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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Admittedly, these previous non-celebrity plaintiffs have typically been models, entertainers, or other professionals who have cultivated some commercially exploitable value through their own endeavors. Nevertheless, the Court finds nothing requiring that a plaintiffs commercially exploitable value be a result of his own talents or efforts in order to state a claim for damages under § 3344. See White v. Samsung Elees, of Am., Inc., 971 F.2d 1395, 1399 (9th Cir.1992) (“Television and other media create marketable celebrity identity value.... The law protects the celebrity’s sole right to exploit this value whether the celebrity has achieved her fame out of rare ability, dumb luck, or a combination thereof.” (emphasis added)); see also Motschenbacher, 498 F.2d at 825 n. 11 (<HOLDING>). In a society dominated by reality television Options: A. recognizing protection against appropriation for the defendants advantage of the plaintiffs name or likeness B. recognizing that the act of exploitation may itself imbue someones likeness with commercial value C. holding determination of property value in case to decide if assessed value was excessive is not a liquidated demand where only evidence of property value was the conclusory allegation of value in plaintiffs unsworn petition D. holding that the defendants use of a models likeness in connection with the packaging and promotion of its hair care product violated the right of publicity E. holding the aggregate value of the land and its improvements is the controlling value

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that the act of exploitation may itself imbue someones likeness with commercial value
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: assistance); Middleton, 849 F.2d at 493-95 (counsel’s failure to uncover mitigating evidence of mental illness, physical and sexual child abuse, and drug abuse chronicled in psychiatric, family court, youth services, and prison records, fell outside scope of professionally competent assistance). Rodriguez faults trial counsel for failing to discover mitigating evidence which Rodriguez declined to divulge prior to the penalty phase. Trial counsel’s alleged failure to investigate or present mitigating evidence does not constitute ineffective assistance “when the essential and foundational information required to trigger such an investigation is withheld from the defendant’s attorney by the defendant himself.” Miller, 907 F.2d at 999; see Dooley v. Petsock, 816 F.2d 885, 890-91 (3d Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 863, 108 S.Ct. 182, 98 Options: A. holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel B. holding that trial counsel cannot be held ineffective for failing to anticipate changes in law C. holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim D. holding that trial counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to raise claims to which his client has neglected to supply the essential underlying facts clairvoyance is not required of counsel E. holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless claim

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that trial counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to raise claims to which his client has neglected to supply the essential underlying facts clairvoyance is not required of counsel
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, suit, investigation or proceeding before or by any Governmental Authority pending, or to the knowledge of Borrower, threatened against or affecting Borrower or any Subsidiary, that could, if adversely determined, reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. There are no outstanding judgments against Borrower or any Subsidiary.

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: letter fails to observe the formalities required by the Clean Water Act, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. See Washington Trout v. McCain Foods, Inc., 45 F.3d 1351, 1355 (9th Cir.1995). Neither the regulation nor the Supreme Court has clearly established the specificity or level of detail that a notice letter must include. The regulation requires that the plaintiff provide enough information to permit the recipient to identify the dates of the violation, but does not specifically require the notice to contain those dates. See 40 C.F.R. § 135.5(a). Ideally, a plaintiff will identify a precise date, but if not, the range of the dates should be “reasonably limited.” California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. City of West Sacramento, 905 F.Supp. 792, 799 (E.D.Cal.1995) (<HOLDING>). The Ninth Circuit has held that plaintiffs Options: A. holding that assertions of privilege must normally be raised as to each record sought and each question asked so that the court can rule with specificity B. holding that a rule 10b5 claim must be stated with particularity C. holding that determining the existence a violation of 1692e when the statutory verification notice is contained in the letter turns on whether the specific text contains any impermissible overshadowing or contradiction with respect to the validation notice D. holding that dates of violation must be stated with some specificity and rejecting a notice letter that alleged hundreds of violations in a fiveyear range as insufficiently specific E. holding that the district court erred in finding violations that were not alleged specifically in the plaintiffs notice letter and no penalties could be imposed for those violations

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that dates of violation must be stated with some specificity and rejecting a notice letter that alleged hundreds of violations in a fiveyear range as insufficiently specific
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: Administrative Agent may, upon any term or condition it specifies, delegate or exercise any of its rights, powers and remedies under, and delegate or perform any of its duties or any other action with respect to, any Loan Document or the Environmental Indemnity Agreement by or through any trustee, co-agent, employee, attorney-in-fact and any other Person (including any Secured Party). Any such Person shall benefit from this Article 11 to the extent provided by Administrative Agent.

assistant: Duties
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: each individual advertiser is solely responsible for the content of its advertising material and skyscanner accepts no responsibility for the content of advertising material , including , without limitation , any error , omission or inaccuracy therein .

assistant: Limitation of 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: suit notice provision, the Hallstrom court noted that several other environmental statutes contained very similar provisions, all modeled on the notice provision of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7604. 493 U.S. at 23, 110 S.Ct. 304. Acknowledging the need for uniform interpretation, the Court “granted certiorari to resolve the conflict among the Courts of Appeals regarding the correct interpretation of the notice provisionfs].” Id. at 25 and n. 2, 110 S.Ct. 304 (citing Garcia v. Cecos Int'l, Inc., 761 F.2d 76 (1st Cir.1985) (construing the notice provision in RCRA as a mandatory prerequisite for suit); Highland Park v. Train, 519 F.2d 681 (7th Cir.1975) (construing the notice provision of the Clean Air Act as mandatory); Proffitt v. Bristol Commissioners, 754 F.2d 504 (3rd Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); Pymatuning Water Shed Citizens for Hygienic Options: A. holding that more than notice to a defendant is required B. holding that notice provisions of rcra and cwa were satisfied where proper parties had notice in fact of the alleged violations more than 60 days before suit was filed C. holding that notice provision of cwa was satisfied where district court stayed the proceedings for 60 days in order to cure the procedural default D. holding that tenant had received more than 30 days to correct violations of the lease when the notice was served on february 27 and the complaint was filed on april 4 E. holding 57 days notice before deadline to file a complaint under 523 was sufficient notice when creditor had actual notice of filing

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that notice provisions of rcra and cwa were satisfied where proper parties had notice in fact of the alleged violations more than 60 days before suit was filed
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: there was no support in the text or history of § 1252 for such a construction. 533 U.S. at 351, 121 S.Ct. 2268. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s holdings that it lacked jurisdiction over a petition for direct review, and that § 1252 did not preclude the petitioners from pursuing habeas relief in the district court under § 2241. Id. at 349-50, 352, 121 S.Ct. 2268. Thus, we disagree with the government’s argument that Mr. Latu could have raised all the issues in his habeas corpus petition in a petition for direct review. We conclude that Mr. Latu properly filed a timely habeas petition to bring his constitutional claims that were not reviewable on direct review under § `1252(a)(2)(C). See Jurado-Gutierrez v. Greene, 190 F.3d 1135, 1145-47 (10th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). B. Jurisdiction to review discretionary Options: A. holding that review under 2241 is still available ndtwithstanding language in 1252a2c barring review by any court of final orders of removal for aliens deportable by reason of having committed a criminal offense and distinguishing between direct and collateral review B. holding that noncriminal aliens could seek review of the agencys orders through either a petition for review or a 2241 petition C. holding that a state court criminal judgment is final for purposes of collateral attack in federal court at the conclusion of review in the united states supreme court or when the time for seeking certiorari review expires D. holding that the real id act gave us jurisdiction to review a criminal aliens petition for review of an order of removal raising a question of law E. holding that iirira 309c4g repealed this courts jurisdiction over petitions for review filed by aliens who are deportable for having committed enumerated criminal offenses but did not repeal 28 usc 2241

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that review under 2241 is still available ndtwithstanding language in 1252a2c barring review by any court of final orders of removal for aliens deportable by reason of having committed a criminal offense and distinguishing between direct and collateral review
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: must consider: (1) whether the government “intended to design d the streets outside are open to scathing criticism of what happens within the courthouse. But the halls of justice may be kept hushed.”). This is because: the function of a courthouse and its courtrooms is principally to facilitate the smooth operation of a government’s judicial functions....[T]he presiding judge is charged with the responsibility of maintaining proper,order and decorum. In carrying out this responsibility, the judge must ensure that the courthouse is a place in which rational reflection and disinterested judgment will not be disrupted.... Huminski v. Corsones, 396 F.3d 53, 91 (2d Cir.2005) (internal citations omitted); see also Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 303 F.3d 959, 966 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Berner v. Delahanty, 129 F.3d 20, 26 (1st Options: A. holding that judicial and municipal complexes are nonpublic forums B. holding that the interiors of polling places are nonpublic forums C. holding that notice statute applies to both municipal entities and employees of municipal entities acting within the scope of their employment D. holding that although municipalities are persons within the meaning of 42 usc 1983 no municipal liability lies under that statute unless action pursuant to official municipal policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort E. holding that discrimination against a municipal employee could trigger municipal liability under 1983 through official policy or custom

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that judicial and municipal complexes are nonpublic forums
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 these events can be characterized as a release, CERCLA liability does not attach unless the “release” is from a CERCLA facility. Here, as noted, the Order describes the facility as the Site; not the Trail Smelter in Canada or the Columbia River in Canada. Pakootas has alleged that the leaching of hazardous substances from the slag that is in the Site is a CERCLA release, and Teck has not argued that the slag’s interaction with the water and sediment of the Upper Columbia River is not a release within the intendment of CERCLA. Our precedents establish that the passive migration of hazardous substances into the environment from where hazardous substances have come to be located is a release under CERCLA. See A & W Smelter & Refiners, Inc. v. Clinton, 146 F.3d 1107, 1111 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Chapman, 146 F.3d 1166, 1170 Options: A. holding that inclusion of a general release was merely a suggestion of how to terminate the lawsuit and that acceptance was not qualified on use of the specific release and party was willing to discuss the terms of a release B. holding that a release covering all claims relating to keszlers relationship with the hospital was enough to release claims arising out of exposure to hazardous materi als C. holding that a release of unknown claims has no effect in the absence of evidence apart from the words of the release D. holding that wind blowing particles of hazardous substances from a pile of waste was a cercla release E. holding that allowing corroding tanks to hold hundreds of thousands of gallons of hazardous waste constitutes abnormally dangerous activity

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that wind blowing particles of hazardous substances from a pile of waste was a cercla release
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: constitutional and other rights.” Rule 10-101(B) NMRA 2002. The purposes of the Children’s Code and the children’s court rules are similar and we see nothing to prevent the application of Rule 10-230.1(B) ninety-day limit for determining a child-initiated motion to reconsider filed pursuant to Section 32A-2-23(G). {16} Child also acknowledges that both this Court and the Supreme Court have held thirty- and ninety-day jurisdictional time limits to be reasonable. See State v. Trujillo, 117 N.M. 769, 771, 877 P.2d 575, 577 (1994); Hayes, 106 N.M. at 808, 751 P.2d at 188 (stating that as a matter of law a motion is denied if the court does not enter a final ruling on it within a reasonable time frame of ninety days); Chavez-Rey v. Miller, 99 N.M. 377, 380, 658 P.2d 452, 455 (Ct.App.1982) (<HOLDING>). Child argues that his case can be Options: A. holding that trial court has no power to allow party to amend motion for new trial more than thirty days after trial court signed the final judgment and that denial of amended motion for new trial filed more than thirty days after judgment preserved nothing for appellate review B. holding court lost jurisdiction to enter its order after thirty days and the motion was denied by operation of law C. holding that the requirement to serve a motion for attorney fees or costs within thirty days after filing of judgment applies even where the final judgment reserves jurisdiction to award same D. holding that the trial court had no jurisdiction to modify its final order more than 30 days after its final judgment E. holding that a coa is deemed denied if the district court does not address its issuance within thirty days

assistant: The best answer is B. holding court lost jurisdiction to enter its order after thirty days and the motion was denied by operation of law
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: Any Lender may at any time, without the consent of, or notice to, the Borrower or the Administrative Agent, sell participations to any Person (other than a natural person or the Borrower or any of the Borrower's Affiliates or Subsidiaries) (each, a "Participant") in all or a portion of such Lender's rights and/or obligations under this Agreement (including all or a portion of its Commitment and/or the Loans owing to it); provided that (i) such Lender's obligations under this Agreement shall remain unchanged, (ii) such Lender shall remain solely responsible to the other parties hereto for the performance of such obligations and (iii) the Borrower, the Administrative Agent and the Lenders, Issuing Lender shall continue to deal solely and directly with such Lender in connection with such Lender's rights and obligations under this Agreement.

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: by Davis do not establish that members of Region 2 were denied election-related privileges enjoyed by UAW members in other regions. Absent discrimination of this kind, Davis may not maintain an action under Title I. See Calhoon v. Harvey, 379 U.S. 134, 139, 85 S.Ct. 292, 13 L.Ed.2d 190 (1964) (finding that union members were not “discriminated against” for purposes of Title I because they were not denied a “right to vote or nominate which the union has granted to others”). This mismatch between the relief sought by Davis and the protections provided by Title I exists because Title I cannot support a cause of action that seeks to invalidate a previously conducted union election. Local No. 82, Furniture & Piano Moving v. Crowley, 467 U.S. 526, 541, 104 S.Ct. 2557, 81 L.Ed.2d 457 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Although Davis purports to rely solely on Options: A. holding that the exclusivity provision included in 403 of title iv plainly bars title i relief when an individual union member challenges the validity of an election that has already been completed B. holding that because the proper defendant in a title vi case is an entity rather than an individual plaintiff could not be sued in his individual capacity under title vi C. holding individual defendants are not an employer within meaning of title vii D. holding that relief granted under title vii is against the employer not individual employees whose actions constituted a violation of title vii emphasis in original E. holding that there is no individual liability under title vii

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the exclusivity provision included in 403 of title iv plainly bars title i relief when an individual union member challenges the validity of an election that has already been completed
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: drugs, the time during which the conspiracy was operative and the statute allegedly violated, even if it fails to allege or prove any specific overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.” United States v. Tavelman, 650 F.2d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir.1981) (internal quotation marks omitted). Forrester contends that the indictment is insufficient because it fails to specify a beginning date for the conspiracy, thereby possibly subjecting him to double jeopardy. However, although an indictment cannot be completely open-ended, see United States v. Cecil, 608 F.2d 1294, 1296-97 (9th Cir.1979), an indictment that specifies an end date is sufficient to apprise defendants of the charges and enable them to prepare a defense, see United States v. Rohrer, 708 F.2d 429, 435 n. 7 (9th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). In addition, uncertainty regarding a Options: A. holding that a person alleging a conspiracy to violate constitutional rights must do more than simply aver that a conspiracy existed B. holding initial indictment which was subsequently found to be invalid tolled the thirtyday period and superseding indictment alleging different charges based on same fraudulent acts as earlier indictment was therefore timely C. holding that an indictment alleging that the conspiracy extended until at least 1980 was sufficient D. holding that an indictment for capital murder must contain at least one aggravating factor E. holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an indictment alleging that the conspiracy extended until at least 1980 was sufficient
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: ALJ did not accurately describe the treatment received by Ms. Grier for fibromyalgia and the ALJ also failed to credit Ms. Grier’s longitudinal history of back pain. The Regulations state that relevant factors for an ALJ to consider when evaluating a claimant’s pain symptoms include, “the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication” taken by the claimant, as well as any “[treatment, other than medication, [claimant] receives or ha[s] received for relief of [claimant’s] pain or other symptoms[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v). A claimant’s statements “may be less credible if the level or frequency of treatment is inconsistent with the level of complaints[.]” SSR 96 — 7p; see also Farley v. Astrue, No. 2:08-CV-2219-VEH, (Doc. 11 at 9-12) (N.D.Ala. Dec. 2, 2009) (<HOLDING>). However, the ALJ must not draw any inferences Options: A. holding that exaggeration of pain versus treatment sought was substantial evidence for the aljs credibility determination B. holding the alj was permitted to consider fact claimant had not sought treatment for her alleged back pain C. holding that credibility determinations are reviewed only for substantial evidence D. holding that ves unchallenged testimony was substantial evidence supporting aljs decision E. holding that court reviews aljs decision for substantial evidence on the record as a whole including the new evidence submitted after the determination was made

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that exaggeration of pain versus treatment sought was substantial evidence for the aljs credibility determination
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 the provisions of Section 16.11, each party may apply to any court having jurisdiction pursuant to Section 16.12.1 (a) to enforce the arbitration provisions of this Agreement, (b) to seek provisional injunctive relief so as to maintain the status quo (including maintaining the confidentiality of any arbitration proceedings and non-public information) until the final arbitration award is rendered and is finally judicially confirmed if challenged judicially, or the dispute is otherwise resolved, or (c) to seek equitable relief to enforce Section 9.5 or as contemplated by Section 16.13.

assistant: Enforcements
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: on Ms. Copp, who is being forced to devote some of her time and services to the Colorado litigation in a remote venue. The debtors also raise the concern that a judgment in the SCTC litigation may have preclusive effect upon their litigation with LTI in this forum. Debtors’ Memorandum at 46. In deciding whether the debtors have demonstrated a right to enjoin LTI from proceeding against SCTC, I note that the purpose of the injunction has some relationship to the debtors’ earlier judicial es-toppel argument. I also note that the pledge agreement, as well as Delaware law, acknowledges a distinction between the right of the limited partner to receive partnership distributions and the right to vote on partnership issues. See generally Hillman v. Hillman, 910 A.2d 262, 274-75 (Del.Ch.2006) (<HOLDING>). In support of their proposed third-party Options: A. recognizing that a compelled medical examination implicates the rights of the party being examined B. recognizing a difference between a partners economic rights and voting rights with the former typically being freely assignable to a third party C. holding that state rights are equivalent to federal rights in this area D. holding that the court should look to the actions of the relevant party and determine whether that party fails to insist on its contractual rights or acts inconsistently with such rights E. holding that a litigant may not claim standing to assert the rights of a third party

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing a difference between a partners economic rights and voting rights with the former typically being freely assignable to a third party
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California without regard to principles of conflicts of laws. Any action brought by either party against the other concerning the transactions contemplated by this Agreement shall be brought only in the state courts of San Diego County, California or in the federal courts located in San Diego County, California. The parties to this Agreement hereby irrevocably waive any objection to jurisdiction and venue of any action instituted hereunder and shall not assert any defense based on lack of jurisdiction or venue or based upon forum non conveniens . In the event that any provision of this Agreement or any other agreement delivered in connection herewith is invalid or unenforceable under any applicable statute or rule of law, then such provision shall be deemed inoperative to the extent that it may conflict therewith and shall be deemed modified to conform with such statute or rule of law. Any such provision which may prove invalid or unenforceable under any law shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision of any agreement. Each party hereby irrevocably waives personal service of process and consents to process being served in any suit, action or proceeding in connection with this Agreement or any other agreement delivered in connection herewith by mailing a copy thereof via registered or certified mail or overnight delivery (with evidence of delivery) to such party at the address in effect for notices to it under this Agreement and agrees that such service shall constitute good and sufficient service of process and notice thereof. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to limit in any way any right to serve process in any other manner permitted by law. THE COMPANY HEREBY IRREVOCABLY WAIVES ANY RIGHT IT MAY HAVE TO, AND AGREES NOT TO REQUEST, A JURY TRIAL FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF ANY DISPUTE HEREUNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH OR ARISING OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY TRANSACTION CONTEMPLATED HEREBY.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All documents and other papers delivered or made available by or on behalf of LXRT in connection with this Agreement are true, complete, correct and authentic in all material respects. No representation or warranty of LXRT contained in this Agreement and no statement or disclosure made by or on behalf of LXRT to US Lighting or the Stockholder pursuant to this Agreement or any other agreement contemplated herein contains an untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary to make the statements contained herein or therein not misleading.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Guarantor shall remain obligated hereunder notwithstanding that, without any reservation of rights against the Guarantor and without notice to or further assent by the Guarantor, any demand for payment of any of the Obligations made by the Indenture Trustee may be rescinded and any of the Obligations continued, and the Obligations, or the liability of any other Person 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 the Indenture Trustee, and the Indenture and the other Transaction Documents and any other documents executed and delivered in connection therewith may be amended, modified, supplemented or terminated, in whole or in part, in accordance with the terms thereof from time to time, and any collateral security, guarantee or right of offset at any time held by the Indenture Trustee for the payment of the Obligations may be sold, exchanged, waived, surrendered or released. The Indenture Trustee shall not have any obligation to protect, secure, perfect or insure any Lien at any time held by it as security for the Obligations or for the guarantee contained in this Section 2 or any property subject thereto.

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: All notices under this Agreement must be in writing and will be deemed properly given (i) on the next business day after deposit for overnight delivery by courier, (ii) 3 business days after mailing, by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or (iii) upon confirmation of transmission by facsimile or e-mail of a PDF document if sent by 5 p.m. Pacific time on a business day and otherwise on the next business day, in each case to the applicable address set forth in the Purchase Agreement.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you may not upload , post , or transmit ( collectively , `` submit '' ) any video , image , text , audio recording , or other work ( collectively , `` content '' ) that :

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: it sought to delegate zoning power to civic associations. See id. ¶ 289. Waterfront did not seek damages in connection with Count XV and, in any event, damages would not have been a proper remedy for that facial attack, for the reasons stated in the following paragraphs. 8 . Moreover, in Lighthouse the plaintiff had actually applied for and was denied a permit under the later-repealed ordinance. See Lighthouse, 510 F.3d at 259. The compensation permitted in that case was therefore connected to a specific application of the ordinance to the plaintiff. It is thus not clear that Lighthouse actually permitted a damages claim to go forward in connection with a facial challenge, as opposed to an as-applied challenge. See Tanner Adver. Grp. v. Fayette Cnty., 451 F.3d 777, 786 (11th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). 9 . The Eleventh Circuit has held that a Options: A. holding that a plaintiff had standing to attack an entire ordinance including portions of the ordinance not applied to the plaintiff B. holding that plaintiff could not request damages for a facial challenge to a zoning ordinance under the first amendment because the provision had not yet harmed the plaintiff C. holding that damages were not available to a plaintiff who challenged an ordinance under a due process theory because the plaintiff had not sought a permit and therefore any claim for damages was purely speculative D. holding that religious corporation which owned property had standing to challenge zoning ordinance E. holding that the plaintiffs due process challenge to a city ordinance was barred because it was inextricably intertwined with a statecourt ruling that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the ordinance

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that plaintiff could not request damages for a facial challenge to a zoning ordinance under the first amendment because the provision had not yet harmed the plaintiff
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 Awards (including any proceeds, gains or other economic benefit actually or constructively received by a Holder upon any receipt or exercise of any Award or upon the receipt or resale of any Shares underlying the Award and any payments of a portion of an incentive-based bonus pool allocated to a Holder) shall, unless otherwise determined by the Administrator or required by Applicable Law, be subject to the provisions of any claw-back policy implemented by the Company, including, without limitation, any claw-back policy adopted to comply with the requirements of Applicable Law, including, without limitation, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and any rules or regulations promulgated thereunder, whether or not such claw-back policy was in place at the time of grant of an Award, to the extent set forth in such claw-back policy and/or in the applicable Award Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provision of this Agreement or the Notice (including any provision of the Plan that is incorporated herein by reference) shall hereafter be held to be invalid, unenforceable or illegal, in whole or in part, in any jurisdiction under any circumstances for any reason, (i) such provision shall be reformed to the minimum extent necessary to cause such provision to be valid, enforceable and legal while preserving the intent of the parties as expressed in, and the benefits of the parties provided by, this Agreement, the Notice and the Plan or (ii) if such provision cannot be so reformed, such provision shall be severed from this Agreement or the Notice and an equitable adjustment shall be made to this Agreement or the Notice (including, without limitation, addition of necessary further provisions) so as to give effect to the intent as so expressed and the benefits so provided. Such holding shall not affect or impair the validity, enforceability or legality of such provision in any other jurisdiction or under any other circumstances. Neither such holding nor such reformation or severance shall affect the legality, validity or enforceability of any other provision of this Agreement, the Notice or the Plan.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The financial statements concerning the Lessee Entities delivered by or on behalf of Lessee to Lessor are true, correct and complete in all respects, and no adverse change has occurred with respect to such financial statements, since the date such financial statements were prepared or delivered to Lessor. Lessee understands that Lessor is relying upon such financial statements and Lessee represents that such reliance is reasonable. All such financial statements were prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles consistently applied and accurately reflect, as of the date of this Agreement and the Closing Date, the financial condition of each individual or entity to which they pertain.

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: 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105 and 3.344, we lack jurisdiction over those claims. A review of the record reveals that Mlekoday raised a series of allegations of CUE in the December 1977 RO decision. On appeal to the Veterans Court, however, Mlekoday raised several new contentions for the first time, including his allegation that the Board failed to correctly apply the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.344. As such, the Veterans Court did not err when it concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over that claim of CUE. The Veterans Court’s jurisdiction is limited by statute and is to be construed narrowly. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252 and 7261. And, the Veterans Court does not have jurisdiction over a new CUE claim that was not first considered by the Board. See Andre v. Principi, 301 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed.Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm the Veterans Court’s Options: A. holding that cue existed in ro decision that had reduced veterans benefits where court found that it is evident that cue existed therein B. holding that each allegation of cue is separate and must be specifically considered by the board before the veterans court has jurisdiction C. holding that a board decision is required to vest the court of veterans appeals with jurisdiction over a claimants appeal D. holding that a nonfrivolous allegation of board jurisdiction is one which if true would establish a prima facie case that the board has jurisdiction over the matter at issue E. holding that a claim that is constitutional in name only does not create jurisdiction over an appeal from the veterans court

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that each allegation of cue is separate and must be specifically considered by the board before the veterans court has jurisdiction
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement has been duly executed and delivered by the Borrower and constitutes, and each other Loan Document when executed and delivered by each Loan Party thereto will constitute, a legal, valid and binding obligation of such Loan Party enforceable against such Loan Party in accordance with its terms.

assistant: Enforceability
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: on May 4, 1992. The Commission, however, denied the petition in a final order dated June 3, 1992. The Harper Companies filed a petition for review of agency action with this court on July 1, 1992, claiming that the Commission erred in assessing sales taxes that were based solely on a good faith error in an accounting procedure. We first address the standard of review. The Commission’s decision raises questions of law. “We grant the Commission no deference concerning its conclusions of law, applying a correetion-of-error standard, unless there is an explicit grant of discretion contained in a statute at issue before the appellate court.” Utah Code Ann. § 59-1-610(l)(b) (Supp.1993); see also Board of Equalization v. State Tax Comm’n ex rel. Benchmark, Inc., 864 P.2d 882, 884 (1993) (<HOLDING>). The statutes at issue do not grant the Options: A. holding that section 591610 applies to actions commenced before its effective date B. holding that the date of discrimination is the date on which a decision not to hire a plaintiff becomes effective C. holding that in general aedpas provisions apply to cases filed after its effective date D. holding that the act applies prospectively to complaints filed after its effective date E. holding that the commission on remand can set the effective date of a rate to be the effective date of the original commission activity

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that section 591610 applies to actions commenced before its effective date
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Executive’s or Corporation’s failure to insist upon strict compliance with any provision of this Agreement, or the failure to assert any right Executive or Corporation may have hereunder, will not be deemed to be a waiver of such provision or right or any other provision of or right under this Agreement.

assistant: Waivers
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: or Secretary's authority to enforce any provision of this Act; except that any violation- (i) with respect to which the Administrator or the Secretary has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action under this subsection, (ii) with respect to which a State has commenced and is difigently prosecuting an action under a State law comparable to this subsection, or (iii) for which the Administrator, the Secretary, or the State has issued a final order not subject to further judicial review and the violator has paid a penalty assessed under this subsection, or such comparable State law, as the case may be, shall not be the subject of a civil pena Supp. 1476, 1485 (D.Colo.1994) (same) with Citizens for a Better Environment v. Union Oil Co., 861 F.Supp. 889, 906 (N.D.Cal.1994) (<HOLDING>). In this circuit, there is no doubt that Options: A. recognizing that plaintiffs had standing to allege infringements of their first amendment rights where the record established that they had been threatened with enforcement of the statute and that such enforcement would cause them injury B. holding that a question about present employment in field of law enforcement did not trigger disclosure of past employment in field of law enforcement C. holding that assessment of state enforcement comparability should be similar to epa enforcement comparabifity which requires penalties D. holding that court enforcement of a settlement agreement is not state action for constitutional purposes E. holding that law enforcement commission was a benefit of employment

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that assessment of state enforcement comparability should be similar to epa enforcement comparabifity which requires penalties
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 Borrowers have delivered to the Lender an unaudited consolidated Balance Sheet and Statement of Income for fiscal year ending December 31, 2014, and an unaudited consolidated Balance Sheet and Statement of Income as of September 30, 2015 (collectively, together with any financial statements filed by Intelligent Highway with the SEC, any Principal Trading Market, or any other Governmental Authority, if applicable, the “ Financial Statements ”). The Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with GAAP, consistently applied, during the periods involved (except: (i) as may be otherwise indicated in such Financial Statements or the notes thereto; or (ii) in the case of unaudited interim statements, to the extent they may exclude footnotes or may be condensed or summary statements), and fairly and accurately present in all material respects the consolidated financial position of the Credit Parties as of the dates thereof and the consolidated results of its operations and cash flows for the periods then ended (subject, in the case of unaudited statements, to normal year-end audit adjustments). To the best knowledge of the Credit Parties, no other information provided by or on behalf of the Credit Parties to the Lender, either as a disclosure schedule to this Agreement, or otherwise in connection with Lender’s due diligence investigation of the Credit Parties, contains any untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstance under which they are or were made, not misleading.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement and each Ancillary Document required to be executed and delivered by each EFI Party at Closing, and the performance of the transactions contemplated hereby and thereby, will not (a) violate any provision of the organizational documents of either EFI Party, (b) result in default (with due notice or lapse of time or both) or the creation of any Encumbrance or give rise to any right of termination, cancellation or acceleration under any of the terms, conditions or provisions of any note, bond, mortgage, indenture, license or agreement to which either EFI Party is a party or which affects the Energy Fuels Shares, or (c) violate any judgment, order, ruling or regulation applicable to any EFI Party as a party in interest.

assistant: No Conflicts