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: by the DOL and that she cashed the check for the whole amount. Therefore, the Court will grant Aftermarket’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of Mion’s waiver of her FMLA claims. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Aftermarket’s motion for summary judgment. An Order consistent with this opinion will be entered. 1 . The parties have not submitted the WH-58 Form at issue, and the Court has not been able to obtain one from the Department of Labor. However, the court in Cuevas v. Monroe Street City Club, Inc., 752 F.Supp. 1405 (N.D.Ill.1990) (mem.op.) quoted the DOL’s WH-58 form as reading, "Your acceptance of back wages due under the Fair Labor Standards Act means that you have given up any right you may have to bring suit for such back wages.” Id. at 1414 (<HOLDING>). 2 . The final FMLA regulations, are not Options: A. holding that the authorization under 29 usc 1132a3 extends to a suit against a nonfiduciary party in interest to a transaction barred by 29 usc 1106a B. holding that 29 usc 215a3 does not protect internal complaints C. holding that the defendant is in the best position to prove and should bear the burden of establishing its entitlement to an exemption under 29 usc 1108 from 29 usc 1106b erisas prohibited transactions provision D. holding that the finding that entities constitute a single enterprise under 29 usc 203r is separate and distinct from whether an entity is an employer under 29 usc 203d E. holding under 29 usc 216c

assistant: The best answer is E. holding under 29 usc 216c
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 Term Facility Borrowers agrees to pay and reimburse the Administrative Agent for all its reasonable costs and out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with the preparation and delivery of this Amendment No. 5, including, without limitation, the reasonable fees and disbursements of counsel to the Administrative Agent.

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: ( b ) in the event of a dispute , you must provide skype or other disputed party with a notice of dispute , which is a written statement of the name , address and contact information of the party giving it , the facts giving rise to the dispute , and the relief requested .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Risk, 208 F.Supp.2d at 1315, and because the Mor-ansais court explicitly limited its holding to professional malpractice claims, it is clear that the Moransais court did not intend its decision to reach breach of fiduciary duty claims. Therefore, the economic loss doctrine continues to bar breach of fiduciary duty claims if those claims are dependent upon a breach of contract claim after Moransais. Keeping that principle in mind, the court evaluates plaintiffs breach of fiduciary duty claim. In Excess Risk, a post -Moransais decision, plaintiff Excess Risk Underwriters, Inc., (“ERU”), an ins rule did not bar breach of fiduciary duty claim where that claim was independent of breach of contract claim); Clayton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 729 So.2d 1012, 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)(<HOLDING>); Detwiler v. Bank of Cent. Fla., 736 So.2d Options: A. holding that economic loss rule barred claim for breach of fiduciary duty where plaintiffs claim arose solely as a result of the existence of a contract between the parties B. recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract C. holding that erisa preempts claims for breach of contract breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and negligent misrepresentations D. holding that plaintiffs did not plead fraud where the complaint only alleged a breach of fiduciary duty E. holding that economic loss rule barred claim for breach of fiduciary duty where precontract misrepresentations were directly related to alleged breach of contract

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that economic loss rule barred claim for breach of fiduciary duty where precontract misrepresentations were directly related to alleged breach of contract
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: 88, 92 (2d Cir.2010). Such a waiver appears to have been in Nino’s tactical interest, as a hearing might have revealed that Nino’s drug trafficking realized proceeds far in excess of $100,000. We need not here conclusively decide whether Nino’s forfeiture claim was waived or forfeited because, in any event, he fails to demonstrate error. In the agreement pursuant to which he pleaded guilty, Nino admitted that between 2000 and 2008, he had “conspired to import, distribute, or possess with intent to distribute at least 10 kilograms but less than 30 kilograms of heroin.” Government Addendum 2; see Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.2(b)(1)(B) (stating that forfeiture determination may be based “on evidence already in the record, including any written plea agreement”). The wholesale pr 29, 130 (2d Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Because we conclude that the evidence was Options: A. recognizing that where liability is joint and several among multiple parties complete relief may be granted with respect to any one of them B. holding that the surety of a joint and several bond has direct liability and may be sued individually or collectively C. recognizing criminal forfeiture as an aspect of punishment D. holding that joint and several liability for entire actual loss could have been imposed on each fraud defendant as condition of probation E. recognizing forfeiture liability among criminal confederates to be joint and several

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing forfeiture liability among criminal confederates to be joint and several
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: subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(a), because without the ability to prove a necessary element of that statutory claim, Wall had no longer asserted a claim that caused the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000. However, as Wall correctly points out in his brief, his claim under §§ 39-65-10, et seq. was simultaneously replaced with a claim under S.C.Code Ann. §§ 41-10-10, et seq., which permits a court to award treble damages to an employee who has not been justly compensated, thereby increasing the amount in controversy from the unpaid commissions of $35,000 to $105,000. Thus, the amount in controversy requirement was met and subject matter jurisdiction was maintained. See Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. Jones, 290 U.S. 199, 202, 54 S.Ct. 133, 78 L.Ed. 267 (1933) (<HOLDING>). Even if we were to find that the treble Options: A. holding that while the nonprevailing partys financial condition is not appropriate to consider in determining whether to award attorneys fees it is appropriate to consider when determining the amount of the attorneys fees B. holding that court of appeals erred by rendering judgment for full amount of attorneys fees sought after reversing 0 fee award because jury awarded less in damages than amount sought and therefore uncontroverted attorney testimony on amount of attorneys fees did not establish amount of reasonable and necessary fees as a matter of law C. holding that an attorneys fees award is not appealable until the amount of the award is set D. holding that where a state statute provides for the award of attorneys fees those fees can be considered as part of the amount in controversy for the purpose of determining federal diversity jurisdiction E. holding that it is proper for a district court to considered sic the possibility that an appeal may result in the award of attorneys fees in determining the appeal bond amount

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that where a state statute provides for the award of attorneys fees those fees can be considered as part of the amount in controversy for the purpose of determining federal diversity jurisdiction
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any notification required by the terms of this Award Agreement shall be given in writing and shall be deemed effective upon personal delivery or within three (3) days of deposit with the United States Postal Service, by registered or certified mail, with postage and fees prepaid. A notice shall be addressed to the Company, Attention: Secretary, at its principal executive office and to the Participant at the address that he or she most recently provided to the Company.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: airbnb is not and does not become a party to or other participant in any contractual relationship between members , nor is airbnb a real estate broker or insurer .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: merits of a plaintiffs cause of action ... also implicate the class certification decision,” Jackson v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth, 260 F.R.D. 168, 184 (E.D.Pa.2009), such an inquiry is merely preliminary. Hydrogen Peroxide, 552 F.3d at 317. A plaintiff need not establish by a preponderance of the evidence the merits of its claims at the class certification stage, and any inquiry into the merits that is not necessary to a Rule 23 decision is precluded. Jackson, 260 F.R.D. at 184 (citing Newton, 259 F.3d at 166-67, and Hydrogen Peroxide, 552 F.3d at 317-18). However, the movant must do more than “assur[e] ... the court that it intends or plans to meet the requirements” of Rule 23. Hydrogen Peroxide, 552 F.3d at 318; see also Wachtel v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 453 F.3d 179, 186 (3d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). As with other matters relating to Rule 23 Options: A. holding that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right B. holding that to maintain a class action the existence of the class must be pleaded and the limits of the class must be defined with some specificity C. holding that clearly established means the contours of the right were so clear at the time the officials acted that a reasonable official would have understood that what he was doing violated that right D. holding that the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he or she is doing violates that right E. holding that there must be full and clear articulation of the litigations contours at the time of class certification

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that there must be full and clear articulation of the litigations contours at the time of class certification
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: renewed his policy that was in effect on the date of the accident, March 24, 2006. From 2002 until the date of the accident, Murray never alleged that he attempted or recommended to place liquor liability coverage for Ennie. Considering these facts, Murray created an “unreasonable risk of harm” to Ennie at the earliest in the fall of 2002 and at the latest during the last policy renewal in December 2005. Any meeting between Poeng and Murray that occurred in 2006 regarding insurance coverage was a continuation of Murray’s wrongful act of failing to provide the proper coverage. As such, Murray’s wrongful acts did not occur “wholly after” the retroactive date of January 1, 2006. Therefore, we hold that Murray is not covered under the AAIC policy, and that the Dist 5, 627-28 (8th Cir.1973) (<HOLDING>). Here, AAIC named Easter and Ennie in its Options: A. holding that there is an actual controversy between an insurer and the party injured by the insured B. holding that an insurer who brought a declaratory judgment action and out of an abundance of caution named the injured party as an additional defendant 1 must have thought the injured party had some potential interest in the insurance policy and 2 had tacitly conceded the injured partys standing to appeal by not contesting the appeal on the ground of lack of standing C. holding that an injured party in an underlying tort action was not a necessary party in an action by an insurer for declaratory judgment of nonliability where the injured person had not obtained judgment against the insured D. holding that an injured third party does not have the right to bring a direct action against a tortfeasors liability insurer E. holding that an injured person having a possible claim against an insurer who has been made a party defendant to an action for declaratory judg ment possesses the requisite interest to be heard on appeal

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an injured person having a possible claim against an insurer who has been made a party defendant to an action for declaratory judg ment possesses the requisite interest to be heard on appeal
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you represent and warrant that use of any such content ( including derivative works ) by us , our users , or others in contract with us , and in compliance with this agreement , does not and will not infringe any intellectual property rights of any third party .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: estate is a party, compliance with 11 U.S.C. § 327 is required.”); Voluntary Mediation Procedural Requirements (Bankr.E.D.Wash.2000) (“If the bankruptcy estate is a party, the party representing the estate is responsible to get the necessary authority required by 11 U.S.C. 327.”). 5 . It is worth noting that the Trustee would also have been violating § 363(b) if, without an order from this Court, he had used estate funds to pay all or any portion of ex-Judge Clark's fee for his mediation services. This is so because § 363(b) prohibits a trustee from using estate property other than in the "ordinary course of business” and case law is clear that payments of litigation expenses are not "ordinary course” payments.” See In re Fid-Standard Mortg. Corp., 839 F.2d 1517, 1522 (11th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Hickey v. Nightingale Roofing, Inc., 83 B.R. Options: A. recognizing that an attorney hired to represent a debt or is not employed in the ordinary course B. holding that a payment made by certified check rather than the customary regular check was outside the ordinary course of dealings between the parties C. holding that the payment of a settlement from estate funds is not within the ordinary course under 363b D. holding that the debtors deposit of funds was not in the ordinary course of business and was for the purpose of creating a setoff right for the bank E. holding that the term reverse payment is not limited to a cash payment

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the payment of a settlement from estate funds is not within the ordinary course under 363b
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: CURIAM: Appealing the judgment in a criminal case following a remand for resentencing, Billy Wallace raises arguments that are foreclosed by the law of the case doctrine. See United States v. Matthews, 312 F.3d 652, 657 (5th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Even if we were to consider his arguments on- Options: A. holding that a judgment on appeal constitutes the law of the case as to particular issues decided and is applicable throughout subsequent stages of the case B. holding that under the law of the case doctrine an issue of fact or law decided on appeal may not be reexamined by the appellate court on a subsequent appeal C. holding that an issue not raised on direct appeal of sentence is barred by the law of the case from presentation in a subsequent appeal D. holding that law of the case prevented the new jersey district court from redetermining jurisdictional issue previously decided by the district of columbia district court and noting that the principles of comity among courts of the same level of the federal system provide further reason why an issue already decided by a court of equal authority should not be reexamined E. holding that an appellate court may not consider an issue not presented to the trial judge on appeal from final judgment on the merits

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that under the law of the case doctrine an issue of fact or law decided on appeal may not be reexamined by the appellate court on a subsequent appeal
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any covenants or such other provisions of this Agreement are found to be invalid or unenforceable by a final determination of a court of competent jurisdiction, (a) the remaining terms and provisions hereof shall be unimpaired, and (b) the invalid or unenforceable term or provision hereof shall be deemed replaced by a term or provision that is valid and enforceable and that comes closest to expressing the intention of the invalid or unenforceable term or provision hereof.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: successfully challenges his sentence on appeal and the cause is remanded for resentencing, the resentencing is a ‘de novo’ proceeding, at which either side may present evidence anew regarding the appropriate sentence.”). The principle of de novo sentencing often benefits the defendant. See, e.g., Galindez, 955 So.2d at 525 (Cantero, J., specially concurring) (“In fact, because resentencing is de novo, the State was required to produce evidence on sentencing issues even if the State established the fact at the original sentencing.”); Tubwell v. State, 922 So.2d 378, 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (“As this resentencing proceeding was de novo, the state was not relieved of its burden to prove the prior offenses.” (citations omitted)); Rich v. State, 814 So.2d 1207, 1208 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (<HOLDING>); Mills v. State, 724 So.2d 173, 174 (Fla. 4th Options: A. holding that because resentencing following reversal is a new proceeding the state must introduce evidence that the defendant qualifies for enhanced sentencing even though such evidence was introduced in the previous sentencing hearing B. holding that at resentencing the state must present evidence on an enhanced sentencing factor despite having done so at the prior sentencing hearing C. holding that on resentencing following reversal the state was required to introduce evidence to prove the defendant qualified for an enhanced sentence and could not only rely upon evidence introduced at a prior sentencing hearing D. recognizing that sentencing facts are based on the evidence and testimony presented at sentencing under a preponderance of the evidence standard E. holding that at a resentencing the state must again prove the basis for an enhanced sentence even though such evidence was produced at the original sentencing

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that because resentencing following reversal is a new proceeding the state must introduce evidence that the defendant qualifies for enhanced sentencing even though such evidence was introduced in the previous sentencing hearing
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 unusual demand letter. Again, the offer of—to pay the claim had already been extended on multiple occasions, so basically the letter of April the 18th was confirmation of the discussion I had with Mr. McAleer a few weeks earlier. Q. My question was, is it your custom to respond to time-limited demands at 7:30 p.m. on what you are contending is the last day of that demand? Yes or no. A. No, sir. {Id. at 250.) These facts, coupled with the other evidence presented at trial , are sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to find that Nationwide acted in bad faith in responding to Plaintiffs’ time-limited demand to settle within the policy limits and unnecessarily subjected its insured to the possibility of an excess verdict. Brightman,, 580 S.E.2d at 521 (Ga.2003); Holt, 416 S.E.2d at 276 (<HOLDING>). Nationwide did not dispute, and the evidence Options: A. holding that if an insurance company is as a matter of state law liable to a plaintiff in the personal injury action subsequent discharge of the assured in bankruptcy does not alter the obligation of the insurance company and further finding that it is the policy of the law to discharge the bankrupt but not to release from liabilities those who are liable with him B. holding that an insurance company does not act in bad faith solely because it fails to accept a settlement offer within the deadline set by the injured persons attorney but that a jury question on the reasonableness of the insurers actions arose when an insurance company failed to respond to a deadline to settle a claim within policy limits when the company had knowledge of clear liability and special damages exceeding the policy limits C. holding that under georgia law a holder of a master insurance policy is an agent of the insurance company and not the insurer D. holding that even if an insurance broker is the agent of the insurance company for purposes of soliciting and procuring the policy that would not necessarily make the broker the agent of the insurance company for the purpose of receiving notice of suits and claims E. holding the insurance company discharged its fiduciary duty when it established the retained asset account in accordance with the insurance policy

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an insurance company does not act in bad faith solely because it fails to accept a settlement offer within the deadline set by the injured persons attorney but that a jury question on the reasonableness of the insurers actions arose when an insurance company failed to respond to a deadline to settle a claim within policy limits when the company had knowledge of clear liability and special damages exceeding the policy limits
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: U.S.S.G. Chapter 5, Part A (1993). Thus, any error by the district court in denying Oliver eligibility for relief under Amendment 505 was harmless. Nor would Amendment 706 affect his sentence. In Oliver’s § 3582 motion, he conceded that he was held accountable for 11.23 kilograms of cocaine base. Therefore, Oliver’s base offense level would remain unchanged even after Amendment 706 revised § 2Dl.l(c)(l) because he was held responsible for more than 4.5 kilograms of crack cocaine. In short, Oliver’s sentence was not based on a range subsequently lowered by Amendment 706 and the district court lacked authority to grant him a sentencing reduc tion under § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 706. See U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(2)(B); see also United States v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>), cert denied, McFadden v. United States, — Options: A. holding that amendment 706 would not affect the guideline ranges for career offenders sentenced under 4b11 B. holding that the recent amendment to the crack cocaine guidelines does not qualify defendant for a sentencing reduction under 3582c2 because defendant was originally sentenced pursuant to the guideline range for career offenders C. holding that a district court lacks authority under 3582c2 to reduce a defendants sentence when the defendant was sentenced under 4b11 as a career offender D. holding that the district court lacked authority under 3582c2 to grant a sentencing reduction to defendants who were career offenders sentenced under ussg 4b11 because amendment 706 would not ultimately affect their guideline ranges E. holding a reduction in defendants sentence as a career offender was not authorized under 3582c2 because amendment 706 did not lower his applicable guideline range under the careeroffender guidelines

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the district court lacked authority under 3582c2 to grant a sentencing reduction to defendants who were career offenders sentenced under ussg 4b11 because amendment 706 would not ultimately affect their guideline ranges
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 governmental investigations are the kind of discretionary functions covered by § 2680(a) is confirmed by the scores of other cases in accord. See, e.g., United States v. S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense (Varig Airlines), 467 U.S. 797, 820, 104 S.Ct. 2755, 81 L.Ed.2d 660 (1984) (protecting as discretionary acts the FAA’s execution of a “spot-check” pro gram, even where the investigation of a particular aircraft was negligent); Gasho v. United States, 39 F.3d 1420, 1435 (9th Cir.1994) (barring claims based on Customs agents’ investigation of plaintiffs); Blakey v. U.S.S. Iowa, 991 F.2d 148, 153-54 (4th Cir.1993) (dismissing claims alleging that the Navy negligently investigated a fatal explosion); S.E.C. v. Better Life Club of Am., Inc., 995 F.Supp. 167, 180 (D.D.C.1998) (<HOLDING>); Wang v. United States, No. 01-1326, 2001 WL Options: A. holding ijnvestigation and prosecution under 21 of the securities acts to be discretionary B. holding that a state securities claim which alleged federal mail wire and securities violations as the predicate acts did not arise under federal law and thus did not create federal jurisdiction C. holding the indemnification claims to be severable under rule 21 from the primary liability inquiry D. holding that such information is not material under securities law E. recognizing defense in securities case

assistant: The best answer is A. holding ijnvestigation and prosecution under 21 of the securities acts to be discretionary
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: This argument must be rejected. The facts proved in the criminal proceedings and in the multidistrict litigation have thoroughly established that those documents were false. Indeed, the data upon which the statements were based was entirely fabricated, and Poulsen knew this; he was the one who ordered that the data be falsified. See, e.g., Poulsen, 568 F.Supp.2d at 894-99; Poulsen, 2009 WL 1604975, at **10-11; In re Nat’l Century Fin. Enterprises, 783 F.Supp.2d at 1007-10. Further, it is uncontroverted that Poulsen’s representations about National Century’s financial condition were material to, and reasonably relied upon by, Great American in deciding whether to issue the policy. See, e.g., Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, P.A. v. Sahlen, 999 F.2d 1532, 1536 (11th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Jaunich II v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Options: A. holding that financial documents specifically required as part of the application were patently critical to the insurers decision to provide o coverage B. holding that insurers failure to deny existence of insurance coverage under policy at issue was to admit that coverage existed C. holding that the language of 9133 applies only to insurers and not to the insurers employees D. holding that none of the physicians insurers had a duty to provide coverage since the effects of the negligence first manifested themselves prior to the coverage periods of any of the three policies E. holding defendants were required to provide certified english language translation of documents

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that financial documents specifically required as part of the application were patently critical to the insurers decision to provide o coverage
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: Buyer shall be entitled to deduct and withhold from the consideration otherwise payable pursuant to this Agreement such amounts as it is required to deduct and withhold with respect to the making of such payment under the Code, or any provision of state, local or foreign Tax Law. Assuming Seller delivers to Buyer the certificate described in Section 7.5(b)(viii) , Buyer is not aware of any obligation to deduct or withhold on any consideration payable pursuant to this Agreement. In the event Buyer becomes aware of any such obligation, Buyer will promptly notify Seller and cooperate with Seller to reduce or eliminate any such withholding. To the extent that such amounts are so withheld, such withheld and deducted amounts will be treated for all purposes of this Agreement as having been paid to Seller in respect of which such deduction and withholding was made by such Party.

assistant: 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: it is true that the USPTO must correct the patent if plaintiff prevails, the requested relief is still prospective in nature, and does not involve a retroactive remedy. Thus, the Ex parte Young exception may still apply to the request for relief. Defendants contend that the Ex parte Young doctrine does not apply in this case because it is within the Supreme Court’s original and exclusive jurisdiction over all controversies between two or more states. 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a). In defendants’ view, because the real party in interest here is UMass, a co-owner of the patent, this case involves a battle between two state entities, and there is a sufficient remedy in an alternative forum, the Supreme Court. Cf. Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 73-74, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996)(<HOLDING>). However, UUtah chose to sue the state Options: A. holding that the 1996 personal restraint petition of an individual committed in 1980 pursuant to an insanity plea was procedurally barred because it was filed after the oneyear time bar set forth in rcw 1073090 and because the grounds for relief did not fall within the exceptions to the limitation period B. holding that plea in bar may be based only on grounds set forth in statute C. holding that challenge to state proceeding was barred by younger even if it was not barred by rookerfeldman D. holding it was the carefully crafted and intricate remedial scheme set forth by congress that barred ex parte young relief E. holding that it is generally sufficient that an indictment set forth the offense in the words of the statute itself

assistant: The best answer is D. holding it was the carefully crafted and intricate remedial scheme set forth by congress that barred ex parte young relief
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 the use of Rule 60(b) to correct a court’s own mistakes of law was much more efficient than requiring an aggrieved party to appeal. Id. at 531. The panel also cited with approval the recommendation from Moore’s Federal Practice that Rule 60(b)(1) motions not be permitted past the deadline for filing a notice of appeal, thereby preventing Rule 60(b)(1) from becoming a way to assert an otherwise time-barred appeal. Id. (citing Moore’s Fed. Prac. § 60.23(3-4), at 239 (1955)). Although some circuits have resisted an expansive use of Rule 60(b) to correct the court’s mistakes of law, see Silk v. Sandoval, 435 F.2d 1266, 1267-68 (1st Cir.1971), Judge Friendly’s approach has remained the law of this circuit. See Int’l Controls Corp. v. Vesco, 556 F.2d 665, 670 (2d Cir.1977); see also id. (<HOLDING>); see generally 11 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur Options: A. holding that the oneyear period begins to run after the time for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari has expired B. holding that rule 60b1 motion may not be brought after time for appeal has run C. holding that motions for relief from judgment or order brought under federal rule of civil procedure 60b1 provide means for a district court to correct legal errors by the court internal citation omitted D. holding that district court abused its discretion in denying rule 60b1 motion without conducting equitable analysis E. holding that when the district court mistakenly ordered prejudgment interest and a motion to amend was made more than one year after entry of judgment no relief was available under rule 60b6 because rule 60b1 clearly applied

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that rule 60b1 motion may not be brought after time for appeal has run
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: it may not be a room that is “used for detentions other than detentions under this section.” Tex. Fam.Code. Ann. § 52.025(a); Baptist Vie Le, 993 S.W.2d at 653-54 (taking juvenile arrested for murder to homicide division of police department violated Family Code requirements for handling child taken into custody). If, after taking a juvenile into custody, authorities do not take him to either a juvenile processing office or a statutorily designated alternative for questioning, but rather obtain a statement from the juvenile in an area used to interview adult suspects, that statement is inadmissible. Baptist Vie Le, 993 S.W.2d at 654-56; In re U.G., 128 S.W.3d at 799; see Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 52.02(a); Salas v. State, 756 S.W.2d 832, 834-35 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1988, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); see also Roquemore, 60 S.W.3d at 868; Marsh, Options: A. holding statement inadmissible when instead of following section 5202 officers took juvenile first to police station where they obtained signed written statement from him before taking him to appropriate juvenile detention center B. holding juveniles statement inadmissible when after being placed in custody police took juvenile to police station and held juvenile in area where adult suspects were held instead of taking juvenile to a juvenile processing office or any of the places listed as an alternative in section 5202 and placing juvenile in specifically designated office for juveniles C. holding that defendant was arrested when the police officer took physical custody of him by grabbing his arm and returned him to the hotel for detention there D. holding witnesss formal signed written statement given at the police station one hour after the crime following structured police questioning was testimonial E. holding that police executed an illegal arrest when they took a teenage suspect from his home and brought him in handcuffs to the police station for questioning

assistant: The best answer is A. holding statement inadmissible when instead of following section 5202 officers took juvenile first to police station where they obtained signed written statement from him before taking him to appropriate juvenile detention center
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you may choose , at your sole and absolute discretion and risk , to use applications that connect the service or your profile on the service with a third-party service ( each , an `` application '' ) and such application may interact with , connect to or gather and/or pull information from and to your service profile .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: does not logically support the inference that his decision to direct Collins to fire plaintiff was racially motivated. The evidence showed that Garr believed coworker reports of sexual harassment, warned plaintiff verbally and in writing, and fired him upon determining that McCauley’s complaint was credible. Moreover, there was no evidence that defendant had labeled plaintiff as a troublemaker because of his complaints, or that there was any connection between those complaints and his discharge. Thus, even if the allegations of sexual harassment were false, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it was his race, and not the allegations of sexual harassment, that motivated defendant’s decision to discharge him. See Elrod v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 939 F2d 1466, 1470-71 (11th Cir 1991) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff’s subjective perception that he was Options: A. holding that a plaintiff has not demonstrated that the employers reason for terminating him was pretextual if the employer reasonably believed the complaint of sexual harassment lodged against the plaintiff and acted on it in good faith B. holding that where the employer fired the plaintiff upon a good faith belief that he sexually harassed coworkers the plaintiff could not prove pretext by challenging the harassment allegations C. holding that a plaintiff may rely on the same evidence to prove both pretext and discrimination D. holding that the test for good faith is the actual belief of the party and not the reasonableness of that belief E. holding that plaintiff failed to establish pretext where plaintiff was terminated after the employer conducted an investigation into a subordinates allegations of misconduct on the part of the plaintiff and believed the allegations to be true even though plaintiff presented evidence in the lawsuit that the allegations may have been false

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that where the employer fired the plaintiff upon a good faith belief that he sexually harassed coworkers the plaintiff could not prove pretext by challenging the harassment allegations
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: from the Guidelines range. Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) (requiring the sentencing court to state its reasons for imposing a sentence outside of the Guidelines). As indicated above, Mr. Johnson argues that his sentence is proeedurally unreasonable because: (1) the probation officer’s extrapolation was flawed and should not have been considered in determining the sentence; (2) he did not receive notice of the probation officer’s extrapolation memorandum ; and (3) the district judge did not adequately explain his reasons for imposing the 8 year sentence. However, it is undisputed that Mr. Johnson never raised these arguments in the district court. Therefore, we review them for plain error. See United States v. Romero, 491 F.3d 1173, 1176-77 (10th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Atencio, 476 F.3d 1099, Options: A. recognizing that we review the sentence imposed by a district court under the abuse of discretion standard B. holding that plain error review is used for unpreserved challenges to the method by which the district court arrived at a sentence including arguments that the sentencing court failed to explain adequately the sentence imposed under the statutory factors in 3553a C. holding that a sentence imposed for a violation of supervised release will be upheld where 1 the district court considered the applicable policy statements 2 the sentence is within the statutory maximum and 3 the sentence is reasonable D. holding statutory error harmless where district court imposed the highest available sentence under guidelines range and considered sentencing to the statutory maximum E. holding that sentence is reasonable when the district court properly addresses sentencing factors of 3553a

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that plain error review is used for unpreserved challenges to the method by which the district court arrived at a sentence including arguments that the sentencing court failed to explain adequately the sentence imposed under the statutory factors in 3553a
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: record, it appears that at the time the City stopped complying in 1992, it gave no notice to the Court, the lawyers for the plaintiff class, the public and perhaps even the City Council and the Mayor. If true, the City’s action was unacceptable and potentially contumacious. The City should have asked the Court to modify or dissolve the decree if it thought it had achieved compliance. The City’s argument that a Court Order of this magnitude would just dissolve of its own accord, like a divorce decree’s alimony payments, is simply wrong. Not surprisingly, the City has pointed to no cases that support that position; indeed, the authorities are to the contrary. See, e.g., Board of Educ. of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 249-50, 111 S.Ct. 630, 112 L.Ed.2d 715 (1991) (<HOLDING>); GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumers Union of the Options: A. holding that good faith compliance with desegregation decree is relevant factor in district courts determination as to whether vestiges of past discrimination have been eliminated such that decree should be terminated B. holding that the trial judge had the power to incorporate a settlement agreement in a decree following the entry of a decree of divorce C. holding that a motion to terminate a consent decree was moot because the challenged provisions of the decree had expired D. holding that a lower court is bound by the decree of the appellate court and can only enter a judgment or decree in strict compliance with the appellate courts mandate E. holding that a motion to terminate a consent decree was moot because there was no consent decree left to be terminated

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that good faith compliance with desegregation decree is relevant factor in district courts determination as to whether vestiges of past discrimination have been eliminated such that decree should be terminated
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Purchaser Parent is a corporation duly incorporated, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the state of Maryland, OP Purchaser is a limited partnership duly formed, validly existing, and in good standing under the laws of the state of Delaware, and Holdco Purchaser is a limited liability company duly organized, validly existing, and in good standing under the laws of the state of Delaware. Each of Purchaser Parent and Purchaser has the requisite power and authority to own, sell, lease and operate its properties and to carry on its business as now being conducted. Each of Purchaser Parent and Purchaser has the power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement and to consummate the transactions and perform its obligations contemplated by this Agreement.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: There are no actions, suits or proceedings pending or, to the knowledge of the Borrower, threatened with respect to the Borrower or any of its Restricted Subsidiaries (i) that have had, or would reasonably be expected to have, a Material Adverse Effect, or (ii) that question the validity or enforceability of any of the Loan Documents, or of any action to be taken by the Borrower or any of the other Credit Parties pursuant to any of the Loan Documents.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EACH GUARANTOR HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY WAIVES TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY LEGAL ACTION OR PROCEEDING RELATING TO THIS GUARANTEE, ANY OTHER CREDIT DOCUMENT AND FOR ANY COUNTERCLAIM THEREIN.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event that one or more of the provisions of this Agreement shall become invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions contained herein shall not be affected thereby. In the event any of Section 7(a), (b) or (d) is not enforceable in accordance with its terms, Executive and the Company agree that such Section shall be reformed to make such Section enforceable in a manner which provides the Company the maximum rights permitted at law.

assistant: Severability