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: criminal.activity, furtive hand movements, and flight. See, e.g., Anderson v. United States, 658 A.2d 1036, 1038 (D.C. 1995). In the present cáse, the anonymous 911 caller indicated that he had seen a man with a gun in his waist and provided specific descriptions of that man and the man’s companion. Officers who responded found Mr. Wade and a companion about a block away, and both men matched the descriptions provided by the 911 caller. When the offícérs approached the men, both fled, and Mr. Wade discarded a cellphone and placed his hand near his waist, just where the 911 caller said a gun would be. Taken together,' these circumstances provided the officers with reasonable artic-ulable suspicion to seize Mr. Wade. Cf., e.g., Jackson v. United States, 109 A.3d 1105, 1106-09 (D.C. 2015) (<HOLDING>); Brown v. United States, 97 A.3d 92, 96 (D.C. Options: A. holding an anonymous tip had the requisite indicia of reliability to justify a stop when the caller told the police of the alleged erratic driving automobile location and vehicle description B. holding that stop of appellant was supported by reasonable articulable suspicion where anonymous 911 caller said that she had seen suspect pull gun out of his pocket 911 caller described suspect and suspects location responding officer located appellant near stated location appellant matched description and no one else in vicinity matched description C. holding that stop of suspect was supported by reasonable articulable suspicion where anonymous 911 caller described man with a gun officers saw suspect walking with man who matched description provided by 911 caller suspect made nervous and evasive motions incident occurred in highcrime area and suspect attempted to flee D. holding that reasonable suspicion existed where suspect described location of his vehicle over phone to undercover officer E. holding that an anonymous tip that described a suspects appearance and location and alleged that he was carrying a concealed weapon was insufficiently corroborated by the officers observation of the appellant who matched the description hanging out at the indicated location

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that stop of appellant was supported by reasonable articulable suspicion where anonymous 911 caller said that she had seen suspect pull gun out of his pocket 911 caller described suspect and suspects location responding officer located appellant near stated location appellant matched description and no one else in vicinity matched description
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: tacitly approved the policy. Accordingly, I will allow the action to proceed against Stanley in his individual capacity. 4. Official Capacity Suits Barrett has sued the defendants in their official capacities. It is well-settled that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state entities and state agents working in their official capacities unless the state has expressly waived immunity, which has not been done by New Hampshire for actions brought under § 1983. See Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144, 113 S.Ct. 684, 121 L.Ed.2d 605 (1993) (absent waiver, neither a State nor agencies acting under its control may be subject to suit in federal court); Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 5.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Official capacity suits against officers of Options: A. holding that state and its officers sued in their official capacity for damages are not persons suable under 1983 B. holding that states and state officials acting in their official capacity are not persons under 1983 C. holding that under authority of will v michigan dept of state police 491 us 58 71 109 sct 2304 105 led2d 45 1989 neither the state nor state public service commission officials acting in their official capacities are persons subject to suit under 1983 D. holding that neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are persons under 1983 E. holding that state employees acting in their official capacities are insulated from liability for money damages

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are persons under 1983
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 Amendment shall become effective as of the date hereof (or with respect to Section 3 hereof, the Reorganization Effective Date) upon receipt by the Administrator of duly executed counterparts of this Amendment by each of the parties hereto in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to the Administrator.

assistant: Effectiveness
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: As of the Closing Date, the Borrower and its Subsidiaries taken as a whole, immediately after giving effect to the incurrence and repayment of all Indebtedness and obligations being incurred and repaid in connection herewith, are Solvent.

assistant: Solvency
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: v. Bd. of Appeals, 811 F.2d 36, 37 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1021, 107 S.Ct. 3266, 97 L.Ed.2d 765 (1987). At issue is whether Plaintiffs Amended Complaint adequately alleges the elements of violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 2000d. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1981 provides that “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts.” 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a). In order to establish a § 1981 violation, a party must establish three elements: (1) purposeful discrimination; (2) that is based on race; (3) in the making or enforcing of a contract. See Dartmouth Review, 889 F.2d at 17. See also General Bldg. Contractors Ass’n v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 391, 102 S.Ct. 3141, 3151, 73 L.Ed.2d 835 (1982) (<HOLDING>). Title 42 U.S.C. § 2000d mandates that “[n]o Options: A. holding that the plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim for purposeful and unlawful discrimination B. holding that a violation of 1981 requires purposeful race discrimination C. holding that retaliation claims are not cognizable under 42 usc 1981 D. holding that 42 usc 1981 requires a showing of purposeful discrimination E. holding that texas twoyear statute of limitations applied to suit alleging racial discrimination under 42 usc 1981

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that 42 usc 1981 requires a showing of purposeful discrimination
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 exercises of Options under the Plan are subject to withholding of all applicable taxes, including all federal, state, and local income and employment tax withholding. The delivery of any shares of Stock under the Plan is conditioned upon satisfaction of any applicable withholding requirements. The Board may, in its sole discretion, exercised at or after the time of a grant, permit a Participant to satisfy such tax withholding requirements by withholding from the shares of Stock otherwise deliverable to the Participant as a result of the exercise of the Option shares having a value equal to the minimum amount required to be withheld. The Board’s permission to a Participant to effect tax withholding by withholding shares shall not be effective to bind the Company or the Board unless set forth expressly in a writing adopted by the Board and delivered by the Board to the Participant. In the absence of the Board’s specific written permission to satisfy tax withholding requirements in shares of Stock, such requirements must be satisfied by the Participant in cash, including by the Participant’s irrevocably authorizing a third party to sell a sufficient number of shares of Stock acquired upon exercise of the Option.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall not be assignable by either Party to any Third Party hereto without the written consent of the other Party hereto; except: (i) either Party may assign this Agreement without the other Party’s consent to an entity that acquires substantially all of the business or assets of the assigning Party, whether by merger, acquisition or otherwise, provided that the Party to whom this Agreement is assigned assumes this Agreement in writing or by operation of law; and (ii) Licensee may assign this Agreement without the consent of Angionetics to Affiliate. In addition, either Party shall have the right to assign this Agreement to an Affiliate upon written notice to the non-assigning Party; provided that the assigning Party guarantees the performance of this Agreement by such Affiliate. Subject to the foregoing, this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of each Party, its successors and permitted assigns. A Party assigning this Agreement shall provide written notice of any assignment to the other Party within five (5) business days after any such permitted assignment. Any assignment of this Agreement in contravention of this Section 15.8 shall be null and void.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Lead Arrangers shall have received (i) the Audited Financial Statements, (ii) the unaudited quarterly consolidated balance sheets of the Borrower and its Subsidiaries as of each of March 31, 2016 and June 30, 2016 and related consolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity and cash flows of the Borrower and its Subsidiaries for the fiscal quarters ended March 31, 2016 and June 30, 2016 and (iii) an unaudited consolidated income statement for the Borrower and its Subsidiaries calculated on a pro forma basis after giving effect to the Refinancing.

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: Neither this Agreement, nor any of the rights, interests or obligations hereunder shall be assigned by any of the parties hereto (whether by operation of Law or otherwise) without the prior written consent of the other parties, provided , however , that (a) the Initial Investors may assign its rights, interests and obligations under this Agreement, in whole or in party, to one or more Affiliates that are “United States persons” within the meaning of Section 7701(a)(30) of the Code in accordance with this Agreement, and in order for such assignment to be effective, the assignee shall agree in writing to be bound by the provisions of this Agreement, provided , that no such assignment shall relieve the Initial Investor of its obligations hereunder prior to the Closing.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: is not fully equated with a private law firm, in that a former agency lawyer is not considered to have been associated with all other lawyers in the agency. I might say we started out by equating the two and, as we went along the committee decided that that really was taking too hard a line because to say that all lawyers in the Justice Department or the FCC or any other agency are to be considered in the same way that you would consider the lawyers in a private law firm, that was too sweeping a disqualification and there was no good reason for it.... Hearings on S. 1064 Before the Subcomm. on Improvements in Judicial Machinery of the Comm, on the Judiciary, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. 100 (1971-73); see also Aetna Life Ins. Co., 475 U.S. at 820, 106 S.Ct. at 1585, 89 L.Ed.2d at 832 (<HOLDING>). Professor Thode added that a judge who had Options: A. holding the double jeopardy clause applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment B. holding that the conditions delineated in canon 3c1a alone would not be sufficient basis for imposing a constitutional requirement under the due process clause C. holding that imposing an increased sentence under the residual clause of the acca violates the constitutions guarantee of due process D. recognizing that plaintiff can bring action under due process clause of state constitution E. holding that foreign states are not persons entitled to rights under the due process clause

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the conditions delineated in canon 3c1a alone would not be sufficient basis for imposing a constitutional requirement under the due process 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereunder may be terminated by the Seller or the Purchaser, by written notice to the other party, if the Closing of the purchase and sale of the Shares has not been consummated on or before February 21, 2018; provided , however , that no such termination will affect the right of any party to sue for any breach by the other party.

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: sexual harassment. Three authorities support our determination that the MHRA covers non-employee sexual harassment: the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines, other jurisdictions’ comparable decisions, and the MHRA’s broad remedial intent to remove discrimination from the workplace. First, the United States Supreme Court has approved the specific use of EEOC guidelines in sexual harassment eases. See Mentor Sav. Bank, F.S.B. v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 2404, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986) (guidelines represent informed judgment; courts and litigants may properly resort to them for guidance) th Cir.1982) (recognizing that non-employee strangers may cause sexually hostile working environment); Jarman v. City of Northlake, 950 F.Supp. 1375, 1377-80 (N.D.Ill.1997) (<HOLDING>); Powell v. Las Vegas Hilton Corp., 841 F.Supp. Options: A. holding employee had cause of action against her employers when nonemployee harassed her and employers failed to take corrective action B. holding that although incorrect drug report was detrimental to employee employee had no claim against hospital because the report was not intended to primarily or directly benefit the employee C. holding employer may be hable when its employee is sexually harassed by employers patrons and employer either ratifies or acquiesces in harassment by not taking immediate andor corrective action D. holding employee had cause of action against city when nonemployee alderman sexually harassed employee E. holding county employee with unenforceable contract was atwill employee

assistant: The best answer is D. holding employee had cause of action against city when nonemployee alderman sexually harassed employee
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 essential element of r such claims. Accordingly, Sun Trading’s state law claims are hereby dismissed without prejudice to re-filing in state court. B. Plaintiff’s Cross Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint Sun Trading moves for leave to amend its complaint to include Kenwood Japan and Art Union Records as defendants, in place of Kenwood Electronics Corp. The Court finds that amendment of the complaint at this stage would be futile. Even if Sun Trading were able to determine the proper Kenwood entities and add them as defendants, its claims against these entities would fail as a matter of law for the reasons stated above. Accordingly, plaintiffs motion for leave to amend the complaint is hereby denied. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Options: A. holding that futility is among the reasons for denying leave to amend a complaint B. holding that denial of leave to amend is error in the absence of justifying reasons C. holding that leave to amend should be freely given unless there is a good reason such as futility to the contrary D. holding that futility prejudice or bad faith may justify refusing to grant leave to amend E. recognizing several reasons to deny leave to amend a complaint

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that futility is among the reasons for denying leave to amend a complaint
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: J. Appellants, Eric Russell Lewis and Mary Loughran Lewis (the Lewises) were injured when the car in which they were riding was struck by a vehicle which was being chased by appellee, Officer Robert Epstein (Epstein). Epstein was employed by appellee, The Seminole Department of Law Enforcement (SDLE). The Lewises’ filed suit against Epstein and SDLE; the complaint was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity. We affirm the dismissal of the complaint against SDLE. See Houghtaling v. Seminole Tribe of Fla., 611 So.2d 1235 (Fla.1993)(<HOLDING>); see also Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Mfg. Options: A. holding that tribal sovereign immunity did not bar rico suit only after concluding that sue and be sued clause in tribal ordinance unequivocally expressed waiver of sovereign immunity B. recognizing that tribal sovereign immunity extends to agencies and subdivisions of the tribe C. holding that an indian tribe is subject to suit only where congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity D. holding that as a matter of federal law an indian tribe is subject to suit only where congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity E. holding that florida does not have jurisdiction in a suit by other persons against an indian tribe absent express waiver of tribal sovereign immunity

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that florida does not have jurisdiction in a suit by other persons against an indian tribe absent express waiver of tribal sovereign immunity
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 have been "informed that, if he or she refused to submit to such test, his or her privilege to operate a motor vehicle would be suspended for a period of 1 year or, in the case of a second or subsequent refusal, for a period of 18 months." § 316.1939(l)(c). The defendant must also have been "informed that a refusal to submit to a lawful test of his or her breath, ... if his or her driving privilege has been previously suspended for a pri- or refusal to submit to a lawful test ... [constitutes] a misdemeanor.” § 316.1939(l)(d). 4 . Busciglio also contended below that the Miranda warnings given at the scene were deficient because they did not properly advise him of his right to have counsel present "during” questioning. See Powell v. State, 969 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>). The trial court agreed and suppressed other Options: A. holding that any time is insufficient to warn accused of right to counsel during questioning B. recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel C. holding police violated edwards when they continued questioning a defendant after his initial invocation of the right to counsel even though he responded to the subsequent questioning D. holding because the svp is civil the accused has no constitutional right to counsel E. holding that a defendant need not be advised of the right to terminate questioning at any time

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that any time is insufficient to warn accused of right to counsel during questioning
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 NLRA. It would conflict with IRCA because “precluding the remedy would increase the incentives for employers to hire undocumented aliens,” which would, in tu 11th Cir.1988) (applying the FLSA to undocumented aliens to further IRCA’s goal of “eliminating employers’ economic incentives to hire” them); Contreras, 25 F.Supp.2d at 1059-60 (continuing after IRCA to apply the FLSA to undocumented workers and to award them punitive damages, noting that “[t]he Ninth Circuit has taken the - broader view of the Sure-Tan holding, upholding awards of back pay to undocumented aliens for wrongful employment" practices if, during their time of discharge, the workers remained in the U.S. available for work, and the back pay period could be calculated with certainty”): Escobar, 814 F.Supp. at 1498 (<HOLDING>); EEOC v. Switching Systems Div. of Rockwell Options: A. holding that undocumented workers can recover damages for violations of the migrant and seasonal agricultural workers protection act as amended by irca B. holding that the right to recover a particular measure of damages in a workers compensation case is fixed as of the date of injury C. holding that the trial courts authority to initiate workers compensation benefits before the final adjudication was not divested by the legislature and was consistent with the stated purpose of the workers compensation act D. holding that in light of hoffman undocumented workers are entitled to compensatory damages under flsa but not other remedies like back or front pay which would contravene the policies underlying irca and otherwise assume the continued and unlawful employment of undocumented workers E. holding that title vii continues to apply to undocumented workers after irca

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that undocumented workers can recover damages for violations of the migrant and seasonal agricultural workers protection act as amended by irca
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: (en banc) (“[E]ven if a policy provision is unambiguous, the provision is void and unenforceable if it violates public policy by attempting to dilute, condition, or limit statutorily mandated coverage.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); id. (“Insurance policy clauses that are contrary to a provision of a statute are void as against public policy. Consistently, this court has refused to enforce provisions in automobile insurance policies that are against public policy.” (citation omitted)). See also Brown v. Royal Maccabees Life Ins. Co., 137 F.3d 1236, 1242 (10th Cir.1998) (stating that, under Wyoming law, insurance contracts must not conflict with pertinent statutes or public policy); Mut. Reinsurance Bureau v. Great Plains Mut. Ins. Co., 969 F.2d 931, 934-35 (10th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). The provisions of the Policy quoted by Options: A. holding arbitration clause in reinsurance agreement unenforceable under kansas statute B. holding that an arbitration clause was unenforceable because it prohibited an award of punitive damages which was available to the plaintiff under title vii C. holding that under a severability clause arbitration provision was not rendered unenforceable because it contained an invalid limitation on punitive damages D. holding that when an arbitration clause has provisions that defeat the remedial purpose of the statute the arbitration clause is not enforceable and that the language insulating an employer from damages and equitable relief renders the clause unenforceable E. holding arbitration clause in credit card agreement unconscionable

assistant: The best answer is A. holding arbitration clause in reinsurance agreement unenforceable under kansas statute
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of the Lenders hereby irrevocably appoints Citibank to act on its behalf as the Agent hereunder and under the other Loan Documents and authorizes the Agent to take such actions on its behalf and to exercise such powers as are delegated to the Agent by the terms hereof or thereof, together with such actions and powers as are reasonably incidental thereto. The provisions of this Article are solely for the benefit of the Agent and the Lenders, and neither the Company nor any other Loan Party shall have rights as a third-party beneficiary of any of such provisions. It is understood and agreed that the use of the term “agent” herein or in any other Loan Documents (or any other similar term) with reference to the Agent is not intended to connote any fiduciary or other implied (or express) obligations arising under agency doctrine of any applicable law. Instead such term is used as a matter of market custom, and is intended to create or reflect only an administrative relationship between contracting parties.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as publicly disclosed by the Company, including but not limited to public disclosure through the Company’s public filings, its press releases, or its comments to the media, Painter agrees to maintain in complete confidence the terms of this Agreement and the consideration for this Agreement (such information not publicly disclosed by the Company hereinafter collectively referred to as “Undisclosed Separation Information”). Except as required by law, Painter may disclose Undisclosed Separation Information only to his immediate family members, the Court or arbitrator in any proceedings to enforce the terms of this Agreement, Painter’s attorneys, and Painter’s accountants and any professional tax or other financial advisors to the extent that they need to know the Undisclosed Separation Information in order to provide advice on tax treatment or to prepare tax returns or to provide other financial advice, and must prevent disclosure of any Undisclosed Separation Information to all other third parties. Painter agrees that he will not publicize, directly or indirectly, any Undisclosed Separation Information.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be amended only by means of a written amendment signed by (i) the Partnership and (ii) the Holders of 66 2 ⁄ 3 % of the then-outstanding Registrable Securities; provided , however , that no such amendment shall adversely affect the rights of any Holder hereunder without the consent of such Holder.

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: Each Advance shall bear interest on the unpaid principal amount thereof at a rate per annum equal to LIBOR plus five percent (5%), payable in arrears (i) on each Interest Payment Date in respect of the previous Interest Period, (ii) on the Maturity Date and (iii) on payment or prepayment of an Advance in whole or in part, in the amount of interest accrued on the amount paid or prepaid.

assistant: Interests
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: undisputed that Mr. Avila engaged in protected opposition to discrimination when the union filed a grievance on his behalf on September 2, 2003, alleging national origin discrimination. See Pardi v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 389 F.3d 840, 850 (9th Cir.2004) (indicating that lodging union grievance asserting discrimination constitutes protected activity). It is also undisputed that Mr. Avila suffered an adverse employment action when he was terminated. See Fye, 516 F.3d at 1228 (stating “termination ... is clearly an adverse employment action”). Finally, it is undisputed that Mr. Avila established a causal connection between his protected activity on September 2, 2003 and his termination nine days later. See Argo v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan., Inc., 452 F.3d 1193, 1202 (10th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Thus, Mr. Avila established a prima facie Options: A. holding that twentyfour days between protected activity and termination is sufficient to infer existence of causal connection B. holding that a sixmonth gap between the protected activity and the employees termination was insufficient to infer that the protected activity was a contributing factor C. holding that a temporal proximity of one month between the plaintiffs protected activity and adverse employment action was sufficient to establish a causal connection D. holding that more than a year between the protected activity and the discharge is not close enough to support the causal connection requirement E. holding that five weeks between protected activity and adverse employment action insufficient to establish a causal connection

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that twentyfour days between protected activity and termination is sufficient to infer existence of causal connection
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: To the Knowledge of the Seller, no representation or warranty made by the Seller in this Agreement, taken as a whole (and including any information contained on the Disclosure Schedules), contains any untrue statement of a material fact, or omits to state a material fact necessary to make the statements contained herein or therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Benefits . The provisions of this Section 7 are intended to assu re and encourage in advance Executive ’ s continued attention and dedication to his assigned duties and his objectivity during the pendency and after the occurrence of a Change in Control. These provisions shall apply in lieu of, and expressly supersede, the provisions of Section 6(d) regarding severance pay and benefits payable upon a termination of employment by the Company without Cause or by Executive for Good Reason , if such termination of employment occurs within twenty-four (24) months after the Company’s consummation of a Change in Control. These provisions shall terminate and be of no further force or effect beginning twenty-four (24) months after the date on which the Company consummates a Change in Control (provided that any obligation to satisfy payment obligations thereafter shall remain in effect until all such payments are made).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower will do or cause to be done all things necessary to preserve, renew and keep in full force and effect its legal existence and the rights, licenses, permits, privileges and franchises material to the conduct of its business; provided that the foregoing shall not prohibit any merger, consolidation, liquidation or dissolution, sale or disposition of assets or other transactions permitted under Section 6.03. The Borrower will cause each of its Subsidiaries to do or cause to be done all things necessary to preserve, renew and keep in full force and effect its legal existence and, except where the failure to do so, individually or in the aggregate, could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect, the rights, licenses, permits, privileges and franchises material to the conduct of its business; provided that the foregoing shall not prohibit any merger, consolidation, liquidation or dissolution, sale or disposition of assets or other transactions permitted under Section 6.03.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed and delivered (including by facsimile transmission or by e-mail delivery of a “.pdf” format data file) in one or more counterparts, and by the different parties hereto in separate counterparts, each of which when executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement. Copies of executed counterparts transmitted by telecopy, by e-mail delivery of a “.pdf” format data file or other electronic transmission service shall be considered original executed counterparts for purposes of this Section 3.15 .

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: (or reexamination) of all available public records when initial mailings have been promptly returned as undeliverable.” Plemons, 396 F.3d at 577. Because Ms. Plemons’ Quarry Pointe address was not “ascertainable” from the public records I FIND that she is not entitled to set aside the tax sale deed now held by Advantage’s successor in interest, Douglas Q. Gale. For the reasons stated herein, the court GRANTS the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 67] and DENIES the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment [Docket 70], Because the court’s order does not rely on the discovery and evidence relating to Jerry Lipscomb, the defendants’ Motion to Exclude [Docket 72] is DENIED as MOOT. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order A.2d 1364, 1365-66 (R.I.1996) (<HOLDING>); But see Elizondo v. Read, 588 N.E.2d 501, 504 Options: A. holding that as part of showing that a warrantless entry was imperative the government must demonstrate that a warrant could not have been obtained in time even by telephone under the procedure authorized by fedrcrimp 41c2 B. holding that the constitutional level of punitive damages is not a finding of fact that must be determined by the jury it may be determined de novo by the court C. holding that a correct address could have been determined by checking telephone directory D. holding that witness whose life had been threatened forcing him to relocate was not required to disclose true name address or telephone number E. holding that adts failure to dispatch ems to correct address was not actionable in tort

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a correct address could have been determined by checking telephone directory
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement and understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement, and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous oral and written agreements and understandings relating to such subject matter. Holder agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement and of the Plan, and that in the event of any conflict between this Agreement and the terms of the Plan, the terms of the Plan shall prevail. All designations, determinations, interpretations, and other decisions under or with respect to this Agreement or the Award will be within the sole discretion of the Committee, may be made at any time and will be final, conclusive, and binding upon all persons, including, but not limited to, the Company, any Subsidiary, Holder, any stockholder and any employee of the Company or any Affiliate. HOLDER ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT THE COMMITTEE SHALL ADMINISTER THIS AGREEMENT AND THE AWARD, AND THAT HOLDER IS BOUND BY, AND THE AWARD IS SUBJECT TO, ANY TERMS, RULES OR DETERMINATIONS MADE BY THE COMMITTEE.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: discussed infra, we reject Jackson’s Fourth Amendment challenge to the strip search, and a losing Fourth Amendment claim cannot be a winner under the Eighth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable conduct, whether amounting to punishment or not, while the Eighth Amendment prohibits only cruel and unusual conduct that rises to the level of punishment, see Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837-38, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). 7 . With respect to the Fourth Amendment claim, the district court did not address § 1997e(e) in making its determination, and defendants do not invoke that provision in their argument on appeal. 8 . The district court also found persuasive our unpublished decision of Watsy v. Ames, No. 87-1660, 1988 WL 24978 at *3 (6th Cir. Mar. 24, 1988) (<HOLDING>). 4 . The district court also considered Ling Options: A. holding strip searches conducted in the station house without reasonable suspicion that minor offenders had possession of contraband are unreasonable and violate the fourth amendment B. holding that policy requiring strip searches of prisoners prior to transfer did not violate fourth amendment C. holding that routine monitoring and recording of the calls of convicted prisoners does not violate the prisoners fourth amendment rights D. holding that a state administrative prison code requiring thorough searches did not mandate the sheriffs decision to implement a strip search policy and therefore the county not the state was liable E. holding that inmates fourth amendment protection from unreasonable strip searches survives hudson

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that policy requiring strip searches of prisoners prior to transfer did not violate fourth amendment
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: Landlord and Tenant each represents and warrants to the other that such representing party has had no dealings, negotiations or consultations with respect to the Premises or this transaction with any broker or finder other than a Landlord affiliate and Broker. Each party shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the other from and against any and all liability, cost, and expense (including reasonable attorneys ’ fees and court costs), arising from any misrepresentation or breach of warranty under this Section. Landlord shall pay Broker a commission in connection with this Lease pursuant to the terms of a separate written agreement between Landlord and Broker. This Section shall survive the Expiration Date .

assistant: Brokers
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 Executive agrees and acknowledges that Sections 10 and 11 of the Employment Agreement shall survive termination of Executive’s Employment Agreement in accordance with its terms, including, without limitation, the confidentiality, non-competition and non-solicitation covenants contained therein.

assistant: Confidentiality
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: representation that the father had not been served with a copy of the petition. The father indeed had received timely service of the original petition for modification, approximately two weeks after the mother had filed her petition. Notwithstanding that the father had received timely service of the original petition, he misrepresented this fact to the trial court when he moved to dismiss the mother’s amended petition for modification. In his motion to dismiss, the father argued that the court should dismiss the original petition because he was never served within the requisite 120 days. Thus, the father was well aware of the initial modification proceeding, and he should not be allowed to benefit from his own wrongdoing. See Dep’t of Revenue v. Jackson, 846 So.2d 486, 498 (Fla.2003) (<HOLDING>). Although the mother did not move for Options: A. holding that equitable principles apply to child support proceedings B. recognizing that in cases involving public housing it is an equitable defense and the court may apply equitable principles for the nonpayment of back rent to prevent eviction of a qualified indigent tenant C. holding that it was error for the trial court to determine the issue of child support without a child support guidelines worksheet D. holding that equitable tolling principles apply to suits against the united states in the same manner as they apply to private parties E. holding that parents may not voluntarily terminate their rights in a child to avoid child support payments or contract away a child support obligation

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that equitable principles apply to child support proceedings
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as set forth in Section 3.15 of the Disclosure Schedule , there is no Litigation (a) that has been served upon Seller or an Affiliate of Seller or, to Seller’s Knowledge, that is otherwise pending or threatened, against Seller or any of its Affiliates or any of the Acquired Assets or (b) that challenges, or that may have the effect of preventing, delaying, making illegal, or otherwise interfering with, any of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement or the Related Agreements. Seller is not subject to any Decree.

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: 335, 112 S.Ct. at 1355; see United States v. Flanagan, 868 F.2d 1544, 1546 (11th Cir.1989) (per curiam) ("[T]he granting of credit for time served is in the first instance an administrative, not a judicial, function.”). In view of Wilson and our circuit precedent, it is troubling that the dissent advances the position that district courts can override the BOP's determination regarding sentence credits. “In Wilson, the Supreme Court held that the district court has no authority to grant a defendant credit for any time served in detention before sentencing, but rather the Attorney General has the sole authority to grant credit for time already served." United States v. Daggao, 28 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir.1994) (emphasis added), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1390, 131 L.Ed.2d 242 (1995) (<HOLDING>). 10 . A subsequent BOP program statement, Options: A. holding that where mandatory life sentence enhancement was the tail which wags the dog of defendants firearm conviction which raised constitutional due process issues the district court had authority to consider a downward departure under section 5k20 of the guidelines B. holding that where a defendant malees a showing that the act of consenting to deportation carries unusual assistance to the administration of justice district court has authority under ussg 5k20 to depart downward in absence of the governments consent C. holding that the district court could not circumvent attorney generals determination that inhome presentence detention of defendant pursuant to release on bond is not applicable for sentence credit by according a downward departure under ussg 5k20 based on this detention D. holding that district court had authority to grant section 5k20 downward departure despite governments opposition E. holding that after granting the governments motion for downward departure pursuant to both 3553e and 5k11 the district court did not err when it determined that the starting point for departing downward was the higher statutorily required minimum sentence and not the lower otherwise applicable guideline range

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the district court could not circumvent attorney generals determination that inhome presentence detention of defendant pursuant to release on bond is not applicable for sentence credit by according a downward departure under ussg 5k20 based on this detention
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: In addition to the acts and deeds recited in this Agreement and contemplated to be performed, executed and/or delivered by the parties hereto, each party agrees to perform, execute and deliver, but without any obligation to incur any additional liability or expense, on or after the Closing any further deliveries and assurances as may be reasonably necessary to consummate the transactions contemplated under this Agreement. The provisions of this Section 10.15 shall survive the Closing.

assistant: Further Assurances