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 remaining testimony in the record, including Dr. Cohen’s, concerned several ways that Golden Corral could have remedied the hazard to make it safe. But, with respect to hazards about which a property owner has actual or constructive knowledge, the owner’s duty is to reduce or eliminate the risk. CMH Homes, Inc. v. Daenen, 15 S.W.3d 97, 99 (Tex.2000). In this case, consistent with Texas law, the jury was asked to determine whether Golden Corral failed to exercise ordinary care by both failing to adequately warn Cynthia of the condition and by failing to make that condition reasonably safe. And, we have determined that the evidence conclusively established that Golden Corral discharged its duty by providing an adequate warning that the floor was wet. See Williams, 940 S.W.2d at 584 (<HOLDING>). After carefully reviewing the record, and Options: A. holding that while a lawfully issued warrant to search premises authorizes the officers executing it to search in a reasonable manner whatever spots within the described premises their professional experience indicates may be used as a cache for the items named in the warranty such a warrant does not by its own force permit a search of the persons residents or visitorswho chance to be at the premises at the time the warrant is executed or belongings of a nonresident visitor present on the premises B. holding that a business owner has a duty to use reasonable care to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition for patrons C. holding that the defendant who owned the premises could discharge its duty by either warning the plaintiff or making the premises reasonably safe D. holding that a premises owner can discharge its duty by making the property safe or by warning E. holding police officer who was shot by occupier of premises could not recover from premises owner for injuries the officer should have reasonably expected to sustain while engaged in the line of duty

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the defendant who owned the premises could discharge its duty by either warning the plaintiff or making the premises reasonably safe
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: Mills was not there. In light of Mills’s continued missed appointments and the officer’s continued inability to locate him, Mills was charged with first-degree escape in violation of Conn. Gen.Stat. § 53a-169(a). On June 2, 1998, he was convicted of this crime. The PSR. relied on this conviction as a predicate violent felony conviction in recommending that Mills be sentenced under the ACCA. At a sentencing hearing held on January 22, 2007, the district court rejected Mills’s objection to the classification of this offense as a violent felony for purposes of sentencing him under the ACCA. Employing the “categorical approach,” see Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 602, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990), and relying on United States v. Jackson, 301 F.3d 59, 63 (2d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>), the court concluded that it was required to Options: A. holding that escape is categorically a violent felony under the acca B. holding that escape from secure custody is a violent felony C. holding prior to chambers that a walkaway escape is categorically a violent felony D. holding that attempted burglary as defined by florida law is a violent felony under acca E. holding fleeing police officers in a vehicle was a violent felony under the acca

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that escape is categorically a violent felony under the acca
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 2.11 , the parties hereto agree that the obligations imposed on them in this Agreement are special, unique and of an extraordinary character, and that, in the event of breach by any party, damages would not be an adequate remedy and each of the other parties shall be entitled to specific performance and injunctive and other equitable relief in addition to any other remedy to which it may be entitled, at law or in equity. The parties hereto further agree to waive any requirement for the securing or posting of any bond in connection with the obtaining of any such injunctive or other equitable relief.

assistant: Specific Performance
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: Electric Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)). The court does not weigh the evidence to determine the truth of the matter, but rather to determine if the evidence creates a genuine issue for trial. Sagan, 342 F.3d at 497 (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505). III. DISCUSSION A necessary element of each of Plaintiffs claims against the City is a showing that an employment relationship existed between her and the City. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) (Title VII); Morris v. Oldham Cnty. Fiscal Ct., 201 F.3d 784, 795 (6th Cir.2000) (observing that “Congress chose to limit Title VII liability to employers only”); 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(A) (ADA); Swallows v. Barnes & Noble Book Stores, Inc., 128 F.3d 990, 992 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2202(1) (ELCRA); Options: A. holding that defendant must demonstrate meeting of the minds in order to establish existence of immunity agreement B. holding that exemption under the ada does not preclude liability under the rehabilitation act C. holding that the complaint stated a claim under the flsa where it alleged that parties were an employer and employees within meaning of act and that the defendantemployers operation constitutes an enterprise engaged in commerce within the meaning of the act D. holding that in order to establish liability under the ada the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant was an employer within the meaning of the statute E. holding that to establish tort liability in a negligence action there must be a legal duty on the part of the defendant to plaintiff

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that in order to establish liability under the ada the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant was an employer within the meaning of the statute
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Walfoort Deck, Ex. 8.) 6 . Bacchus retired from Amtrak in October 2001. (See Ford Deck, Ex. 13 at 5.) 7 . Bacchus testified in her August 2002 deposition that seeking Hall's approval was a "formality” and that the verbal notification to Hall was to merely inform her that she was about to fill the NEC Manager position. (See Walfoort Decl., Ex. 16 at 71-73.) 8 . Ramirez testified that assuming there were five candidates at the time he ranked the candidates, he “probably” would have ranked plaintiff fourth. (See Ford Deck, Ex. 17 at 118.) 9 . Bacchus testified that she did not discuss and assess with Ramirez the candidates for the NEC Manager position, and a select tein, Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky, 59 F.Supp.2d 27, 33 (D.D.C.1999); Weaver v. Gross, 605 F.Supp. 210, 212-213 (D.D.C.1985) (<HOLDING>). Contra Hunter v. Ark Rests. Corp., 3 Options: A. holding that the individual defendant does not have to be in privity of contract with the plaintiff to be held liable under 1981 B. holding that employer may be held liable under 1981 for discrimination by supervisory employee C. holding that a superior can be held liable in his individual capacity if he participated in the deprivation of a plaintiffs constitutional rights D. holding that individuals can be held liable under 1981 only when they have been personally involved or directly participated in the discrimination E. holding that officers directors and employees of a corporation may become personally liable under 1981

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that individuals can be held liable under 1981 only when they have been personally involved or directly participated in the discrimination
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: this appeal to proceed appears to be contraindicative of the type of scenario contemplated by this Court in McGourty[ v. Pennsylvania Millers Mut. Ins. Co., 704 A.2d 663, 665 (Pa.Super.1997)], wherein characterization of the [common pleas court’s] orders as collateral would merely “caus[e] litigation to be interrupted and delayed by piecemeal review of trial court decisions.” McGourty, 704 A.2d at 665. Pridgen v. Parker Hannifin Gorp., Nos. 3114 & 3115 EDA 2003, slip op. at 6 (Pa.Super.Apr. 26, 2005). After the submission of briefs and the presentation of oral argument in this Court, the parties offered supplemental submissions expressing general agreement that the reasoning of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. at 313-20, 115 S.Ct. at 2156-59 (<HOLDING>), is consistent with a proper application of Options: A. holding that the issue of whether the attorney general was entitled to qualified immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine B. holding that defendant may not pursue interlocutory appeal of the denial of qualified immunity insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a genuine issue of fact for trial C. holding that the existence of genuine issues of material facts render not appealable a pretrial denial of summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity D. holding in the context of the assertion of a qualified immunity defense that a trial courts summary judgment order that merely determines that the pretrial record sets forth a genuine issue of fact for trial does not meet the requirements of the federal collateral order doctrine E. holding that a defendant entitled to invoke a qualified immunity defense may not appeal a district courts summary judgment order insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a genuine issue of fact for trial

assistant: The best answer is D. holding in the context of the assertion of a qualified immunity defense that a trial courts summary judgment order that merely determines that the pretrial record sets forth a genuine issue of fact for trial does not meet the requirements of the federal collateral order doctrine
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 warranties and representations (as of the date such warranties and representations were made) made herein shall be considered to have been relied upon by the parties hereto and shall survive the issuance of the New Warrant. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors and permitted assigns of each of the parties; provided , that no party may assign this Agreement or the obligations and rights of such party hereunder without the prior written consent of the other party hereto.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Grantor hereby waives, to the extent permitted by Applicable Law, all rights of redemption, appraisement, valuation, stay, extension or moratorium now or hereafter in force under any Applicable Law in order to prevent or delay the enforcement of this Agreement or the absolute sale of the Collateral or any portion thereof. Each Grantor shall remain liable for any deficiency if the proceeds of any sale or other disposition of the Collateral are insufficient to pay its Obligations and the fees and disbursements of any attorneys employed by the Administrative Agent or any other Secured Party to collect such deficiency.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 758 (1978) (original complaint, if properly served, remains in effect until amended complaint is properly served). B. Personal Jurisdiction Defendants Fashion Group and Mar-amoti argue that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them. This argument is without merit. Robins alleges that Max Mara USA was “designed solely to sell [Fashion Group’s] garments and other product lines ... and Max Mara USA does not sell garments from any other manufacturer.” Robins Aff. ¶ 30. Where a foreign corporation sells goods in New York through a subsidiary, such activity “subject[s] the parent corporation to personal jurisdiction in New York.” Pfizer Inc. v. Perrigo Co., 903 F.Supp. 14, 16 (S.D.N.Y.1995). See also Canterbury Belts Ltd. v. Lane Walker Rudkin, Ltd., 869 F.2d 34, 40 (2d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Thus this Court has personal jurisdiction Options: A. holding that a divorce granted at a foreign consulate in new york was not valid for immigration purposes because it did not comply with new york law B. holding that for purposes of longarm jurisdiction because plaintiff was employed in new york the original event causing his injury occurred in new york C. holding that a parent must exercise some control over the subsidiarys activities which does not require that the subsidiary be controlled to an ultimate degree by its parent although something more than mere passive investment by the parent is required the parent must have and exercise control and direction over the affairs of its subsidiary in order for venue to be proper D. holding that a foreign defendant was not present in new york for the purposes of jurisdiction simply because it engaged in financing transactions there E. holding that a subsidiarys activities will be attributed to the foreign parent for purposes of determining the parents amenability to personal jurisdiction in new york

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a subsidiarys activities will be attributed to the foreign parent for purposes of determining the parents amenability to personal jurisdiction in new york
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as set forth in the Disclosure Schedules or as disclosed pursuant to Section 6.2 , there are no actions or proceedings pending by or against Borrower or any Subsidiary before any court or administrative agency in which a likely adverse decision would reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

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: If any Party learns of an infringement or threatened infringement by a Third Party of any Celgene Controlled Patent in the Celgene Territory, such Party will promptly notify the other Party and will provide such other Party with available evidence of such infringement, and following such notification, the Parties will confer.

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: Neither party shall sell, transfer, assign, nor subcontract any right or obligation hereunder except as expressly provided herein without the prior written consent of each other party. Any act in derogation of the foregoing shall be null and void.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If at the time of enforcement of Sections 5, 6 , or 7 of this Agreement a court holds that the restrictions stated herein are unreasonable under circumstances then existing, the parties hereto agree that the maximum period, scope or geographical area reasonable under such circumstances shall be substituted for the stated period, scope, or area. Because Executive's services are unique and because Executive has access to Confidential Information and Work Product, the parties hereto agree that money damages would not be an adequate remedy for any breach of this Agreement. Therefore, in the event a breach or threatened breach of this Agreement, the Company or its successors or assigns may, in addition to other rights and remedies existing in their favor, apply to any court of competent jurisdiction for specific performance and/or injunctive or other relief in order to enforce, or prevent any violations of, the provisions hereof (without posting a bond or other security). In addition, in the event of an alleged breach or violation by Executive of Section 7(a) or 7(b) , the Noncompete Period will be tolled during the pendency of any proceeding (including any arbitration) over such breach or violation, provided that such proceeding was initiated during the Noncompete Period. Executive agrees that the restrictions contained in Sections 5, 6 , and 7 are reasonable.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: WITHOUT LIMITATION OF THE THIRD SENTENCE OF §25, THIS AGREEMENT AND THE OTHER LOAN DOCUMENTS REPRESENT THE FINAL AGREEMENT AMONG THE PARTIES AND MAY NOT BE CONTRADICTED BY EVIDENCE OF PRIOR, CONTEMPORANEOUS, OR SUBSEQUENT ORAL AGREEMENTS OF THE PARTIES. THERE ARE NO UNWRITTEN ORAL AGREEMENTS AMONG THE PARTIES.

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 waiver by any of the parties hereto of a breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach. The failure of a party to insist upon strict adherence to any provision of this Agreement on one or more occasions shall not be considered a waiver or deprive that party of the right thereafter to insist upon strict adherence to that provision or any other provision of this Agreement. Any waiver must be in writing.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Credit Party shall, and shall cause each of its Restricted Subsidiaries to pay and discharge all material taxes, assessments, and other charges and claims related thereto imposed on the Company or any of its Restricted Subsidiaries prior to the date on which penalties attach other than any tax, assessment, charge, or claims which is being contested in good faith and for which adequate reserves have been established in compliance with GAAP.

assistant: Taxes
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 Consultant’s Services hereunder shall be for a term commencing on the close of business on the Transition Date and ending as of the close of business on October 1, 2018 (collectively, the “ Term ”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, (i) the Consultant may terminate the Term and the Consultant’s Services hereunder at any time, for any reason or no reason, and (ii) the Company may terminate the Term and the Consultant’s Services hereunder only for Cause (as defined in the Employment Agreement).

assistant: Terms
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 provisions of this Section 5 shall survive the termination of this Agreement for any reason, except in the event Executive is terminated by the Company without Cause, or if Executive terminates this Agreement with Good Reason, in either of which events, clause (i) of Section 5.4 shall be null and void and of no further force or effect. The non-renewal of this Agreement at the end of the Term shall not be deemed a termination by the Company without Cause.

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: v. SIIS, 109 Nev. 327, 329, 849 P.2d 267, 269 (1993). 3 NRS 241.020(1). 4 105 Nev. 886, 784 P.2d 974 (1989). 5 Id. at 892, 784 P.2d at 978. 6 1960 Nev. Stat., ch. 23, at 25. 7 Id. § 4, at 25-26. 8 70 Nev 116, 120-21, 258 P.2d 982, 984 (1953). 9 Id. at 121, 258 P.2d at 984 (quoting State ex rel. Kendall v. Cole, 38 Nev. 215, 221, 148 P. 551, 552 (1915) (quoting Bruce Wyman, The Principles of the Administrative Law Governing the Relations of Public Officers § 44 (1903))). 10 Id. at 123, 258 P.2d at 985. 11 38 Nev. 215, 148 P 551 (1915). 12 Id. at 224, 148 P. at 553. 13 Id. at 232-33, 148 P. at 556. 14 1967 Nev. Stat., ch. 523, § 444, at 1471. 15 89 Nev. 308, 311, 511 P.2d 1036, 1037 (1973). 16 See State ex rel. Richardson v. Board of Regents, 70 Nev. 144, 150, 261 P.2d 515, 518 (1953) (<HOLDING>); see also Board of Regents v. Oakley, 97 Nev. Options: A. holding board cannot ignore the rules it adopts under the delegation of authority to prescribe rules for its governance and the governance of the university because such rules have the force and effect of statute B. recognizing privilege under federal rules C. holding valid administrative rules promulgated by agency acting within its statutory authority have force and effect of legislation D. holding that when an agencys interpretation of its own rules flies in the face of the language of the rules themselves it is owed no deference E. holding that the federal expert witness compensation rules are in direct conflict with the state rules even when the state rules allow for a greater recovery

assistant: The best answer is A. holding board cannot ignore the rules it adopts under the delegation of authority to prescribe rules for its governance and the governance of the university because such rules have the force and effect of statute
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All agreements, representations and warranties contained in this Agreement and the other Loan Documents or in any document delivered pursuant hereto or thereto shall be for the benefit of Lender and shall survive the execution and delivery of this Agreement. Sections 2.8 , 6.3 and 11.10 shall survive the 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: it comes to enforcing a child support order. Perhaps attorney fees were left out of section 600B.37 by legislative oversight — a ease of “casus omissus.” But even if this is a case of casus omissus, “we- have no right to supply the defect. The right to legislate is in the legislature and not in us.” Ctr. Twp. Sch. Dist. by Rollins v. Oakland Indep. Sch. Dist., 25S Iowa 391, 112 N.W.2d 665, 671 (Iowa 1962). For these reasons, the district court correctly denied Myers’s request for attorney fees, AFFIRMED. 1 . Myers filed a notice of appeal to challenge the attorney fee ruling following the contempt action. If Cosby had opted to challenge the contempt finding and jail sentence, his remedy would have been certiorari. See generally In re Marriage of Welsher, 274 N.W.2d 369, 371 (Iowa 1979) (<HOLDING>). If the court had not found Cosby in contempt, Options: A. holding no appeal lies for order to punish for contempt B. recognizing inherent power of supreme court independent of statutory authority to punish for contempt of court C. holding that mothers failure to appeal prior contempt order precluded her challenge to prior order in appeal from later order entered based upon prior contempt order D. holding that it is a well established rule that the power to judge a contempt rests exclusively with the court contemned and that no court is authorized to punish a contempt against another court E. holding that this court has inherent as well as express statutory authority to punish for contempt

assistant: The best answer is A. holding no appeal lies for order to punish for contempt
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If the Company terminates the Executive’s employment during the Employment Period because of the Executive’s Disability pursuant to Section 9(a)(ii)(A) , the Company shall pay to the Executive (i) all Accrued Benefits, if any, to which the Executive is entitled, and (ii) a lump sum payment of an amount equal to a pro rata portion (based upon the number of days the Executive was employed during the calendar year in which the Date of Termination occurs) of the Annual Bonus based on the achievement of the applicable performance criteria for the year in which Executive’s employment terminates, payable at the time set forth in Section 4(b) . Except as set forth herein or, if more favorable to the Executive, in the award agreements applicable to equity-based awards granted to Executive, including, without limitation, the Equity Awards, the Company shall have no further compensation obligations to the Executive (or the Executive’s legal representatives) under this Agreement.

assistant: Disability
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 case be remanded to the District Court with instructions to determine with clarity whether the defendant lacked the mental capacity to represent himself at trial. Appellant Duane McKinney challenges his conviction on four counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, two counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, two counts of engaging in monetary transactions in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957, and three counts of first degree theft in violation of D.C.Code § 22-3212(a). During trial, McKinney represented himself, with appointed counsel on standby. On April 17, 2008, the jury returned its verdict against McKinney. On June 19, 2008, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164, 128 S.Ct. 2379, 2387-88, 171 L.Ed.2d 345 (2008) (<HOLDING>). On July 1, 2008, McKinney, through counsel, Options: A. holding that defense counsel need only consult and be governed by his clients wishes when the question arises as to whether or not a plea of guilty should be entered trial by jury waived or whether the defendant should take the witness stand in his own defense B. holding that no mental health expert is competent to express an opinion about whether a particular set of facts constitutes a mitigating circumstance because that would invade the province of the judge and jury C. holding that a trial court errs by failing to limit the definitions of the culpable mental states as they relate to the conduct elements involved in the particular offense D. holding that the con stitution permits judges to take realistic account of the particular defendants mental capacities by asking whether a defendant who seeks to conduct his own defense at trial is mentally competent to do so E. holding that trial counsel did not act unreasonably in failing to raise the issue of the defendants mental health at trial

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the con stitution permits judges to take realistic account of the particular defendants mental capacities by asking whether a defendant who seeks to conduct his own defense at trial is mentally competent to do so
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 burden of proving (1) that the defendant was enriched, (2) that such enrichment was at the plaintiff’s expense, and (3) “that the circumstances were such that in equity or good conscience [the defendant] should return the money or property to [the plaintiff].” Martin v. Martin, 54 V.I. 379, 394 (V.I. 2010) (citing Gov’t Guarantee Fund of Republic of Finland v. Hyatt Corp., 955 F. Supp. 441, 460, 35 V.I. 356 (D. V.I. 1997)). However, this Court summarily adopted those elements of unjust enrichment by citing a single District Court of the Virgin Islands case, without determining whether that rule represents the sounder rule for the Virgin Islands. See Gov’t of the V.I. v. Connor, 60 V.I. 599, 607 n.1 (V.I. 2014); Banks v. Int’l Rental & Leasing Corp., 55 V.I. 967, 979 (V.I. 2011) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, after this Court issued its Martin Options: A. recognizing that a trial judge can implicitly find a prosecutors proffered reasons credible B. recognizing that a construction contract implicitly imposes a duty on contractors to perform work according to the standard of due care C. recognizing wrongful adoption cause of action grounded in fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation D. recognizing that the legislature implicitly repealed 1 vic 4 through its adoption of 4 vic 21 in 2004 E. recognizing this purpose albeit implicitly

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that the legislature implicitly repealed 1 vic 4 through its adoption of 4 vic 21 in 2004
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 complaint is not a “challenge” to the Win-gate cleanup, and therefore falls outside the scope of section 113(h). Alternatively, plaintiffs contend that CERCLA’s ban against judicial review of Ongoing cleanup plans does not apply to their constitutional claims. We review de novo the court’s grant of defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Ochran v. United States, 273 F.3d 1315, 1317 (11th Cir.2001). A. IS THE COMPLAINT A “CHALLENGE” TO THE WINGATE REMEDIAL PLAN? Plaintiffs first attempt to circumvent the 113(h) bar by insisting that their complaint does not really “challenge” the remedial plan for Wingate, as set forth in the consent decree. A suit challenges a remedial action within the meaning of 113(h) if it interferes with the implementatio 989) (<HOLDING>). Conversely, where a suit does not call into Options: A. holding that a party waives remand by undertaking affirmative conduct in federal court such as participating in discovery or filing an amended complaint B. holding complaint barred because it challenged the remedial action plan to the extent that it sought to enjoin epa from participating in the shipment of wastes from a superfund site in texas to alabama and to prevent epa from participating in any further remedial action at the site C. holding that defendants allegations of prejudice on ground that plaintiffs allegedly untimely notice prevented defendant from participating in foreclosure action so as to mitigate its liability and protect its interests were purely speculative D. holding that to the extent plaintiffs present action is based on conduct subsequent to the original action it is not barred by the prior litigation E. holding that the epa is also exempt from the requirement to consider alternatives under section nepa 102e

assistant: The best answer is B. holding complaint barred because it challenged the remedial action plan to the extent that it sought to enjoin epa from participating in the shipment of wastes from a superfund site in texas to alabama and to prevent epa from participating in any further remedial action at the site
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: was both foreseeable and certain. See American Capital II, 59 Fed. Cl. at 575-76; American Capital III, 63 Fed. Cl. at 712-13. The Government argues that “the Court appears to have adopted an approach that equates the causation requirement with the foreseeability requirement.” 2/25/05 Gov’t Mot. to Reconsider at 19 (citing American Capital III, 63 Fed.Cl. at 712) (quoting Arthur L. Corbin, Corbin On Contracts §§ 1006, 1007 at 60-61 (interim ed. 2002) (“Our only test of ‘causation,’ ... is foreseeability!.]”)). The Government thus concludes that “to the extent the Court in the present case collapsed the causation analysis into its foreseeability analysis, that approach is incompatible with CalFed.” 2/25/05 Gov’t Mot. to Reconsider at 20. The Gove 3 F.3d 1426, 1429 (8th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Crocker v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 826 Options: A. holding that officers directors and employees of a corporation may become personally liable under 1981 B. holding that where plaintiff reata failed to demonstrate waiver of citys immunity from liability under tort claims act plaintiffs claims were properly dismissed and plaintiff was not entitled to replead C. holding officer personally liable because he agreed to personally guarantee payment on an account D. holding that where an express contract was in place between plaintiff and defendant that governed the compensation sought by plaintiff plaintiff may not recover under a theory of unjust enrichment E. holding that professional corporation was not necessary party where plaintiff asserts claims that accrue to plaintiff personally

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that professional corporation was not necessary party where plaintiff asserts claims that accrue to plaintiff personally
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (without reference to the conflict of laws provisions thereof that would result in the application of the laws of another jurisdiction) and, where applicable, the laws of the United States of America. Any action, suit or other legal proceeding arising under or relating to any provision of this Agreement shall be commenced only in a court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (or, if appropriate, a federal court located within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts), and the Company and the Employee each consents to the jurisdiction of such a court. The Company and the Employee each hereby irrevocably waives any right to a trial by jury in any action, suit or other legal proceeding arising under or relating to any provision of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No Person will have, as a result of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement or other Transaction Document, any valid right, interest or claim against or upon the Company or such Investor for any commission, fee or other compensation pursuant to any agreement, arrangement or understanding entered into by or on behalf of such Investor.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Partnership has initially selected Alston & Bird LLP (“ Partnership Counsel ”) as legal counsel to the Partnership. Partnership Counsel may also be counsel to the General Partner, the CTT Partner or the Asset Manager, and one or more of their respective Affiliates may be represented by the same counsel. The attorneys, accountants and other experts who perform services for the Partnership may also perform services for the General Partner, the CTT Partner, the Asset Manager and any of their respective Affiliates. The General Partner may, without the consent of any other Partner, execute on behalf of the Partnership and the Partners any consent to the representation of the Partnership, the General Partner, the CTT Partner, the Asset Manager and any of their respective Affiliates that Partnership Counsel may request pursuant to applicable rules of ethics or professional conduct or similar rules in any applicable jurisdiction (“ Rules ”). Each Preferred Partner acknowledges that Partnership Counsel does not represent any Preferred Partner with respect to the Partnership in the absence of a clear and explicit agreement to such effect between the Preferred Partner and Partnership Counsel (and in any case only to the extent specifically set forth in that agreement), and that in the absence of any such agreement Partnership Counsel shall owe no duties to a Preferred Partner with respect to the Partnership, whether or not Partnership Counsel has in the past represented or is currently representing such Preferred Partner with respect to other matters. In the event any dispute or controversy arises between any Preferred Partner and the Partnership, or between any Preferred Partner or the Partnership, on the one hand, and the General Partner (or any of its Affiliates that Partnership Counsel represents), on the other hand, then each Preferred Partner agrees that Partnership Counsel may represent either the Partnership or the General Partner (or its Affiliates), or both, in any such dispute or controversy to the extent permitted by the Rules, and each Preferred Partner hereby consents to such representation. Each Preferred Partner further acknowledges that, whether or not Partnership Counsel has in the past represented such Preferred Partner with respect to other matters, Partnership Counsel has not represented the interests of any Preferred Partner in the preparation and negotiation of this Agreement. In addition, Partnership Counsel does not undertake to monitor the compliance of the General Partner, the CTT Partner, the Asset Manager or their respective Affiliates with the terms set forth in this Agreement or the Asset Management Agreement, nor does Partnership Counsel monitor compliance with applicable laws.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Fed.R.Civ.P. 39(a). But neither the Seventh Amendment, nor any other provision of the Constitution, preserves any right to a bench trial. Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 510, 79 S.Ct. 948, 3 L.Ed.2d 988 (1959). Plaintiff initially sought compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the court, which triggered Principal Summa’s Seventh Amendment rights. See U.S. Const, amend. VII. But the right to a jury trial does not depend only on the initial pleadings. See Hildebrand, 607 F.2d at 709-10. When subsequent events leave only equitable issues to be resolved, the right to a jury trial does not exist and is not preserved by the Seventh Amendment or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38. See id.; see also Wall v. Trust Co. of Ga., 946 F.2d 805, 809 (11th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). So, the dismissal of Principal Summa’s Options: A. holding that if the federal claims are dismissed before trial the state claims should be dismissed as well B. holding that no right to a jury trial existed after one of the plaintiffs claims was dismissed leaving only an equitable claim C. holding one example of a claim is a right to an equitable remedy that can be satisfied by an alternative right to payment D. recognizing that the determination is an equitable one E. holding that back pay was an integral part of title vips equitable remedies and that therefore no right to jury trial existed

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that no right to a jury trial existed after one of the plaintiffs claims was dismissed leaving only an equitable claim
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law or the Company’s articles of incorporation and bylaws, the Company shall, during the Employment Term and after Employee’s Separation from Service, indemnify Employee (including providing advancement of expenses) for any judgments, fines, amounts paid in settlement and reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees, incurred by Employee in connection with the defense of any lawsuit or other claim or investigation to which Employee is made, or threatened to be made, a party or witness by reason of being or having been an officer, director or employee of the Company or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates as deemed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“ Affiliates ”), or a fiduciary of any of their benefit plans, other than actions by the Company against Employee alleging breach of this Agreement by Employee.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The parties shall hold the closing of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement (the “ Closing ”) at 10:00 A.M. on December , 2015 or at such other time and place as the parties agree (the date of the Closing, the “ Closing Date ”).

assistant: Closings
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 GUARANTY SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK WITHOUT REGARD TO CONFLICT OF LAWS PRINCIPLES THEREOF THAT WOULD RESULT IN THE APPLICATION OF ANY LAW OTHER THAN THE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: on appeal, the Second Circuit reasoned tha r, however, addressed when jeopardy attaches in the case of a guilty or nolo contendere plea that has been offered but not yet accepted by the district court. We hold that jeopardy attaches only when the district court accepts the defendant’s guilty or nolo contendere plea. In the present case, for example, the magistrate judge could not adjudicate Bearden’s guilt or finally accept his plea; only the district court could do that. To hold that jeopardy attached when the magistrate judge accepted Bearden’s plea, on the other hand, would lead to the conclusion that the district court does not, in fact, retain the ultimate decision making responsibility regarding pleas, a conclusion that would raise Article III concerns. See Dees, 125 F.3d at 268 (<HOLDING>); Williams, 23 F.3d at 634 (same). In so Options: A. holding that bankruptcy judges are not bound by appellate ruhngs of single district judges even those from their own district B. holding that failure to object to magistrate judges recommendation waived issue on appeal C. holding that district judges power to review magistrate judges actions prevents article iii from being undermined by such delegations D. recognizing that the magistrate judges actions effectively severed claims against only certain defendants E. holding that a judges conduct seriously undermined the publics faith that judges are as subject to the law as those who appear before them and justified removal from office

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that district judges power to review magistrate judges actions prevents article iii from being undermined by such delegations
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: On the Effective Date, after giving effect to the transactions contemplated hereby to occur on the Effective Date, the authorized Equity Interests of Ultimate Parent and each of its Subsidiaries and the issued and outstanding Equity Interests of Ultimate Parent and each of its Subsidiaries are as set forth on Schedule 6.01(e). All of the issued and outstanding shares of Equity Interests of Ultimate Parent and each of its Subsidiaries have been validly issued and are fully paid and non-assessable, and the holders thereof are not entitled to any preemptive, first refusal or other similar rights. All Equity Interests of such Subsidiaries of Ultimate Parent are owned by Ultimate Parent free and clear of all Liens (other than Permitted Specified Liens). Except as described on Schedule 6.01(e), there are no outstanding debt or equity securities of Ultimate Parent or any of its Subsidiaries and no outstanding obligations of Ultimate Parent or any of its Subsidiaries convertible into or exchangeable for, or warrants, options or other rights for the purchase or acquisition from Ultimate Parent or any of its Subsidiaries, or other obligations of Ultimate Parent or any of its Subsidiaries to issue, directly or indirectly, any shares of Equity Interests of Ultimate Parent or any of its Subsidiaries.

assistant: Capitalization