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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The following provisions shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement: Sections 1, 2.2 (last two sentences of the first paragraph), 3, 7, 8, 11 and 9.6 and Appendix B.

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: numerous other contacts, particularly when reliance upon the law of the forum state would seriously alter the original bargain and disrupt the expectations of the parties.” Id. at 190-91. Similarly, in Hartzler v. American Family Mutual Insurance, 881 S.W.2d 653 (Mo.App.1994), the court held that the law of Kansas, rather than Missouri, where the accident occurred, should apply to the interpretation of the insurance policy, because the policies were designated as Kansas policies, the insured vehicles were registered and principally garaged in Kansas, and the insureds were residents of Kansas both at the time the policies were issued and at the time of the accident. See id. at 657; see also Desario v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 127 F.3d 1109, 1997 WL 651020, at *2 (10th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Hofle, 2002 WL 31859520, at *2 (holding that Options: A. holding that site of the accident in utah was insufficient to apply the law of that state where wyoming was the principal location of the insured automobile the policy was negotiated and issued in wyoming and the insureds were residents of wyoming B. holding that the consent of the driver was invalid when the officer knew that the passenger was the owner of the automobile C. holding that an automobile dealers liability insurer was not liable for any damage allegedly caused by the negligence of the dealer and sustained in an accident involving an automobile purchased from the dealer or to defend the dealer in the negligence action where the injury occurred outside of the policy period and occurrence was defined in the policy as an accident including injurious exposure to conditions which results during the policy period in bodily injury or property damages D. holding that an insureds personal belief that he was not liable for an accident provided no basis for submitting the question of the reasonableness of his delay in notification to a jury when the insured knew the day after the accident that it had been claimed that the cable he had installed had caused the accident E. holding that probable cause was clearly present justifying the taking of a blood sample without the defendants consent when it was established that the defendant was involved in an automobile accident and the police noticed liquor on his breath at the scene of the accident and at the hospital

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that site of the accident in utah was insufficient to apply the law of that state where wyoming was the principal location of the insured automobile the policy was negotiated and issued in wyoming and the insureds were residents of wyoming
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 a state-law claim in its own courts, it waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity by removing that claim to federal court. As the WMATA signatories have not waived immunity from attorney's liens in their own courts, the narrow holding of Lapides does not apply to this case. Even if it did, it would not be controlling because WMATA's immunity does not arise solely from the Eleventh Amendment. In any event, Watters has never argued that WMATA waived its immunity (Eleventh Amendment or otherwise) by removing this case to federal court. Unlike the defense of sovereign immunity, which is jurisdictional and may be raised at any time, the claim that WMATA waived its immunity is an argument that must be raised in a timely fashion. Cf. Whelan v. Abell, 48 F.3d 1247, 1250-51 (D.C.Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Belton, 20 F.3d at 1202 (holding that a party Options: A. holding that appellant waived its claim that its opponent had waived the protections of the noerrpennington doctrine by failing to assert the opponents waiver B. holding appellant waived argument by failing to assert it at suppression hearing C. holding that appellant waived issue by failing to raise it in opening brief D. holding that statutory grounds for recusal can be waived both by failing to object and by failing to assert error on appeal E. holding that the appellant waived this argument

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that appellant waived its claim that its opponent had waived the protections of the noerrpennington doctrine by failing to assert the opponents waiver
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, and as often as, there are any changes in the Ordinary Shares by way of stock split, stock dividend, combination or reclassification, or through merger, consolidation, reorganization, recapitalization or sale, or by any other means, appropriate adjustment shall be made in the provisions of this Agreement, as may be required, so that the rights, privileges, duties and obligations hereunder shall continue with respect to the Ordinary Shares as so changed.

assistant: Adjustments
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: We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that two of Green’s claims are refuted by the record and affirm the order as to those claims without comment. We reverse as to Green’s third .claim, which we conclude is facially sufficient and is not refuted by the record. Green alleged that counsel erroneously advised him that because his sentences were imposed concurrently, he would receive credit for time spent in prison on the 1989 charge against the sentences imposed on the new charges. This is, of course, incorrect as Green learned when he arrived at the Department of Corrections. Green further alleged that he would not have pleaded guilty if he had know this advice was incorrect. This claim is facially sufficient. See, e.g., Montgomery v. State, 615 So.2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (<HOLDING>); Davis v. State, 697 So.2d 957 (Fla. 2d DCA Options: A. holding that a postconviction claim that is refuted by the record on direct appeal is without merit B. holding that postconviction allegations directly refuted by the trial record are without merit C. holding that a postconviction claim that is refuted by the record is without merit D. holding that for a facially sufficient claim that the plea was involuntary based on misadvice of counsel defendant must allege he would not have accepted the plea agreement but for the misadvice E. holding that misadvice of counsel as to the length of a sentence is a basis for postconviction relief if not refuted by the record

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that misadvice of counsel as to the length of a sentence is a basis for postconviction relief if not refuted by the record
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: identifies no case, nor is the Court aware of any, that has allowed changes to the actual text of a regulation that otherwise falls outside of the interpretative rule exception on the ground that those changes were merely technical or stylistic. In the absence of such precedent — and given that the interpretative rule exception is only reluctantly countenanced — the Court cannot conclude that a doctrine that forbids agencies from “constructively rewriting] [a] regulation” in the guise of clarifying it allows them to literally rewrite a portion of a regulation with the same justification. See Nat’l Family Planning & Reprod. Health Ass’n, Inc. v. Sullivan, 979 F.2d 227, 236 (D.C.Cir.1992); cf. British Caledonian Airways, Ltd. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 584 F.2d 982, 990 (D.C.Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Options: A. holding that the statute incorporated all the rights and obligations of the contract emphasis added B. holding that an order requiring the agency to search the records did not constitute courtordered change in the relationship of the parties C. holding an agency order to be interpretative where it clarified existing rights and obligations without any change in the content of the relevant language D. holding that a party who had demonstrated an injury sufficient to confer standing to appeal from an agency decision could raise any relevant question of law in respect of the order of the agency E. holding that when the agency reopens a proceeding for any reason and after reconsideration issues a new and final order setting forth the rights and obligations of the parties that order even if it merely reaffirms the rights and obligations set forth in the original order is reviewable on its merits

assistant: The best answer is C. holding an agency order to be interpretative where it clarified existing rights and obligations without any change in the content of the relevant language
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Executive shall be entitled throughout the Employment Period in his capacity as an officer and/or director of the Company or any of its subsidiaries, or as a member of any other governing body or any partnership or joint venture in which the Company has an equity interest, to the benefit of the indemnification provisions contained in the Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws of the Company as in effect from time to time, to the extent not prohibited by applicable law at the time of the assertion of any liability against Executive.

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: Tenant shall reimburse Landlord for Landlord’s reasonable costs and expenses incurred in conjunction with the processing and documentation of any assignment, master subletting or management arrangement, including reasonable attorneys’ or other consultants’ fees whether or not such assignment, master sublease or management agreement is ultimately consummated or executed.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In addition to being entitled to exercise all rights provided herein or granted by law, including recovery of damages, the Shareholders, Parent and the Company will be entitled to specific performance under this Agreement. The Parties agree that monetary damages may not be adequate compensation for any loss incurred by reason of any breach of obligations described in the foregoing sentence and hereby agrees to waive in any action for specific performance of any such obligation the defense that a remedy at law would be adequate.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provision or section of this Agreement is determined to be void or otherwise unenforceable, it shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provisions of this Agreement which shall remain enforceable in accordance with their terms.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All questions concerning the construction, validity, enforcement and interpretation of this Agreement shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Delaware, without regard to the principles of conflicts of law thereof. Each party agrees that all Proceedings concerning the interpretations, enforcement and defense of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement and any other Transaction Documents (whether brought against a party hereto or its respective Affiliates, employees or agents) shall be commenced exclusively in the Delaware Courts. Each party hereto hereby irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Delaware Courts for the adjudication of any dispute hereunder or in connection herewith or with any transaction contemplated hereby or discussed herein (including with respect to the enforcement of any of the Transaction Documents), and hereby irrevocably waives, and agrees not to assert in any Proceeding, any claim that it is not personally subject to the jurisdiction of any such Delaware Court, or that such Proceeding has been commenced in an improper or inconvenient forum. Each party hereto hereby irrevocably waives personal service of process and consents to process being served in any such Proceeding by mailing a copy thereof via registered or certified mail or overnight delivery (with evidence of delivery) to such party at the address in effect for notices to it under this Agreement and agrees that such service shall constitute good and sufficient service of process and notice thereof. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to limit in any way any right to serve process in any manner permitted by law. EACH PARTY HERETO HEREBY IRREVOCABLY WAIVES, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, ANY AND ALL RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY LEGAL PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Executive shall receive for services to be rendered hereunder a salary at the rate of $360,000 per year, payable in biweekly payments of $13,846.15 and subject to payroll deductions as may be necessary or customary in respect of the Company’s salaried employees (the “ Base Salary ” ). The Base Salary will be reviewed by and shall be subject to increase (but not decrease) at the sole discretion of the Board each year during the term of this Agreement.

assistant: Base Salary
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: we are not compelled by either logic or existing precedent to accept that proposition. As explained below, if the jury found, as it could, that Officer Wyatt was in the passenger seat of a slowly rolling vehicle, it could conclude that he did not face an immediate threat to safety sufficient to justify the immediate use of deadly force. Our decision simply identifies a disputed issue of material fact. If, as Chief Judge Kozinski's dissent bemoans, that gives plaintiffs "a bludgeon with which to extort a hefty settlement,” id., it will only be because the defendants are concerned that a jury might not view the evidence as the dissent does. 3 . The constitutional standard for using force less than deadly force is lower. See Gregory v. County of Maui, 523 F.3d 1103, 1106-07 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Because it is undisputed that Gonzalez did Options: A. holding that an officers single use of a taser was reasonable where used to subdue an arrestee who had failed to accede to repeated police commands to stop his retreat into his home B. holding that where the plaintiffs evidence supported a finding that the defendants had applied force to restrain him the jury must determine not only whether the officers were justified in using force at all but if so whether the degree of force actually used was reasonable C. holding that officers had substantial grounds for believing that some degree of force was necessary where suspect was possibly under the influence of drugs acting bizarrely trespassing and refusing repeated commands to drop a pen D. holding that the decision of a police officer to preserve public safety and order through use of commands backed by threat of force or actual use of physical force is a matter of discretion E. holding that deadly force was unreasonable where the suspect possessed a gun but was not pointing it at the officers and was not facing the officers when they shot

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that officers had substantial grounds for believing that some degree of force was necessary where suspect was possibly under the influence of drugs acting bizarrely trespassing and refusing repeated commands to drop a pen
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 guarantees that payments hereunder will be paid to the Collateral Agent without set-off or counterclaim in Dollars at the office of the Collateral Agent located at the address specified in Section 14.2 of the Credit Agreement or such other office as may be specified from time to time by the Collateral Agent as its funding office by written notice to the Borrower and the Lenders. Each Guarantor agrees that the provisions of Sections 5.4 and 14.20 of the Credit Agreement shall apply to such Guarantor’s obligations under this Guarantee.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall be responsible for the payment of any placement agent’s fees, financial advisory fees, or broker’s commissions (other than for Persons engaged by any Buyer) relating to or arising out of the transactions contemplated hereby. The Company shall pay, and hold each Buyer harmless against, any liability, loss or expense (including, without limitation, reasonable attorney’s fees and out-of-pocket expenses) arising in connection with any claim relating to any such payment. Except as otherwise set forth in the Transaction Documents and the Engagement Letter, each party to this Agreement shall bear its own expenses in connection with the sale of the Securities to the Buyers.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to deprive him of his property are insufficient to state a claim of constitutional dimensions. The district court was correct in reaching the merits of the case and in deciding to dismiss it with prejudice. We agree with the district court that Mr. Steele cannot frame a valid Bivens claim. Finally, we conclude that the district court’s decision to dismiss the action without holding a hearing was well within its discretion, particularly since only questions of law were before the court. We note that there is no right to an oral hearing under Rule 12(b)(6). Greene v. WCI Holdings Corp., 136 F.3d 313, 315-316 (2d Cir.1998). Whether to grant such a hearing is left to the discretion of the district court judge. Id. at 316; cf. Geear v. Boulder Cmty. Hosp., 844 F.2d 764, 766 (10th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the Options: A. holding that motions to dismiss should have been converted into motions for summary judgment where the district court relied upon contract documents submitted by the defendant B. holding that the trial court grants or denies motions for summary judgment on the basis of what is contained in the motions for summary judgment and the responses thereto C. holding summary judgment motions in abeyance for possible evidentiary hearing D. holding that hearing requirement for summary judgment motions is satisfied by courts review of documents submitted by parties E. recognizing that a district courts review is limited to the agency record submitted and that no de novo evidentiary hearing is permitted

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that hearing requirement for summary judgment motions is satisfied by courts review of documents submitted by parties
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 inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective executors, administrators, successors and permitted assigns; provided , however , that the Executive may not assign any of his rights or duties hereunder except upon the prior written consent of the Company. This Agreement shall be binding on any successor to the Company whether by merger, consolidation, acquisition of all or substantially all of the Company’s stock, assets or business or otherwise, as fully as if such successor were a signatory hereto, and the Company shall cause such successor to, and such successor shall, expressly assume the Company’s obligations hereunder. The term “ Company ” as used in this Agreement shall include all such successors. Except as expressly permitted by Section 12(a), nothing herein is intended to or shall be construed to confer upon or give any person, other than the parties hereto, any rights, privileges or remedies under or by reason of this Agreement.

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: Neither a Participant nor any Beneficiary or Contingent Annuitant shall have the right to assign, transfer, hypothecate, encumber, commute or anticipate any interest in any payments hereunder, and such payments shall not in any way be subject to any legal process to levy upon or attach the sum for payment of any such claim against the Participant or any Beneficiary or Contingent Annuitant, provided, however, that nothing contained herein shall preclude a Participant from designating a Beneficiary or Contingent Annuitant to receive benefits hereunder in the event of the Participant’s death.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: any in-person hearing will take place in your county of residence ( or if a business your principal place of business ) or our principal place of business -- king county , washington if your dispute is with microsoft .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Executive shall be entitled to receive prompt reimbursement for all reasonable business expenses (including food and lodging) incurred by the Executive in accordance with the most favorable agreements, policies, practices and procedures of the Company and its Affiliates in effect for the Executive at any time during the 120-day period immediately preceding the Change of Control or, if more favorable to the Executive, as in effect generally at any time thereafter with respect to other most senior executives of the Company and its Affiliates.

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: if you are a masquerade user located in the united states or canada , our terms contain a binding arbitration provision , which states that , except if you opt out and except for certain types of disputes , masquerade and you agree to resolve all disputes through binding individual arbitration , which means that you waive your right to participate in class actions , class arbitrations , or representative actions .

assistant: Arbitration
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: our performance of this agreement is subject to existing laws and legal process , and nothing contained in this agreement limits our right to comply with law enforcement or other governmental or legal requests or requirements relating to your use of this website or information provided to or gathered by us with respect to such use .

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: period for review has expired.” Kennecott, 88 F.3d at 1214. “To the contrary, we expressly stated in [Public Citizen ] that the appropriate way in which to challenge a longstanding regulation on the ground that it is ‘violative of statute’ is ordinarily ‘by filing a petition for amendment or rescission of the agency’s regulations, and challenging the denial of that petition.’ ” Id. (quoting Public Citizen, 901 F.2d at 152). Indeed, it is “absurd to suppose that every time an agency requests parties to compare the regulatory status quo with specific proposed alternatives, all facets of the status quo become fair game for new challenges.” Safe Food and Fertilizer v. EPA, 350 F.3d 1263, 1267 (D.C.Cir.2003); see Cellular Telecomms. & Internet Ass’n v. FCC, 330 F.3d 502, 508 (D.C.Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, even if our review were not barred Options: A. holding that the 60day window barred the petitioners from challenging the statutory authority underlying the fccs 1996 decision to impose wireless number portability in a 2001 forbearance petition B. holding that petition was properly filed even though the state court denied it as procedurally barred because the petition was delivered to and accepted by the state court C. holding that when no statutory exception applies the district court lacks the authority to impose a sentence less than the statutory mandatory minimum D. holding that a habeas petition in the court of appeals is the exclusive remedy for challenging the effectiveness of appellate counsel E. 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

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the 60day window barred the petitioners from challenging the statutory authority underlying the fccs 1996 decision to impose wireless number portability in a 2001 forbearance petition
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: have dismissed tortious interference claims as preempted by ERISA, those cases typically involve a situation in which an entity seeks to utilize the interference claim to duplicate relief available under ERISA. For example, when a participant or assignee argues that,' with respect to a particular claim for payment, the claims administrator (or some affiliate thereof) “interfered” with payment under the plan by unfairly denying the claim, courts have found that the interference claim is preempted. See, e.g., Adkins v. Unum Provident Corp., 191 F.Supp.2d 956, 959 (M.D.Tenn.2002); Steele v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 499 F.Supp.2d 1035, 1041 (E.D.Tenn.2007); Ctr. for Special Procedures v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 09-6566(MLC), 2010 WL 5068164, at *7 (D.N.J. Dec. 6, 2010) (<HOLDING>). Here, the interference claim does not relate Options: A. holding that insurer could not tortiously interfere with its own insurance plan B. holding only that although a party cannot interfere with its own contract a supervisor who is not an officer of a plaintiffs employer is not a party to the plaintiffs employment contract and therefore can interfere with it C. holding that state malpractice claims against insurer for negligently failing to obtain replacement insurance plan was not preempted D. holding that a corporate officer acting in his or her official capacity could not tortiously interfere with a corporate contract because corporations act only through their officers and agents E. holding that insurance certificate holder could not maintain negligence action against insurer when certificate holder was not insurers customer did not discuss insurance coverage with insurer and did not make any specific request to procure insurance coverage

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that insurer could not tortiously interfere with its own insurance plan
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: Md.App. 631, 853 A.2d 813 (2004)—both of which are more similar factually to the present case and allowed discovery revelations to invalidate "facially valid” certificates. In Witte, the defendant chai lenged a Certificate based on deposition testimony that showed the attesting expert did not meet the twenty percent rule. See Witte, 369 Md. at 523, 801 A.2d at 163. In D’Angelo, the plaintiff filed Certificates that did not name individually the defendant physicians but instead stated that "I have concluded that the foregoing medical providers failed to comply with the standards of care and that such failure was the proxima g that dismissal without prejudice was the appropriate remedy for failure to attach the expert report to the Certificate); Carroll, 400 Md. at 201, 929 A.2d at 39-40 (<HOLDING>); Oxtoby v. McGowan, 294 Md. 83, 91, 447 A.2d Options: A. holding that a review committee of the kansas board for discipline of attorneys had the authority to dismiss a complaint against an attorney with or without prejudice and when dismissal was ordered without specifying the nature of the dismissal the dismissal was without prejudice to the filing of later proceedings on the same matter B. holding that a physicians negligence need only be a proximate cause not the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury C. holding that dismissal without prejudice was appropriate where a plaintiff failed to name each of the persons alleged to have violated the appropriate standard of care D. holding that de facto dismissal without prejudice was appropriate where a plaintiffs certificate failed to state with specificity that a defendant was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injury E. holding that negligence must be the proximate cause of injury

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that de facto dismissal without prejudice was appropriate where a plaintiffs certificate failed to state with specificity that a defendant was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injury
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: against Stadfeld. Their theory was that the coconspirators had a motive to lie to deflect attention away from themselves in the John Doe. Before addressing the merits of this argument, we note first that the government maintains that Stadfeld waived any objection to the court’s ruling excluding this evidence. That is incorrect. Near the end of the final pretrial hearing, after the court had denied the motion to admit evidence of the John Doe, Stadfeld’s attorney asked the court for permission to refer to “another investigation” when questioning the witnesses. The court agreed. This was not a waiver, as the government contends, but merely an adaptation to an adverse evidentiary ruling made by the district court. Cf. Wilson v. Williams, 182 F.3d 562, 564 (7th Cir.1999) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). On the merits, however, the district court’s Options: A. holding that for error to be preserved on appeal with regard to admission of evidence in violation of a ruling on a motion in limine that the evidence is inadmissible an objection should be made at the time the evidence is offered B. holding admonishment not mistrial appropriate where police officer made statement in violation of ruling on motion in limine C. holding that adaptation to adverse ruling on motion in limine did not waive established objection D. holding that a definitive ruling in limine preserves an issue for appellate review without the need for later objection E. holding that trial courts have discretion to decide whether litigation conduct violates a ruling on a motion in limine

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that adaptation to adverse ruling on motion in limine did not waive established objection
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 issuance of certificates for shares of the Common Stock on conversion of this Note shall be made without charge to the Holder hereof for any documentary stamp or similar taxes that may be payable in respect of the issue or delivery of such certificates, provided that, Borrower shall not be required to pay any tax that may be payable in respect of any transfer involved in the issuance and delivery of any such certificate upon conversion in a name other than that of the original Holder of this Note and Borrower shall not be required to issue or deliver such certificates to such other person unless or until such other person shall have paid to Borrower the amount of such tax or shall have established to the satisfaction of Borrower that such tax has been paid.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to forego an insurer’s assistance for various reasons, including the insured’s fear that premiums would increase or that the policy would be canceled in the future. Cincinnati, 183 Ill. 2d at 326. An insured has the right to selectively tender its defense and indemnification to one of several common insurers. Kajima, 368 Ill. App. 3d at 669. The “right” to selectively tender, despite its criticism, has been characterized as “paramount.” Legion Insurance Co. v. Empire Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 354 Ill. App. 3d 699, 703 (2004) (explaining that an insured has the paramount right to choose or knowingly forego an insurer’s participation in a claim); Alcan United, Inc. v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co., 303 Ill. App. 3d 72, 79 (1999), quoting Institute of London, 234 Ill. App. 3d at 79 (<HOLDING>). See also Chicago Hospital Risk Pooling Options: A. holding that an insurers duty to defend arises from the allegations in the complaint against the insured B. recognizing the paramount right of the insured to seek or not to seek an insurers participation in a claim as the insured chooses C. holding despite a reservation of rights that when the insurer provides a defense to its insured the insured has no right to interfere with the insurers control of the defense and a stipulated judgment between the insured and the injured claimant without the consent of the insurer is ineffective to impose liability upon the insurer D. holding a personal profit exclusion applicable to an insured corporation where the purpose of the exclusion was to exclude coverage when the insured received profits to which the insured was not legally entitled E. holding that the use of the phrase any insured rather than the insured the same language used in the employers liability exclusion here meant that the exclusion was not limited to injuries sustained by the employees or contractors of one insured party

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing the paramount right of the insured to seek or not to seek an insurers participation in a claim as the insured chooses
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in finding that Hunter waived any claim of privilege to the materials in his first attorney’s case file by disclosing the materials in Hunter Habeas I. We must decide whether this error had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993); accord Pulido v. Chrones, 629 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir.2010), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 338, 181 L.Ed.2d 212 (2011). We conclude that it did not. First, the State confined its use of Dr. Berg’s testimony and the Aniline letter to impeachment and rebuttal of Hunter’s diminished capacity defense. This limited use of the contested evidence was permissible. See Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 225, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971) (<HOLDING>); Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402, 422-23, Options: A. holding that where a defendant expressly manifested his belief in the truth of the statements contained in the motion to dismiss thereby adopting those statements as his own such statements are admissible against the defendant in the states case in chief B. holding that a defendant who chooses to testify in his or her own defense may not conceal contradictory statements obtained in violation of the fifth amendment from the jury C. holding that a conviction for an offense involving dishonesty or false statement may be used to impeach the credibility of a defendant who chooses to testify D. holding that right to testify not denied where inter alia defendant made no objection to his attorneys statements that defendant would not testify and made no request to testify E. holding that defendants exercise of right to testify in own behalf waives his fifth amendment privilege against selfincrimination

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a defendant who chooses to testify in his or her own defense may not conceal contradictory statements obtained in violation of the fifth amendment from the jury
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 any provision of the Plan shall be declared illegal or invalid for any reason, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions of the Plan but shall be fully severable, and the Plan shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal or invalid provision had never been a part of the Plan.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Contract stipulates the entire agreement reached between the parties with regard to the content of this Contract, and replaces all previous contracts and understandings with regard thereto. The Company and the Employee may at any time, with regard to Trade Secrets, the non-compete clause, and/or intellectual property rights, draft contractual provisions that are more detailed and more strict. Once said contractual provisions become effective, they shall automatically become an appendix and an integral part of this Contract.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: us that one can peep upon a naked or partially naked person but not view any of the parts listed in the statute. Any number of possibilities exist where an accused could observe a naked person but not violate Article 120, UCMJ, because his view is obscured in some fashion or because of his particular vantage point, for example. We need not belabor the point. 4 . As noted above, the stipulation itself falls short of the factual admission required to uphold a guilty plea in this case. 5 . As we are confined by the definitions formulated by Congress, we are similarly confined to that which is objectively verifiable in the record to determine whether an appellant was properly advised on matters of law. See Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 646-47, 96 S.Ct. 2253, 49 L.Ed.2d 108 (1976) (<HOLDING>); Pretlow, 13 M.J. at 88. Our system of Options: A. holding where neither defense counsel nor the trial court explained to the defendant that intent to cause death was an element of seconddegree murder and there was no factual statement or admission implying intent the plea was involuntary B. holding that waiver by attorney was binding upon the accused when before the state introduced the evidence complained of on appeal counsel for the state in the presence of the accused and his counsel stated the agreement and the evidence of the witness was then read to the jury in the presence of the accused and his counsel without objection C. holding that failure to instruct on an essential element was harmless error because the element was so clearly established D. holding a guilty plea involuntary where the record established that neither judge nor defense counsel explained to the accused an essential element of the offense and where the accused did not sufficiently admit to such element E. holding under a plain error analysis that a failure to charge the jury with an essential element did not warrant reversal of the conviction where the evidence supporting that element was overwhelming

assistant: The best answer is D. holding a guilty plea involuntary where the record established that neither judge nor defense counsel explained to the accused an essential element of the offense and where the accused did not sufficiently admit to such element
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: to change that result. George has failed to demonstrate an objective external factor that prohibited him from raising an objection to the jury selection plan prior to his trial; accordingly, he has not shown cause to excuse his waiver of this issue. See United States v. Simpson, Nos. 97-2305, 97-2307, 97-2316, 98-1050, 1999 WL 777348, at *10 (6th Cir. Sept.21, 1999) (stating that “the fact that Ovalle was not decided until after [defendant’s] trial is not sufficient cause for this court to grant relief from the waiver of the issue”); see also United States v. Bischoff, Nos. 97-1980, 97-1983, 1999 WL 644340, at *6 (6th Cir. Aug.19, 1999) (cause not shown for failure to raise Ovalle in district court); United States v. Valme, No. 98-1340, 1999 WL 519232, at *5 (6th Cir. July 16, 1999) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Garavaglia, Nos. 98-1512, Options: A. holding that cause did not exist fordefen dants failure to timely raise ovalle issue B. holding that there was no good cause to raise an untimely suppression issue where the defendant could have with due diligence discovered the information necessary to timely raise the issue C. holding that failure to raise an issue in an opening brief waives that issue D. holding that failure to raise issue in brief constitutes waiver of appeal of the issue E. holding that the failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waives the issue

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that cause did not exist fordefen dants failure to timely raise ovalle issue
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 agree that irreparable damage, for which monetary damages would not be an adequate remedy, would occur in the event that any of the provisions of this Agreement were not performed in accordance with their specific terms or were otherwise breached by the Parties. Prior to the termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 6, it is accordingly agreed that the Parties shall be entitled to an injunction or injunctions, or any other appropriate form of specific performance or equitable relief, to prevent breaches of this Agreement and to enforce specifically the terms and provisions hereof in any court of competent jurisdiction, in each case in accordance with this Section 11(g), this being in addition to any other remedy to which they are entitled under the terms of this Agreement at law or in equity.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: or otherwise demonstrating that they received little or nothing of value under the contract. See, e.g., Lozada v. Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc., 91 F.Supp.2d 1087, 1097 (W.D.Mieh.2000) (“[N]either the text nor the commentary to the Holder Rule limits the availability of affirmative consumer claims against assignee-creditors to those who assert a right of rescission under common law.”); Simpson v. Anthony Auto Sales, Inc., 32 F.Supp.2d 405, 409 fn. 10 (W.D.La.1998) (“[A] plaintiff should not be required to first prove that she has received little or nothing of value in order to recover from her creditor, as the FTC notice does not advise the creditor” of such a requirement); Jaramillo v. Gonzales, 132 N.M. 459, 50 P.3d 554 (App.2002), cert. denied, 132 N.M. 288, 47 P.3d 447 (2002) (<HOLDING>); Alduridi v. Community Trust Bank, N.A., 1999 Options: A. holding that ftc holder rule does not limit affirmative claims to those instances where rescission would be appropriate B. holding that the holder of the note must act in a manner that effectively provides notice that the holder has exercised his option C. holding that procedural bar rule does not apply to ineffectiveness claims D. holding that equitable exception to one year limit applied where defendant had no reason to believe that plaintiff would increase the scope of claims after the filing of the original complaint E. holding that the rights of a bona fide purchaser outweighed those of an under secured second mortgage holder

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that ftc holder rule does not limit affirmative claims to those instances where rescission would be appropriate