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: Cash Collateral (or the appropriate portion thereof) provided to reduce Fronting Exposure or to secure other obligations shall be released promptly following (i) the elimination of the applicable Fronting Exposure or other obligations giving rise thereto (including by the termination of Defaulting Lender status of the applicable Lender (or, as appropriate, its assignee following compliance with Section 11.06(b)(vi) )) or (ii) the determination by Administrative Agent and L/C Issuer that there exists excess Cash Collateral; provided , however , (x) any such release shall be without prejudice to, and any disbursement or other transfer of Cash Collateral shall be and remain subject to, any other Lien conferred under the Loan Documents and the other applicable provisions of the Loan Documents, and (y) the Person providing Cash Collateral and L/C Issuer may agree that Cash Collateral shall not be released but instead held to support future anticipated Fronting Exposure or other obligations.

assistant: Releases
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: an abuse of that discretion. Advance America v. Garrett, 344 Ark. 75, 40 S.W.3d 239 (2001); Mega Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Jacola, 330 Ark. 261, 954 S.W.2d 898 (1997); Direct Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lane, 328 Ark. 476, 944 S.W.2d 528 (1997); Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co. v. Farm Bureau Policy Holders & Members, 323 Ark. 706, 918 S.W.2d 129 (1996); Cheqnet Sys., Inc. v. Montgomery, 322 Ark. 742, 911 S.W.2d 956 (1995). However, the determination is purely a procedural question. BNL Equity Corp. v. Pearson, 340 Ark. 351, 10 S.W.3d 838 (2000). Neither the trial court nor the appellate court may delve into the merits of the underlying claim when deciding whether the requirements of Rule 23 have been met. Id.; see also Fraley v. Williams Ford Tractor & Equip. Co., 339 Ark. 322, 5 S.W.3d 423 (1999) (<HOLDING>); Mega Life & Health Ins. Co., supra. I. Options: A. recognizing that an appellate court ordinarily will not consider issues that were not raised at trial B. holding that twombly did not undermine the principle that all reasonable inferences are to be drawn in favor of the plaintiff and reaffirming that the facts alleged must be taken as true and a complaint may not be dismissed merely because it appears unlikely that the plaintiff can prove those faets or will ultimately prevail on the merits C. holding that the issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims D. holding that trial court may not consider whether plaintiff will ultimately prevail E. holding that this court will not consider a theory or issue that was not pleaded or raised in the trial court

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that trial court may not consider whether plaintiff will ultimately prevail
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EACH PARTY HERETO IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY AGREES THAT IT WILL NOT COMMENCE ANY ACTION, LITIGATION OR PROCEEDING OF ANY KIND OR DESCRIPTION, WHETHER IN LAW OR IN EQUITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT OR IN TORT OR OTHERWISE, AGAINST THE COMPANY, THE OTHER LOAN PARTIES, THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT, ANY LENDER, ANY L/C ISSUER, OR ANY RELATED PARTY OF THE FOREGOING IN ANY WAY RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT OR THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING HERETO OR THERETO, IN ANY FORUM OTHER THAN THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK SITTING IN NEW YORK COUNTY AND OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, AND ANY APPELLATE COURT FROM ANY THEREOF, AND EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY SUBMITS TO THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF SUCH COURTS AND AGREES THAT ALL CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF ANY SUCH ACTION, LITIGATION OR PROCEEDING MAY BE HEARD AND DETERMINED IN SUCH NEW YORK STATE COURT OR, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN SUCH FEDERAL COURT. EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO AGREES THAT A FINAL JUDGMENT IN ANY SUCH ACTION, LITIGATION OR PROCEEDING SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE AND MAY BE ENFORCED IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS BY SUIT ON THE JUDGMENT OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW.

assistant: Submission To 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 884 So.2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)(<HOLDING>). Affirmed. Conflict Options: A. holding that it is sufficient grounds to revoke a probation if only one condition of the probation is broken B. holding that probation does not constitute a sentence C. holding that probation and suspension of sentence may not be revoked based solely on a violation or criminal offense that was committed before the offender was actually placed on probation D. holding that probation is a sentence for habitualization purposes E. holding that upon revocation of probation a court must grant credit for time served on probation and community control towards any newly imposed term of imprisonment and probation so that the total period of control probation and imprisonment does not exceed the statutory maximum

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that probation does not constitute a sentence
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: issuing state was illegible. Significantly, the statute does not restrict its operation solely to Virginia license plates, but requires that “every license plate” be “clearly legible.” Va.Code 46.2-716. Thus, the condition of the license plate provided DeCoster with an objectively reasonable basis for the traffic stop, and the fact that the traffic stop was a pretext for further investigation is irrelevant and does nothing to impair the stop’s constitutionality. Whren, 517 U.S. at 813, 116 S.Ct. 1769. Similarly unpersuasive is defendant’s second argument, that Va.Code 46.2-716 violates the negative commerce clause, and therefore cannot serve as the basis for a traffic stop. In support, defendant cites Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617, 627, 98 S.Ct. 2531, 57 L.Ed.2d 475 (1978) (<HOLDING>), and the more recent case of Granholm v. Options: A. holding that a new mexico statute that criminalized dissemination of materials that are harmful to minors violated the commerce clause because the nature of the internet made it impossible for the statute to reach purely intrastate conduct and the benefits to be achieved were limited B. holding that a new jersey statute prohibiting the importation of waste materials into the state violated the negative commerce clause C. recognizing israel had no interest in denying its citizens the substantive advantages of new jersey defamation law in new jersey residents claims for defamation published in new jersey D. holding that the statute as applied violates the commerce clause E. holding that an arkansas statute discriminated against interstate commerce by banning the importation of most outofstate waste even though a small amount of outofstate waste was allowed into arkansas under the statute

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a new jersey statute prohibiting the importation of waste materials into the state violated the negative commerce clause
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: when he has attained a position of safety from the immediate threat.’” Reese, 272 N.W.2d at 866 (quoting People v. Lovercamp, 43 Cal.App.3d 823, 831-32, 118 Cal.Rptr. 110, 115 (1974)). Thus, we implicitly recognized that escapees have a continuing duty to turn themselves in after escaping. See id. at 870 (McCormick, J., dissenting) (observing that the majority’s definition of the necessity defense “makes unauthorized failure to retur Crim.App.1996) (same). Turning now to the absence-from-custody offense, we find no material distinction between it and the crime of escape for purposes of the continuing offense statute. Indeed, we have treated absence from custody under section 719.4(3) as a L.Ed.2d 497 (1990); see also Woolsey v. State, 111 Nev. 1440, 906 P.2d 723, 726 (1995) (<HOLDING>). This rationale is subject to some doubt in Options: A. holding that failure to appear when released on bond was a continuing offense B. holding that dismissal for failure to appear at a deposition is on the merits C. holding that the defendants oral promise to appear was insufficient to amount to a required appearance within the meaning of the failure to appear statute D. holding that failure to appear for sentencing is a continuing offense because a convicted criminal has a continuing obligation to face sentencing and presents an ongoing threat to the integrity and authority of the court so long as he has not appeared E. holding that failure to appear is also a continuing offense

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that failure to appear when released on bond was a continuing offense
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: exculpatory DNA evidence would prove his innocence under Article 64.03(a)(2)(A).”). 55 . In Whitaker v. State, 160 S.W.3d 5 (Tex.Crim.App.2004), we held that testing blood found on the gun used as the murder weapon and finding that it did not belong to the defendant in a case involving three conspirators would not be exculpatory since the blood could have belonged to the victim or one of the other co-conspirators, or it could have been left on the rifle prior to the murder. Id. at 9. 56 . See, e.g., Prible v. State, 245 S.W.3d 466, 470 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) ("without more, the presence of another person's DNA at the crime scene would not constitute affirmative evidence of the appellant’s innocence” requiring relief under Chapter 64); Bell v. State, 90 S.W.3d 301, 306 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (<HOLDING>). 57 . Rivera, 89 S.W.3d at 60. 58 . Tex.Code Options: A. holding that evidence of another persons dna if found on hair cigarette butt and bloodstained bath mat collected from crime scene does not constitute affirmative exculpatory evidence B. holding the government has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant C. holding that the state has no affirmative duty to seek out and gain possession of potentially exculpatory evidence D. holding that a new trial was necessary due to the petitioners counsels failure to seek dna testing on hairs gathered from the crime scene E. holding prosecutor has affirmative duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that evidence of another persons dna if found on hair cigarette butt and bloodstained bath mat collected from crime scene does not constitute affirmative exculpatory evidence
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: This expectation is put in jeopardy when an attorney switches sides in a lawsuit, no matter what procedures may be put in place to minimize the risk of breached confidences. The perception of divided loyalties remains the same. {15} This case presents an issue of first impression in New Mexico. Rule 16-110(C) was amended in 2008. It is this Court’s responsibility to interpret and apply the Rules of Professional Conduct that govern the legal profession. See N.M. Const. art. VI, § 3 (vesting the Court with “superintending control over all inferior courts”); NMSA 1978, § 36-2-1 (1941) (vesting the Court with the responsibility of promulgating rules that “define and regulate the practice of law within the state of New Mexico”); In re Treinen, 2006-NMSC-013, ¶ 6, 139 N.M. 318, 131 P.3d 1282 (<HOLDING>); State ex rel. Anaya v. McBride, 88 N.M. 244, Options: A. recognizing that court has inherent power to control the judicial business before it B. recognizing the inherent common law authority of courts to promulgate rules of practice and procedure C. recognizing the inherent power of the courts to issue warrants D. recognizing that the supreme courtscons titutionalpowerofsuperintending control carries with it the inherent power to regulate all pleadings practice and procedure affecting the judicial branch of government E. recognizing inherent power of courts of appeals

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that the supreme courtscons titutionalpowerofsuperintending control carries with it the inherent power to regulate all pleadings practice and procedure affecting the judicial branch of government
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: [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.). Here, there was no finding that there was a contract between Pharmacy II and WaMu. The economic loss rule normally applies between parties to a contract, but it does not apply to strangers to the contract. See Sharyland Water Supply Corp., 354 S.W.3d at 418 (“[W]e have never held that [the economic loss rale] precludes recovery completely between contractual strangers in a case not involving a defective product—as the court of appeals did here.”). Thus, the economic loss rule as asserted by JP Morgan does not bar Pharmacy II’s negligence claim. See id. at 419 (“The economic loss rule does not swallow all claims between contractual and commercial strangers.”); cf. Bank of Tex., N.A. v. Glenny, 405 S.W.3d 310, 316 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2013, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); Matlock Place Apartments, LP. v. Druce, 369 Options: A. holding negligent misrepresentation sufficient B. holding that the economic loss rale did not bar banks claim against mortgagors attorney for negligent misrepresentation where there was no contract between the bank and the attorney C. holding economic loss rule did not bar negligent misrepresentation claim where parties had no contract D. holding attorney general could not contract on behalf of the state to employ an assistant attorney beyond the attorney generals own term E. holding that for public policy reasons the mere filing of a bar complaint by a defendant against his attorney does not mandate removal of the attorney

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the economic loss rale did not bar banks claim against mortgagors attorney for negligent misrepresentation where there was no contract between the bank and the attorney
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: Missouri constitutional provision pertaining to the required procedure or form of an initiative petition, the first prong of the two-criterion standard reiterated in Brown. In other words, the Petition does not allege “threshold issues that affect the integrity of the election itself.” Brown, 370 S.W.3d at 645 (quoting United Gamefowl Breeders, 19 S.W.3d at 139). Instead, the Petition asserts First Amendment, Equal Protection Clause, and Privileges and Immunities Clause challenges to the Proposed Measure. Constitutional challenges of this nature are routinely denied pre-election judicial review, as they do not involve Missouri constitutional or statuto ry provisions pertaining to the required procedure or form of an initiative petition. See, e.g., Union Elec. Co., 678 S.W.2d at 406-06 (<HOLDING>); Kuehner, 442 S.W.3d at 230 (holding that Options: A. holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law B. recognizing that a state courts determination is not an unreasonable application of law merely because it is erroneous C. holding that preelection claims that an initiative is unconstitutional on its face because it draws an unreasonable distinction between electrical corporations and other utilities constitutes a taking without due process of law is retrospective in effect impairs existing contract rights and is preempted by federal legislation are not ripe for decision D. holding that it is not E. holding the state law claims were not preempted

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that preelection claims that an initiative is unconstitutional on its face because it draws an unreasonable distinction between electrical corporations and other utilities constitutes a taking without due process of law is retrospective in effect impairs existing contract rights and is preempted by federal legislation are not ripe for decision
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: During the Employment Term, the Company will pay Executive as compensation for Executive’s services a base salary at the annualized rate of Four Hundred Thousand dollars ($400,000) (as such base salary may be modified from time to time, the “ Base Salary ”). The Base Salary will be paid in accordance with the Company’s normal payroll practices and be subject to the usual, required withholdings. The Base Salary may change at the Company’s discretion; for the avoidance of doubt, no such change shall override any rights Executive may have pursuant to this Agreement to resign for Good Reason.

assistant: Base Salary
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: is insufficient to establish that he was F.M.’s parent. As the Department notes in its brief, F.M., Jr. did not rais notice of this pleading which contains a judicial admission that F.M., Jr. is F.M.’s father, the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support, the existence of a parent-child relationship between F.M., Jr. and F.M. Accordingly, the trial court’s order terminating that parent-child relationship is also supported by sufficient evidence. Conclusion The trial court’s order is affirmed. 1 . We also note that F.M., Jr. testified at trial that F.M. is his son and he did not believe it was in F.M.’s best interest for his parental rights be terminated. See In re U.B., No. 04-12-00687-CV, 2013 WL 441890, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 6, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (<HOLDING>); see also Burns v. Burns, 434 S.W.3d 223; 228 Options: A. holding plaintiffs waived their right to appellate review of the admission of an experts testimony by failing to object to it at trial B. holding that we would not review a claim of error regarding the admission of evidence when the defendant stipulated to its admission at trial C. holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive D. holding fathers pleadings representing himself to be the father of the children constituted a judicial admission E. holding fathers testimony at trial constituted an admission of paternity

assistant: The best answer is E. holding fathers testimony at trial constituted an admission of paternity
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: affidavit did not allege any facts suggesting that any relationship existed between the two after that employment was terminated. See Bixler v. State, 471 N.E.2d 1093, 1100-01 (Ind.1984) (defendant not entitled to change of judge where trial judge went to same church as victim’s family and had drawn up will some years earlier for step-father of victim’s mother). Furthermore, the fact that Judge Gifford imposed a sentence in excess of the minimum does not, as McKinney contends, “reflect bias against McKinney and sympathy for the victim’s family.” Id. at 9. As discussed further in Section VI of this opinion, McKinney’s sentence is justified by the heinous nature of his crime and the existence of only one mitigating circumstance. See Johnson v. State, 472 N.E.2d 892, 911 (Ind.1985) (<HOLDING>), reh’g denied. Judge Gif-ford’s denial of Options: A. holding that consecutive sentences were warranted because of the multiple separate and distinct criminal acts B. holding that imposition of lengthy sentences did not show prejudice where sentences were warranted by facts shown in the evidence C. holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to modify hfo sentences where sentences were not illegal and sixty days had transpired since imposition of the sentence D. holding that the law allows the government to offer reduced sentences in exchange for assistance even if it results in sentences of such disparity as would strike many as unfair E. holding that prejudice was not shown where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that imposition of lengthy sentences did not show prejudice where sentences were warranted by facts shown in the evidence
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which when executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original and all of which counterparts taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. This Agreement shall become binding when one or more counterparts taken together shall have been shown to have been executed by each Party and delivered to the other.

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: If the re-employed Employee was not a Participant in the Plan during his prior period of Service, he shall commence participation in the Plan on his date of re-employment (if he is not ineligible). If the re-employed Employee was a Participant in the Plan during his prior period of Service, he shall recommence participation in the Plan on the date of his re-employment and he shall be entitled to the allocations to his Employer Matching Contribution Account, and Non-Elective Contribution Account as provided in Section 5.3.

assistant: Participations
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: are not dispositive); In re Sampson, 997 F.2d 717, 722 (10th Cir.1993) (concluding that the label attached to an obligation does not control); Adams v. Zentz, 963 F.2d 197, 199 (8th Cir.1992) (determining that state law or the divorce decree characterization of the debt is not binding on bankruptcy courts); In re Gianakas, 917 F.2d 759, 762 (3d Cir.1990) (ruling that bankruptcy courts must look beyond the label attached to settlement agreements to find the debt's true nature); In re Seibert, 914 F.2d 102, 106 (7th Cir.1990) (ruling that state law does not control the issue of whether an obligation constitutes alimony, maintenance, or support); In re Long, 794 F.2d 928, 930 (4th Cir.1986) (determining that labels are not controlling); Stout v. Prussel, 691 F.2d 859, 861 (9th Cir.1982) Options: A. holding that plain meaning of legislation should be conclusive B. holding that when a plaintiff files suit alleging that multiple tortfeasors are responsible for the plaintiffs injury any settlements are to be credited against the amount for which the liable parties as a whole are found responsible but for which only the nonsettling defendant remains in court C. holding that reporting requirements that are afforded immunity under 419 are not predicated on actual or conclusive evidence of abuse or maltreatment D. holding that the descriptions which parties give obligations in settlements or decrees are not conclusive E. holding that statements in proof of loss are not conclusive claimant could explain statements

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the descriptions which parties give obligations in settlements or decrees are not conclusive
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: would be used and that he never stated to appellee that the money need not be kept in the safe. Appellee asserted that it was his understanding that the liquor storage room with its burglar alarm system qualified as a safe. It was also argued that the liquor room constituted a "vault” within the meaning of the policy. A. Construction of ambiguous contracts is the duty of the court, and it is only after application thereto of the pertinent rules of construction, and the contracts remain ambiguous, that extrinsic evidence is admissible to explain the ambiguity. Davis v. United Am. Life Ins. Co., 215 Ga. 521 (2) (111 SE2d 488). See also Am. Cas. Co. v. Crain-Daly Volkswagen, Inc., 129 Ga. App. 576 (200 SE2d 281); Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Fluellen, 128 Ga. App. 877 (198 SE2d 407) (<HOLDING>). B. The policy declarations expressly Options: A. recognizing only state courts may authoritatively construe state statutes B. recognizing courts special duty to construe liberally a pro se plaintiffs pleadings C. holding that courts should liberally construe the requirements of rule 3 D. recognizing courts obligation to construe meaning of relatives E. recognizing that courts should not construe statutes in a way that leads to absurd results

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing courts obligation to construe meaning of relatives
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: 81 F.3d 1310, 1314-15 (4th Cir.1996) (citations omitted). The rules of res judicata “apply to the decisions of bankruptcy courts.” Turshen v. Chapman, 823 F.2d 836, 839 (4th Cir.1987) (quoting Katchen v. Landy, 382 U.S. 323, 334, 86 S.Ct. 467, 475, 15 L.Ed.2d 391 (1966)). Claim preclusion occurs when the following three conditions are satisfied: 1) the prior judgment was final and on the merits, [sic] and rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the requirements of due process; 2) the parties are identical, or in privity, in the two actions; and 3) the claims in the second matter are based upon the same cause of action involved in the earlier proceeding. Varat, 81 F.3d at 1315 (citing Kenny v 904 (Table), 2004 WL 1950423 at *2 (10th Cir. BAP Aug. 26, 2004) (<HOLDING>). Ostensibly, all the conditions for res Options: A. holding that an order by the trial court remanding the cause to the agency to impose a sanction other than the one imposed by the agency was not a final and appealable order because it did not terminate the litigation between the parties on the merits B. holding that an order denying a 522f motion is final because it does not leave anything open for subsequent determination C. holding that where an adversary proceeding continues the order is no more a final decision than an order denying summary judgment or denying a request for additional discovery the litigation proceeds and the issue will be reviewed if it turns out to make a difference to an order that is independently appealable D. recognizing that an order denying a motion to modify a family court order where the motion is based on changed factual or legal circumstances is appealable as a special order after final judgment E. holding that an order denying a 522f motion is final because it ends the litigation on the merits

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an order denying a 522f motion is final because it ends the litigation on the merits
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: a PMPA defense. Id. at 1440. See also State Oil v. Khan, 839 F.Supp. 543 (N.D.Ill.1993) (remanding action for forcible entry and detainer originally brought by franchisor in state court where PMPA presented only a defense); Sun Ref. & Mktg. Co., Inc. v. D'Arpino, 112 F.R.D. 668 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (remanding eviction action to state court, finding defense of preemption under PMPA irrelevant to determination of removal jurisdiction). While Sunoco has cited cases holding that the PMPA preempts various state statutory or common-law claims, those cases do not implicate a federal court’s removal jurisdiction, because the plaintiffs in those cases pled causes of action under both the PMPA and state law in federal court. See, e.g., Shukla v. BP Exploration & Oil, Inc., 115 F.3d 849 (11th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Yonaty v. Amerada Hess Corp., 2005 WL 1460411 Options: A. holding that pmpa preempted new york statutory law governing the termination or nonrenewal of franchises but did not preempt state contract claim which did not involve the termination of the franchise relationship B. holding that fraud claim concerning nonrenewal of franchise agreement was preempted by pmpa C. holding that pmpa preempted state statute regarding the ter initiation and nonrenewal of franchises and state commonlaw claim D. holding state law claim premised on implied duty of good faith was preempted by the pmpa because it concerned the termination of a petroleum franchise E. holding that the plaintiffs state law claims were preempted by pmpa because they sought to impose standards more stringent than the pmpa regarding the termination or nonrenewal of his franchise

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that fraud claim concerning nonrenewal of franchise agreement was preempted by pmpa
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provision of this Agreement or the application of any provision hereof to any person or any circumstance shall be determined to be invalid or unenforceable, then such determination shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement or the application of said provision to any other person or circumstance, all of which other provisions shall remain in full force and in effect.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: the evernote software ( as defined below ) , the evernote service , and other products , services and websites hosted or made available by evernote , including , for example our app center , user forum , and help & learning pages are collectively referred to in these terms as the `` service '' .

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: One, plaintiffs claim that the CEP violates the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by invidiously “discriminat[ing]” against minor-party candidates. See J.A. 66 (ComplJ 53). Plaintiffs’ challenge is focused on the CEP’s “qualification criteria,” which are the criteria by which candidates qualify to receive CEP funding, as well as the CEP’s “distribution formulae,” which are the formulae that establish the amount of money that the CEP provides to participating candidates. See id. According to plaintiffs, the CEP’s qualifying criteria and distribution formulae violate the Constitution because they impermissibly burden the “political opportunity” of minor-party candidates. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 95-96, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976) (<HOLDING>). The District Court granted judgment for Options: A. holding that the cap does not violate equal protection B. holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection C. holding that the admission of his juvenile conviction did not violate equal protection D. holding that a public financing system may violate equal protection if it unfairly or unnecessarily burdens the political opportunity of any party or candidate E. holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a public financing system may violate equal protection if it unfairly or unnecessarily burdens the political opportunity of any party or candidate
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 property in the event of default by the borrower. Thus, if the junior hen holder is satisfied that there is “equity” to protect (the debt to the senior hen holder is worth less than the value of the property to the junior hen holder), the junior hen holder can cure the default of the borrower, foreclose the WRAP mortgage and take possession of the property from the borrower, while forcing the senior lienholder to “stay in place.” The senior debt holder may or may not find such a WRAP arrangement acceptable given a variety of economic considerations. If, for example, the senior debt holder is well secured (the property is clearly worth more than the debt owed the senior hen holder), the senior hen holder may view the WRAP structure as simply another avenue of payment for its debt (<HOLDING>). From the viewpoint of the senior hen holder, Options: A. holding that despite foreclosure judgment providing that the holder of a junior mortgage had no interest in or lien on or claim to said premises the lack of foreclosure sale meant that the junior mortgage was not extinguished B. recognizing that the junior hen holder has the right but hot the obligation to cure defaults C. holding that 1322b2 does not protect the holder of a junior mortgage when the holders claim is not secured to any extent under 506a D. holding that 1322c1 did not allow debtors to cure home mortgage defaults after a foreclosure sale regardless of state law redemption rights E. holding that the holder of the note must act in a manner that effectively provides notice that the holder has exercised his option

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that the junior hen holder has the right but hot the obligation to cure defaults
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: whether non-inmate workers performing the same work in the same locality receive time-and-a-half pay for overtime. In addition, we observe section 24-3-430(D) requires inmates receive the “prevailing wage” paid to their non-inmate peers for comparable work. However, the question of the prevailing wage to which Tomlin is entitled has been remanded to the ALC for further proceedings. We nonetheless have jurisdiction to consider whether the prevailing wage language of section 24-3-430(D) entitles Tomlin to overtime pay because the issue remanded concerned the proper hourly rate, only. However, because we have found section 24-3-315 resolves Tomlin’s dispute, we need not address this argument. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the Options: A. holding an appellate court need not review remaining issues when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive of the appeal B. holding that appellate courts need not discuss remaining issues when determination of a prior issue is dispositive C. holding appellate court need not discuss remaining issues when decision on prior issue disposes of appeal D. holding an appellate court need not address remaining issues on appeal when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive E. holding an appellate court need not address remaining issues when resolution of another issue disposes of the appeal

assistant: The best answer is C. holding appellate court need not discuss remaining issues when decision on prior issue disposes of appeal
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No Event of Default or Default shall have occurred and be continuing on such date, or would exist after giving effect to the Advances requested to be made, on such date and, in the case of the Advances made on the Closing Date, after giving effect to the consummation of the Transactions; provided, however that Administrative Agent, in its sole discretion, may continue to make Advances notwithstanding the existence of an Event of Default or Default and that any Advances so made shall not be deemed a waiver of any such Event of Default or Default.

assistant: No Defaults
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: Burken, 930 F.2d 1202, 1205 (7th Cir.1991). Nevertheless, when the merits panel is no better equipped to make a decision than the motions panel— particularly regarding questions of appellate jurisdiction — “honoring the original jurisdictional decision is the more prudent course.” Moss v. Healthcare Compare Corp., 75 F.3d 276, 280 (7th Cir.1996). Both parties were given the opportunity to fully brief the jurisdictional issue before the motions panel, and under the circumstances here, we are no better situated than the motions panel to decide the issue of appellate jurisdiction. In any event, the decision of the motions panel was manifestly correct; the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Healy squarely controls the question. 376 U.S. 75, 78, 84 5.Ct. 553, 11 L.Ed.2d 527 (1964) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Ibarra, 502 U.S. 1, Options: A. recognizing preclusive effect of judgments notwithstanding pending appeal or collateral attack B. holding that criminal judgments are nonfxnal for purposes of appeal so long as timely rehearing petitions are pending C. holding that that choices as to selection and arrangement are entitled to copyright protection only so long as they are made independently D. holding trial court has jurisdiction to reconsider new trial order as long as case is pending E. holding agreed judgments are construed in same manner as contract

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that criminal judgments are nonfxnal for purposes of appeal so long as timely rehearing petitions are pending
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: From and after the Effective Date, Administrative Agent shall make all payments in respect of [the][each] Assigned Interest (including payments of principal, interest, fees and other amounts) to [the][the relevant] Assignor for amounts which have accrued to but excluding the Effective Date and to [the][the relevant] Assignee for amounts which have accrued from and after the Effective Date. 12 Notwithstanding the foregoing, Administrative Agent shall make all payments of interest, fees or other amounts paid or payable in kind from and after the Effective Date to [the][the relevant] Assignee.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 896 F.2d at 597 (police improperly manufactured exigency when they knocked on door and shouted “police, police, open up”). Nor did he obtain a passkey to the room. Neill tried to enter room 900 only after he heard what he suspected was evidence flushing away. The district court’s decision to credit Neill’s testimony was well within its discretion as fact-finder. The district court also concluded properly that the police officers’ failure to obtain a warrant for room 900 prior to leaving the station did not disqualify them from entering the room once exigent circumstances arose. We recognize, as did the district court, that the police officers had probable cause to search room 900 immediately after Haynie called Simpson at the station. See Halliman, Crim. No. 89-00003-TFH, mem. op. at 9 (<HOLDING>). We also recognize that the police reasonably Options: A. holding that defendant had reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room rented by relatives when he had a key to the room and permission to use the room at will B. holding that even if information in an affidavit was provided in reckless disregard of the truth appropriate course of action is to sever that information from the affidavit and determine whether sufficient information remained in order for the magistrate to find probable cause C. holding that probable cause existed on grounds that the information in the affidavit supporting the warrants for rooms 903 918 and 806 would also have justified a warrant for room 900 and that the police had fresh information from haynie that the suspects were using the room D. holding that a magistrate had a substantial basis for determining that probable cause existed where the supporting affidavit elaborated on the crime in detail E. holding on to objects in the room

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that probable cause existed on grounds that the information in the affidavit supporting the warrants for rooms 903 918 and 806 would also have justified a warrant for room 900 and that the police had fresh information from haynie that the suspects were using the room
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: Upon termination of the Security Agreement, the Administrative Agent shall execute, acknowledge, and deliver to the Grantors an instrument in writing in recordable form releasing the collateral pledge, grant, assignment, lien and security interest in the Trademarks under this Trademark Security Agreement in accordance with Section 11.4 of the Security Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 11, the Eleventh Circuit held in Massengale v. Ray that attorney’s fees cannot be awarded to a pro se attorney litigant. 267 F.3d 1298, 1301-03 (11th Cir.2001). “Because a party proceeding pro se cannot have incurred attorney’s fees as an expense, a district court cannot order a violating party to pay a pro se litigant a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of a sanction.” The court relied, in part, on the fact that “the word ‘attorney’ generally assumes some kind of agency (that is, attorney/client) relationship” and that when a lawyer proceeds pro se, “legal fees are not truly a ‘cost’ of litigation — no independent lawyer has been hired (or must be paid) to pursue the ... complaint.” Id. at 1301 (quoting Ray v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 87 F.3d 1250, 1251 n. 2 (11th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>)). Other courts have reached the same Options: A. holding that new jersey rule patterned on fed r civ p 11 precludes a pro se attorney litigant from receiving attorneys fees because such fees are not actually incurred B. holding a pro per litigant to the same standard as an attorney C. holding that a pro se litigant who is an attorney is not entitled to fees under 1988 D. holding a court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond E. holding attorneys fees not available to pro se attorney litigant in a federal freedom of information act action

assistant: The best answer is E. holding attorneys fees not available to pro se attorney litigant in a federal freedom of information act action
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 WAIVE TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY ACTION, PROCEEDING OR COUNTERCLAIM BROUGHT BY ANY PARTY AGAINST ANY OTHER PARTY ON ANY MATTER ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THIS AGREEMENT. The terms and provisions of this Section 12 shall survive any termination of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of N.J.S.A 34:19 — 2(b), but we also conclude that the seventh Pukowsky factor (“the manner of termination of the work relationship”) also has some bearing on a worker’s inclusion within CEPA’s definition of “employee.” In this sense, we conclude that the level of “control and direction” required by CEPA includes a consideration of whether the employer had the ability to terminate the worker’s relationship in a manner similar to the termination of an at-will employee. In this case, it is not disputed that plaintiffs contract allowed PRUPAC to terminate him for any or no reason on sixty days’ notice; in that regard, his relationship with PRUPAC was hardly different from that of an at-will employee. See LePore v. National Tool and Mfg. Co., 115 N.J. 226, 227, 557 A.2d 1371 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we hold that our courts are Options: A. holding that an employee could maintain a claim for constructive discharge in violation of virginias public policy exception to the employment atwill doctrine B. holding that an employee may sue for breach of a collective bargaining agreement without the union C. holding that an atwill employee may have a cause of action for wrongful discharge when the reason for a discharge was the employees exercise of a right conferred by a wellestablished legislative enactment D. holding that a union employee protected by a collective bargaining agreement was in no different position than an atwill employee and could similarly maintain an action for wrongful discharge for reporting workplace safety violations E. holding that absent a law or collective bargaining agreement a municipal employee is an employee atwill

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a union employee protected by a collective bargaining agreement was in no different position than an atwill employee and could similarly maintain an action for wrongful discharge for reporting workplace safety violations