “authorized to act in direct contravention to” Crowder’s privacy interest. See United States v. Young, 350 F.3d 1302, 1308 (11th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Crowder argues that United States v. Options: A. holding attorney must have express authority to settle a clients claims B. holding that defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in statements made to companion while seated in police car C. holding that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in utility records under either state or federal constitution D. holding that the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a package sent via federal express when the defendant signed an air bill that gave federal express the authority to search the package E. holding that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a telephone booth

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a package sent via federal express when the defendant signed an air bill that gave federal express the authority to search the package
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: by defense counsel’s presentation of prior personality and psychological problems of both April and Mrs. Durden without any substantiating evidence that religion, personality, living environment, genetic condition or personal family matters had any causal link to April’s and Mrs. Durden’s injury claims. ¶42 Again, the trial court’s findings are supported by the record, and because the trial judge is in the best position to determine the prejudicial effect of an attorney’s conduct, Buhr, 268 Mont. at 255, 886 P.2d at 400, we conclude that the court did not manifestly abuse its discretion in granting Durdens’ motion for new trial. Indeed, the District Court’s ruling was in accord with our recent decisions in Newville v. State, Dept. of Family Services (1994), 267 Mont. 237, 883 P.2d 793 (<HOLDING>), and in Werre v. David (1996), 275 Mont. 376, Options: A. holding that the trial court committed reversible error in allowing argument and questions regarding a variety of factors including genetic factors which could contribute to the plaintiffs injury when no medical evidence was presented to make the causal connection more probable than not B. holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury C. holding that a district court is entitled to give more weight to the seriousness of the offense than to other factors D. recognizing same factors E. holding that more than a year between the protected activity and the discharge is not close enough to support the causal connection requirement

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the trial court committed reversible error in allowing argument and questions regarding a variety of factors including genetic factors which could contribute to the plaintiffs injury when no medical evidence was presented to make the causal connection more probable than not