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: the issue of claims filed beyond the bar date have reached the same conclusion as we do today — that the various guarantee associations are not liable for the late-filed claims. See Union Gesellschaft Fur Metal Industrie Co. v. Illinois Insur. Guar. Fund, 190 Ill.App.3d 696, 138 Ill.Dec. 21, 546 N.E.2d 1076, 1079 (1989) (noting that “[t]he requirement in the statute that claims be filed on or before the last date fixed for the filing of proofs of claim evidences an intent by the legislature to provide a cutoff date after which the Illinois Guaranty Fund is no longer obligated to indemnify claims,” and that the plaintiff’s ignorance of the claim was not “recognized by the statute”); Satellite Bowl, Inc. v. Michigan Prop. & Cas. Guar. Assn., 165 Mich.App. 768, 419 N.W.2d 460, 462 (1988) (<HOLDING>); Lake Hospital System, Inc. v. Ohio Ins. Guar. Options: A. holding that under the mailbox rule the date that a motion is placed into the hands of prison officials for filing is the date that the motion is considered filed B. holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint C. holding that once a liquidating court establishes a definitive bar date the ohio insurance guaranty association becomes statutorily obligated to observe the finality of that date and noting that were we to hold otherwise the specific filing deadline set forth in the ohio statute would be rendered meaningless D. holding that the date of sale for an installment contract was the date of contract formation not the date of the last payment due E. holding that a claim filed after the last date fixed for the filing of claims was not a covered claim and noting that the requirement in the statute that claims be presented before the filing deadline evidences an intent on the part of the legislature to provide a cutoff date after which the association is no longer obligated to accept claims

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a claim filed after the last date fixed for the filing of claims was not a covered claim and noting that the requirement in the statute that claims be presented before the filing deadline evidences an intent on the part of the legislature to provide a cutoff date after which the association is no longer obligated to accept claims
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: carriers fit the Termination Act’s definition of “rail carrier.” 49 U.S.C. § 10102(5). The statute does not further define the term “common carrier,” but the general definition is “[a] carrier that is required by law to transport passengers or freight, without refusal, if the approved fare or charge is paid.” Blaoic’s Law Dictionary 205 (7th ed.1999). The core of the State’s argument is that, because Susquehanna sells in advance all (the contaminated-soil facility) or nearly all (the C & D facilities) of its capacity to one shipper, it offers nothing to the general public, as the definition of “common carrier” requires. The common law differentiates between “private carriers” and “common carriers.” See, e.g., York Co. v. Cent. R.R., 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 107, 112, 18 L.Ed. 170 (1865) (<HOLDING>). We have held that [t]he distinctive Options: A. recognizing that state courts may be able to limit the retroactive effect of their declarations of state law B. holding itca does not create new causes of action but creates acceptance of liability under circumstances that would bring private liability into existence C. holding that land dedicated for a public street may not be leased to a private entity for private use D. holding that common carriers may limit their liability by undertaking private carriage E. recognizing private right of action

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that common carriers may limit their liability by undertaking private carriage
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: with the use of reasons and standards, the court will uphold its findings, though of less than ideal clarity, if the agency’s path may reasonably be discerned, though of course the court must not be left to guess as to the agency’s findings or reasons. Greater Boston, 444 F.2d at 851. For instance, in Hall v. McLaughlin, 864 F.2d 868, 872-73 (D.C.Cir.1989), we held that an involved explanation was not required where a Labor Department rule did not appear to be inconsistent with prior labor certification decisions. We relied on two additional cases holding that the circumstances of a prior agency decision were sufficiently different that the agency was entitled not to follow them even without a detailed explanation. See United Mun. Distributors Group v. FERC, 732 F.2d 202 (D.C.Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); West Coast Media, Inc. v. FCC, 695 F.2d 617 Options: A. holding that the court of appeals erred in declining to apply supreme court precedent even though the reasoning of that precedent had been eroded by subsequent decisions B. holding that ferc precedent was readily distinguishable and did not require elaborate discussion C. holding a prior case was not precedent on an issue when the issue was not contested D. recognizing that although federal precedent was not binding it was persuasive authority E. holding that a condition was precedent to performance because the contract language did not explicitly state that it was precedent to formation

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that ferc precedent was readily distinguishable and did not require elaborate discussion
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall reimburse Executive promptly for all expenses reasonably incurred by Executive in the performance of his duties in accordance with policies which may be adopted from time to time by the Company following presentation by Executive of an itemized account, including reasonable substantiation, of such expenses.

assistant: Expenses
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: zynga and/or the zynga affiliate will use reasonable efforts to let you know if they learn of any claim on which you have to compensate or reimburse them .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Subject to Section 11.2 . the Agreement will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns, each of which successors and permitted assigns will be deemed to be a Party hereto for all purposes hereof.

assistant: Successors
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: mother. Nonetheless, testimony that the victim admitted to her grandmother that she made a prior false accusation of sexual abuse differs starkly from an independent conclusion reached by a police investigator that the victim’s allegation was unsubstantiated. That is, Paladino’s report and testimony would not be cumulative because they would be based on her own observations, not on any statement that A.B. made to her grandmother or anyone else, and because Paladino alone would have testified as to the basis for her conclusion — that is, exculpatory evidence that Watson did not provide, that was not otherwise made known to the jury, and that was essential for the jury to determine whether A.B. was a credible witness. See, e.g., Stephens v. State, 98 Ark. App. 196, 254 S.W.3d 1 (2007) (<HOLDING>). C. Other Factors The other factors a trial Options: A. holding that in employees age discrimination suit against former employer supervisors statement to employee was not hearsay even though the statement was offered for its truth because the statement was an admission by a party opponent B. holding that eyewitness accounts and an officers observations established probable cause C. holding that an officers hearsay statement was not cumulative to the eyewitnesss testimony where the officers statement provided the only evidence of a possible motive for the shooting and where the officers statement was based on his own observations not the eyewitnesss observations D. holding eyewitnesss statement made an hour after the crime properly admitted as excited utterance based on magnitude of crime and officers testimony that witness was excited and upset when making the statement E. holding recording of eyewitnesss inculpatory statement made in custodial interrogation testimonial in nature

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an officers hearsay statement was not cumulative to the eyewitnesss testimony where the officers statement provided the only evidence of a possible motive for the shooting and where the officers statement was based on his own observations not the eyewitnesss observations
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 payments made by Guarantor to or for the account of any Agent, Swing Line Lender, Issuing Lender or Lender shall be made without condition or deduction of any kind, including for any counterclaim, defense, recoupment or set-off. All payments made by Guarantor hereunder shall be made free and clear of and without deduction for any present or future Indemnified Taxes or Other Taxes. Guarantor shall pay such Taxes and shall promptly furnish to Administrative Agent copies of any tax receipts or such evidence of payment as any Agent, Swing Line Lender, Issuing Lender or Lender may reasonably require.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and the Transaction Documents contain the entire understanding of the Parties with respect to subject matter hereof and supersede all prior agreements, understandings, negotiations, and discussions among the Parties with respect to such subject matter.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower and each of its Subsidiaries keeps its property adequately insured in accordance with Section 7.1.4 and maintains (a) insurance to such extent and against such risks, including fire, as is customary with companies of similar size and in the same or similar businesses, (b) workmen’s compensation insurance in the amount required by Applicable Law, (c) public liability insurance, which shall include product liability insurance, in the amount customary with companies of similar size and in the same or similar business against claims for personal injury or death on properties owned, occupied or controlled by it, and (d) such other insurance as may be required by Applicable Law. All such insurance is in full force and effect and all premiums that are due and payable with respect thereto have been paid.

assistant: Insurances
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 not be modified or amended except pursuant to an instrument in writing signed by the Company and the Subscriber. No waiver of any provision this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing by the party to be bound thereby. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be deemed or shall constitute a waiver of any other provision hereof (regardless of whether similar), nor shall any such waiver constitute a continuing waiver unless otherwise expressly provided.

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: Sections 8 ("No Conflict of Interest"), 9 ("Confidentiality and Proprietary Rights"), 10 (Nonsolicitation), 11 ("Injunctive Relief"), 12 ("Agreement to Arbitrate"), 13 ("General Provisions") and 14 ("Entire Agreement") of this Agreement shall survive Executive's employment by Company.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that Ms. Krum would be unable to participate in any vocational retraining in its preparation of the Employability Analysis Report or at any future time. This limitation puts Dr. Pearce’s statement that Ms. Krum could sit for eight hours a day in a different light. And while Hartford emphasizes the number of hours that Ms. Krum could sit, it fails to point out that Dr. Pearce left blank the spaces for how long Ms. Krum could stand or walk in the workplace. Dr. Pearce presumably believed that Ms. Krum would not be able to stand or walk at all due to her breathing difficulties. Other courts have reversed plan administrator decisions for plaintiffs with similar statements from their attending physicians. See, e.g., Spangler v. Lockheed Martin Energy Sys., Inc., 313 F.3d 356 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). The court does not intend to suggest that Options: A. holding that plaintiffs inability to stand more than two hours was insufficient as a matter of law to prove that she was disabled B. holding that a plan administrators decision to deny benefits was arbitrary and capricious even though an attending physician had submitted a form stating the plaintiff could sit for six hours stand for two hours and walk for two hours C. holding that a heightened arbitrary and capricious standard of review applied to the decision to deny benefits under the erisa plan D. holding that evidence that plaintiff could walk only four hours a day was insufficient as a matter of law to prove that she was disabled E. holding that extremely tight handcuffing for nearly fourteen hours that left indentations in plaintiffs arms for over six hours did not amount to excessive force

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a plan administrators decision to deny benefits was arbitrary and capricious even though an attending physician had submitted a form stating the plaintiff could sit for six hours stand for two hours and walk for two hours
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: if a us government agency has a need for any additional rights , it must negotiate directly with oculus to determine if the parties can negotiate an acceptable licence amendment that must be included in any applicable contract or agreement .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provision hereof is invalid and unenforceable in any jurisdiction, then, to the fullest extent permitted by law, (i) the other provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect in such jurisdiction and shall be construed in favor of the Assignee in order to carry out the intentions of the parties hereto as nearly as may be possible; and (ii) the invalidity and unenforceability of any provision hereof in any jurisdiction shall not affect the validity or enforceability of such provision in any other jurisdiction.

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 representations and warranties of the Company and the Investor contained in Sections 2, 3 and 5 hereof, and the agreements and covenants set forth in Sections 4 and 7 hereof, shall survive the execution of this Agreement and the transaction contemplated herein or any termination of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: case of other removed actions, the federal court takes the case as it finds it, subject to the applicable federal rules, and treats everything that occurred in the state court as if it had taken place in federal court. Vernon Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Commerce Sav. & Loan, 677 F.Supp. 495, 498 (N.D.Tex.1988) (emphasis added). The Court holds today that, with regard to removal under 12 U.S.C. 1819, one of the applicable federal rules continues to be set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), requiring timely removal by the FDIC. As stated above, Defendant FDIC’s removal was required on or about August 17, 1989, and its September 8, 1989 notice was therefore untimely. III. CONCLUSION The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion to Remand. However, the Court DENIES Plainti 9-0494-H, slip op. at 2 (Sanders, C.J.) (<HOLDING>). 3 . See Plaintiff's Motion at 8. 4 . The FDIC Options: A. holding that removal under the second paragraph of 1446b did not apply and defendants therefore had removed outside of the thirty day time period triggered at the time of service of the complaint B. holding that the federal common law doench doctrine protects the fslic and the fdic in both receiver and corporate capacities C. holding that a receiver appointed for the parent corporation of the debtor was not a custodian of the debtorsubsidiary because the receiver was not appointed to take control of the debt ors assets for the benefit of the debtors creditors D. holding that when the federal savings and loan insurance corporation fslic is appointed receiver for a failed thrift that is a party to litigation action then becomes removable by fslic pursuant to 28 usc 1446b and must be removed within thirty days of the appointment E. holding that if the attorney general issues a scope certificate the action must be removed to federal court and the united states must be substituted as the party defendant by the plain language of 28 usc 2679d2 no discretion is given to the district court

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that when the federal savings and loan insurance corporation fslic is appointed receiver for a failed thrift that is a party to litigation action then becomes removable by fslic pursuant to 28 usc 1446b and must be removed within thirty days of the appointment
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: situs, not instrumentality, of assault); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Furo, 588 So.2d 61 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (noting a sufficient nexus between the automobile and injury exists only when it is shown the assailant desired either possession or use of the victim’s automobile). Trott’s mere presence in Hurst’s vehicle at the time of the shooting does not satisfy the nexus test. Fortune Ins. Co. v. Exilus, 608 So.2d 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Further, no UM coverage exists because Finlayson’s gun, and not Hurst’s automobile, produced Trott’s injuries. Niglio v. Omaha Property and Casualty Ins. Co., 679 So.2d 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). No person could reasonably conclude Trott’s injuries were covered under his automobile liability policy. Race v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 542 So.2d 347 (Fla.1989) (<HOLDING>). Final summary judgment in favor of St. Paul Options: A. holding that household exclusion clauses in policies of automobile liability insurance are contrary to public policy B. holding that a summons directed to the commissioner of motor vehicles was defective process as against a nonresident defendant in an action arising out of operation of a motor vehicle in this state C. holding that a phrase should be interpreted consistent with the context of the statute in which it is contained D. holding that the phrase arising out of the use is ambiguous and interpreting it as originating from or growing out of or flowing from E. holding phrase arising out of the ownership maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as contained in um policy should be given same interpretation as in automobile liability policies

assistant: The best answer is E. holding phrase arising out of the ownership maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as contained in um policy should be given same interpretation as in automobile liability policies
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: suits to be simpler, easier, and less expensive than a district court action. Barnes Beauty Coll. v. McCoy, 279 N.W.2d 258, 259 (Iowa 1979). Based on a plain reading of the statute and the legislative intent underlying small claims actions, we conclude when a plaintiff files a verified account under section 631.10, the court must consider the verified account as if the plaintiff appeared personally at the trial and deem the matters presented in the verification as evidence offered by the plaintiff. If the defendant fails to appear at the trial and the evidence presented in the verified account substantiates the plaintiffs claim, the court should enter judgment against the defendant. Iowa Code § 631.10; see also ITT Fin. Servs. v. Zimmerman, 464 N.W.2d 486, 489-90 (Iowa Ct.App.1990) (<HOLDING>). If the defendant does appear at the trial, Options: A. holding that notice of judgment was insufficient B. holding the original notice and verified account did not substantiate plaintiffs claim and was insufficient for the court to enter a default judgment against the plaintiffs C. holding that the defense of insufficient process was waived because it was not raised by the defendant in its answer but later in its response to the plaintiffs request for default judgment D. holding that suit to recover amount due for professional services was a liquidated claim proved by written instruments where plaintiff attached original invoices to verified petition and motion for default judgment E. holding that the district court should not have entered a default judgment against an intervenor based on the original partys failure to appear

assistant: The best answer is B. holding the original notice and verified account did not substantiate plaintiffs claim and was insufficient for the court to enter a default judgment against the plaintiffs
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Subject to Section 9(c) of this Agreement, you agree not to take any action or make any statement, written or oral, which disparages or criticizes the Company’s or any of its Affiliates’ business practices, or which disrupts or impairs its or their normal operations, including actions or statements that would (i) harm Company’s or any of its Affiliates’ reputation with its or their current or prospective clients or business partners, or the public or (ii) interfere with existing contracts or employment relationships with current and prospective clients, business partners or the Company’s or any of its Affiliates’ employees.

assistant: Non-Disparagement
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: influence or motive____” Tome, 513 U.S. at 165-67,115 S.Ct. at 705. In the brief at trial, the Government moved in the alternative to have the drawings admitted under the so-called residual hearsay rule, Mil. R. Evid. 803(24). The flaw in that argument is that CK testified in a very straight-forward manner. In order to use the hearsay exception under Mil. R. Evid. 803(24), the statement must, among other things, be “more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts.” Mil. R. Evid. 803(24)(B). In the appellant’s case, CK’s in-court testimony is the most probative evidence of the abuse. TK’s testimony is less straightforward than CK’s, but his drawings, without TK’s testimony, are probative o .R.1994) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Miller, 32 M.J. 843 Options: A. holding that statement must be product of a startling event B. holding statement made twentythree minutes after event admissible as a present sense impression C. holding that critical factor is whether the declarant was still dominated by the emotions excitement fear or pain of the event D. holding that a statement made by a witness to a shooting an hour or two after the incident was not an excited utterance as it was not made while the speaker was laboring under excitement and before he had to time to reflect E. holding statement must be made contemporaneously with the excitement or stresscausing event

assistant: The best answer is E. holding statement must be made contemporaneously with the excitement or stresscausing event
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: their brief that the district court did not address these categories of work and urge that the work is not part of this appeal. This work is part of this appeal, though, both because Blessey has briefed the issue and because we may affirm the district court for any reason supported by the record, even if the district court did not rely on that reason. United States v. Gonzalez, 592 F.3d 675, 681 (5th Cir.2009). This argument gives us little pause, though, as the activities related to loading and unloading were also clearly seaman work. As Blessey notes, many of these readiness duties are part of the basic •maintenance of a barge. The basic maintenance of a vessel is almost always seaman work for FLSA purposes. See Louviere v. Standard Dredging Corp., 239 F.2d 164, 164-65 (5th Cir.1956) (<HOLDING>). As we discussed in detail above, the loading Options: A. holding meal periods compensable work under flsa if employees perform duties predominantly for the benefit of the employer B. holding that maintenance workers in a building that did produce goods for interstate commerce were covered under the flsa C. holding that the flsa does not preempt state law contract provisions that are more generous than the flsa demands D. holding under flsa E. recognizing that a deckhands routine maintenance work on a tug constituted seaman duties for flsa purposes

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that a deckhands routine maintenance work on a tug constituted seaman duties for flsa purposes
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: § 418.301(11). Unlike a'claim for benefits or medical services, however, the Act fails to specify a remedy for retaliation or even a means to enforce the right to be protected from retaliation. Cf. id. § 418.1065 (specifying prohibition against retaliation for filing a claim under the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act and also providing a detailed administrative scheme for remedying retaliation claims). But employees who suffer retaliation for exercising their rights under the workmen’s compensation statute are not without a remedy. The Michigan courts have recognized a common law exception to Michigan’s employment at will doctrine for discharges that violate public policy. See Suchodolski v. Mich. Consolidated Gas Co., 412 Mich. 692, 316 N.W.2d 710, 712 (1982) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>) (citing Sventko v. Kroger Co., 69 Mich.App. Options: A. holding that an atwill employee who alleges retaliatory discharge for the filing of a workers compensation claim has stated a cause of action under pennsylvania law B. holding that an atwill employee may not recover for discriminatory discharge under section 1981 because the atwill relationship was not sufficiently contractual under tennessee law C. recognizing tort of wrongful discharge D. recognizing cause of action for wrongful discharge E. holding that an atwill employee may have a cause of action for wrongful discharge when the reason for a discharge was the employees exercise of a right conferred by a wellestablished legislative enactment

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an atwill employee may have a cause of action for wrongful discharge when the reason for a discharge was the employees exercise of a right conferred by a wellestablished legislative enactment
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 fees and all other reasonable fees and documented out-of-pocket costs and expenses (including, without limitation, the reasonable legal fees and expenses of White & Case LLP and other local counsel to the Administrative Agent) and other compensation due and payable on or prior to the Borrowing Date, in each case, payable to the Administrative Agent, the Security Agent, the Lead Arrangers and the Lenders in respect of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement to the extent reasonably invoiced at least two (2) Business Days prior to the Borrowing Date.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any notices, requests, demands and other communications provided for by this Agreement shall be sufficient if in writing and delivered in person or sent by registered or certified mail, postage paid, to Executive at the last address Executive has filed in writing with the Bank, or, in the case of the Bank, to the attention of the CEO. All such communications shall be deemed given upon receipt. Any party may by notice in writing to the other parties change the address to which notices to it or her are to be addressed hereunder.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Section 8.2.2 of the Purchase Agreement is hereby amended to provide that “Buyer’s Guarantor” shall be either SSC IV, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, or SSC V, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, as required by Existing Lender.

assistant: Consents
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: departing from the sentencing guidelines. In his second 3.800(a) motion, filed in 2004, Burton argued for the first time that the findings could not legally support an upward departure under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because they were not made by a jury. Again, we affirmed the trial court’s denial on this basis, without opinion. In his third 3.800(a) motion, Burton once again challenged the findings made by the trial judge to support the upward departure based upon Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and also cited Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). Apprendi and Blakely do not apply retroactively. See Hughes v. State, 901 So.2d 837, 840 (Fla.2005) (<HOLDING>); Langford v. State, 929 So.2d 598 (Fla. 5th Options: A. holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively B. holding that apprendi does not retroactively apply to 2255 motions C. holding that apprendi does not apply on collateral review D. holding that ring does not apply retroactively in florida postconviction proceedings to cases that were final on direct review at the time of the ring decision E. holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively in florida in postconviction proceedings to cases that were final on direct review at the time of the apprendi decision

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively in florida in postconviction proceedings to cases that were final on direct review at the time of the apprendi decision
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: be removed notwithstanding the well-pleaded complaint rule). “The pre-emption clause is not limited to ‘state laws specifically designed to affect employee benefit plans.’” Pilot Life, 481 U.S. at 47, 107 S.Ct. 1549 (quoting Shaw, 463 U.S. at 97, 103 S.Ct. 2890). Rather, “common law causes of action ... based on alleged improper processing of a claim for benefits .. undoubtedly meet the criteria for preemption under § 514(a).” Id. at 48, 107 S.Ct. 1549. Recent cases on the bread determination before the injury occurred, alleging an imminent threat to life or health, this Court would have had the statutory authority to provide prospective relief for benefits allegedly due under the plan, perhaps averting this catastrophe. Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. at 531, 107 S.Ct. 1931, 95 L.Ed.2d 458 (<HOLDING>); Turner at 198-200 (holding that 29 U.S.C. § Options: A. holding that a subclass of plan participants could sue where the remedy sought by plaintiffs would benefit the plan as a whole and cure any harm that the plan suffered B. holding that erisa permits suits to recover benefits only against the plan as an entity and thus the beneficiary had erred by suing her exhusbands employer and plan administrator when proper party would have been the benefits plan itself C. holding that making intentional representations about the future of plan benefits may be an act of plan administration D. holding that insureds declaratory judgment class action claims seeking to retain tort settlements following their insurers claims for reimbursement were claims to enforce their rights under the terms of the plan and to clarify their rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan under erisa E. holding under the exclusive civil enforcement provisions of 502a as set forth in 29 usc 1132a that a beneficiary may sue to recover benefits due under the plan to enforce the participants rights under the plan or to clarify rights to future benefits

assistant: The best answer is E. holding under the exclusive civil enforcement provisions of 502a as set forth in 29 usc 1132a that a beneficiary may sue to recover benefits due under the plan to enforce the participants rights under the plan or to clarify rights to future benefits
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: For and in consideration of the covenants and promises contained herein and in the Split-Off Agreement, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Buyer on behalf of herself and her assigns, representatives and agents, if any, hereby covenants not to sue and fully, finally and forever completely releases the Seller Released Parties of and from any and all claims, actions, obligations, liabilities, demands and/or causes of action, of whatever kind or character, whether now known or unknown, which Buyer has or might claim to have against the Seller Released Parties for any and all injuries, harm, damages (actual and punitive), costs, losses, expenses, attorneys’ fees and/or liability or other detriment, if any, whenever incurred or suffered by such Buyer arising from, relating to, or in any way connected with, any fact, event, transaction, action or omission that occurred or failed to occur on or prior to the date of the Closing.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: fired. See, e.g., People v Wharton, 53 Cal 3d 522; 280 Cal Rptr 631; 809 P2d 290 (1991) (upholding entry of a residence to locate a missing individual); Carroll v State, 335 Md 723, 731-732; 646 A2d 376 (1994) (citing federal and state cases upholding warrantless entries when the police reasonably believed that a burglary was in progress or had recently been committed); Davis, 442 Mich at 28 (assuming without deciding that, in most cases, the sound of gunfire could justify warrantless entry into a motel room under the emergency-aid doctrine). By contrast, the authority supporting a warrantless entry under facts similar to those presented here is both scarce and dubious. A few cases have allowed warrantless entries in cases involving water leaks. See State v Dube, 655 A2d 338 (Me, 1995) (<HOLDING>); United States v Boyd, 407 F Supp 693, 694 Options: A. holding in an impliedconsent case that a warrantless police entry was unlawful in part because the police did not request entry B. holding that in every warrantless entry into private residence state has burden to demonstrate that exigencies of situation made entry imperative C. holding lawful a warrantless entry to combat a plumbing emergency and stop sewage or water from leaking into apartments below D. recognizing emergency exception E. holding that the police officers had probable cause to make a warrantless entry

assistant: The best answer is C. holding lawful a warrantless entry to combat a plumbing emergency and stop sewage or water from leaking into apartments below
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Reyes-Rodriguez contends that 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 are unconstitutional pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Our holdings in United States v. Mendoza-Paz, 286 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.2002) (§ 960), and United States v. Varela-Rivera, 279 F.3d 1174, 1175 n. 1 (9th Cir.2002) (§ 952) foreclose this argument. In the alternative, Reyes-Rodriguez contends that the government was required to allege in the indictment that Reyes-Rodriguez knew the type and quantity of controlled substance he was alleged to have imported. This contention fails based on our holding in United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634, 643 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not Options: A. holding that it was not necessary for the state to prove that the defendant knew the precise nature of the controlled substance he was convicted of delivering when evidence established that he knew it was a controlled substance B. holding that apprendi does not change the long established rule that the government need only show that the defendant knew he imported or possessed some controlled substance C. holding that apprendi does not require the government to prove that defendant knew type and amount of controlled substance D. holding apprendi does not require proof of knowledge as to type or quantity of drugs E. holding that quantity of the controlled substance does not have to be measurable to support a conviction for possession of such controlled substance particularly when the immeasurable amount of the substance is found on an implement used to consume the substance

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that apprendi does not require the government to prove that defendant knew type and amount of controlled substance
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company (a) is a general partnership duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the Laws of the State of Delaware, and (b) has all requisite general partnership power and general partnership authority to own, lease and operate its properties and to carry on in all material respects its businesses as owned or conducted on the date hereof. The Company is duly qualified or licensed and in good standing to do business as a foreign entity under the Laws of each jurisdiction in which the nature of its business, or the ownership, leasing or operation of its properties or assets, makes such qualification necessary, except where the failure of such qualification, license or registration would not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in the record. . . . Statements as to facts that have not been proven amount to unsworn testimony, which is not the subject of proper closing argument.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Alexander, supra, 254 Conn. 306. We focus on the prosecutor’s rebuttal closing argument in which he stated that during “a large portion of this trial I was kind of burnt out on what was going on. I was having a hard time focusing.” The prosecutor also remarked that he “probably should have asked [A] why she didn’t scream.” The prosecutor’s own physical or mental condition, the questions that he should have asked, and a lawyer’s trial strategy generally are not permissible subjects of closing argument. See Spiess v. Traversa, 172 Conn. 525, 527, 375 A.2d 1007 (1977) (<HOLDING>); Archambeault v. Jamelle, 100 Conn. 690, Options: A. holding on habeas review that counsels failure to object to improper argument at trial did not prejudice petitioner where other evidence supported a guilty verdict and the jury was told closing argument was not evidence B. holding prosecutors argument that defense counsels goal was to keep evidence from the jury was improper C. holding improper counsels argument that plaintiff was entitled to something for manner in which defense was conducted D. holding defense counsels rates to be an improper starting point in determining plaintiff counsels reasonable hourly rate E. holding improper counsels argument that opposing counsel knew why plaintiff delayed in bringing action where opposing counsels knowledge was not in evidence

assistant: The best answer is C. holding improper counsels argument that plaintiff was entitled to something for manner in which defense was conducted
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: method that is fairest given the prevailing circumstances. The interpretation championed by the second line of cases renders the second sentence of § 506(a) virtually meaningless. Moreover, it would allow a reorganizing debtor to reap a windfall by stripping down the hen to liquidation value and quickly selling the collateral at fair market value, thus pocketing equity that would have been completely beyond reach save for the filing of the bankruptcy petition. Cf. Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48, 55, 99 S.Ct. 914, 918, 59 L.Ed.2d 136 (1979) (bankruptcy law should “prevent a party from receiving a windfall merely by reason of the happenstance of bankruptcy”) (quotation omitted). It is true that the debt- or’s intention to reorganize under Chapter 11 is w 4-86 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>), cert. granted and judgment vacated on other Options: A. holding that for chapter 12 plan confirmation purposes hypothetical costs should not be deducted from fair market value in valuing collateral to be retained by debtor B. holding that second sentence of 506a precludes deduction of hypothetical costs of sale in valuing chapter 13 debt ors real property to be retained by debtor C. recognizing that a debt ors sequential filing of a chapter 7 petition and then a chapter 13 petition is the socalled chapter 20 D. holding that for chapter 12 plan confirmation purposes hypothetical costs should not be deducted from fair market value in valuing collateral to be retained by debt or E. holding that 506a does not require or permit a reduction in the creditors secured claim to account for purely hypothetical costs of sale of chapter 13 debtors residence

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that second sentence of 506a precludes deduction of hypothetical costs of sale in valuing chapter 13 debt ors real property to be retained by debtor
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: this does not include or limit in any way deliveroo 's or any partner restaurant 's liability for any matter for which it would be illegal for us or it to exclude , or attempt to exclude , our or its liability , including liability for death or personal injury caused by negligence or for fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any notices required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be sufficient if in writing, and if personally delivered or when sent by first class certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested; in the case of the Executive, to his residence address as set forth in the books and records of the Company, and in the case of the Company, to the address of its principal place of business, to such person or at such other address with respect to each party as such party shall notify the other in writing.

assistant: Notices