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: extends interlocutory review to denials of Parker immunity, does not do so in cases involving private parties. See Acoustic Sys., Inc. v. Wenger Corp., 207 F.3d 287, 292 (5th Cir.2000). Stressing the Supreme Court’s repeated admonitions that the collateral order doctrine applies only to a narrow class of cases, the court in Acoustic Systems concluded the justifications for affording immediate review of the denial of Parker immunity to governmental entities are inapplicable to private parties. Id. at 291-93. The court also noted that in the context of qualified immunity, immediate appeal is available to governmental defendants but not private parties. Id. at 294 (citing authority from the First, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits); see also Weise v. Casper, 507 F.3d 1260, 1264 (10th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). The Fifth Circuit indicated it was unaware of Options: A. recognizing that this court considers only legal questions when considering interlocutory appeal from denial of qualified immunity B. holding in pertinent part that this court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal C. holding that an interlocutory appeal lies from a denial of summary judgment on a qualified immunity claim D. holding court lacked jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeal of denial of motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity by defendants who were not public officials E. holding that the court lacked jurisdiction over statelaw tort claims on an interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity

assistant: The best answer is D. holding court lacked jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeal of denial of motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity by defendants who were not public officials
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: payments. See Bissell v. L.W. Edison Co., 9 Mich.App. 276, 156 N.W.2d 623, 628 (1967). The Court finds that plaintiff has satisfied its bur estor Law, Mich.Comp.Laws § 445.1501 et seq., in an attempt to bolster their argument that plaintiff committed a breach of contract by refusing to allow the proposed transfer. See Mieh.Comp.Laws § 445.1527(g). However, this Michigan statute is inapplicable under the facts of the instant case. Paragraph 16A of the franchise agreement clearly states that “[t]his Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.” See Exh. l.A. to plaintiffs motion, ¶ 16A. Such choice of law clauses are generally valid and enforceable. See Banek Inc. v. Yogurt Ventures U.S.A., Inc., 6 F.3d 357, 360 (6th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). As a result, Michigan law would not be Options: A. holding that the law of michigan rather than the forum applied to manufacturers claim of attorneyclient privilege in a products liability suit because the communication took place in michigan and therefore michigan had most significant relationship to communication B. holding that the michigan usury act mcla 43831 a statute setting forth the legal interest rate in michigan is preempted according to the explicit terms of hola C. holding that litigating franchise dispute in michigan does not require that michigan law govern dispute as michigan franchise investment law does not expressly void choice of law provisions in franchise agreement D. holding that under michigan franchise investment law franchisees failure to comply with lawful provisions in franchise agreements by failing to pay royalties and advertising fees and failing to file monthly sales reports constituted good cause for franchisors termination of agreements where franchisor gave notice of termination in writing and franchisees made no effort to cure E. holding texas franchise tax constitutional

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that litigating franchise dispute in michigan does not require that michigan law govern dispute as michigan franchise investment law does not expressly void choice of law provisions in franchise agreement
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 with respect to the material terms and conditions of the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Documents that will be timely publicly disclosed by the Company, the Company confirms that neither it nor any other Person acting on its behalf has provided any of the Investor’s or its agents or counsel with any information that it believes constitutes or might constitute material, non-public information which is not otherwise disclosed in the Registration Statement or any Prospectus Supplement. The Company understands and confirms that each of the Investors will rely on the foregoing representation in effecting purchases and sales of securities of the Company. All of the disclosure furnished by or on behalf of the Company to the Investor regarding the Company, its business and the transactions contemplated hereby, including the disclosure schedules to this Agreement, is true and correct and does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. The press releases disseminated by the Company during the twelve months preceding the date of this Agreement taken as a whole do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary in order to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made and when made, not misleading. The Company acknowledges and agrees that none of the Investors makes or has made any representations or warranties with respect to the transactions contemplated hereby other than those specifically set forth in Section 3 hereof and, in that case, only with respect to such Investor and not with respect to any other Investor.

assistant: Disclosures
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 the Committee shall determine that any dividend or other distribution (whether in the form of cash, shares, other securities or other property), recapitalization, stock split, reverse stock split, reorganization, merger, consolidation, split-up, spin-off, combination, repurchase or exchange of shares or other securities of the Company, issuance of warrants or other rights to purchase shares or other securities of the Company or other similar corporate transaction or event affects the Common Stock such that an adjustment is necessary to prevent dilution or enlargement of the benefits or potential benefits intended to be made available under this Agreement, then the Committee shall, in such manner as it may deem equitable, in its sole discretion, adjust any or all of the number and type of shares subject to the Restricted Stock Units.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting Party will not be applied in the construction or interpretation of this Agreement. As used in this Agreement, the words “include” and “including” and variations thereof, will not be deemed to be terms of limitation, but rather will be deemed to be followed by the words “without limitation.” The headings in this Agreement will not be referred to in connection with the construction or interpretation of this Agreement. This Agreement is in the English language only, which language shall be controlling in all respects, and all notices under this Agreement shall be in the English language.

assistant: Construction
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 Contract Year, Employer agrees to reimburse Executive in an amount not to exceed Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) for the annual premium and other fees and expenses associated with estate planning services for Executive, including legal and tax services, and Executive’s purchase or maintenance of a life or disability insurance policy or other insurance policies on the life, or related to the care, of Executive. Executive shall be entitled to freely select and change the beneficiary or beneficiaries under such policy or policies. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, Employer’s obligations under this Section 6.2 are expressly contingent upon Executive providing required information and taking all necessary actions required of Executive in order to obtain and maintain the subject services, policy or policies, including without limitation passing any required physical examinations. Reimbursements pursuant to this Section 6.2 with respect to a Contract Year shall be made as soon as administratively feasible after Executive submits the information and documentation required for reimbursement; provided, however, under no circumstances shall such reimbursement be paid later than two-and-a-half months after the end of the calendar year or Employer’s taxable year in which such Contract Year commenced.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: discriminated against him based on a psychiatric disability, in violation of Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq., when it dismissed him from its medical program. Title II prohibits discrimination against a disabled individual regarding access to public services. 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (“No qualified individual with a disability shall ... be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.”). The public entities defined in the ADA are state or local governments and their instrumentalities. 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1). The United States, its agencies, and employees are not public entities under the ADA. Cellular Phone Taskforce v. FCC, 217 F.3d 72, 73 (2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Aquino v. Prudential Life & Cas. Ins. Co., Options: A. holding that title ii of the ada is not applicable to the federal government B. holding that title ii does not apply to the states C. holding that prudential limitations on standing do not apply to title ii ada claims D. holding the ada and the rehabilitation act applicable E. holding that title ii of the ada was a valid use of congress power under section 5 of the fourteenth amendment

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that title ii of the ada is not applicable to the federal government
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: During the occurrence and continuation of an Event of Default, in the event that the Administrative Agent desires to exercise any remedies, voting or consensual rights or attorney-in-fact powers set forth in this Agreement and determines it necessary to obtain any approvals or consents of any Official Body or any other person therefor, then, upon the reasonable request of the Administrative Agent, the Pledgor agrees to use its best efforts to assist and aid the Administrative Agent to obtain as soon as practicable any necessary approvals or consents for the exercise of any such remedies, rights and powers.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Agreement are defined in Appendix A to the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of June 1, 2017, among Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust 2017-B, as Issuer, Ford Credit Auto Receivables Two LLC, as Depositor, and Ford Motor Credit Company LLC, as Servicer. Appendix A also contains usage rules that apply to this Agreement. Appendix A is incorporated by reference into this Agreement.

assistant: Definitions
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: sentencing range. Because the district court abused its discretion when it imposed this substantively unreasonable sentence, I respectfully dissent. 1 . On a prior appeal of Edwards’s sentence to this Court, Judge Kleinfeld dissented from the majority's decision to remand Edwards’s sentence to the district court for possible resen-tencing in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Edwards, 158 Fed.Appx. at 932 (Kle-infeld, J., dissenting). Judge Kleinfeld would have vacated the sentence as substantively unreasonable and remanded for resentencing. Id. 2 . Section 3553(a)(2) lists factors a district court must consider when it decides whether to impose a sentence outside the Guidelines range. Section 3553(a)(2) require 7th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Even outside the context of white collar Options: A. holding that a sentence of twelve months imprisonment was unreasonably lenient where the defendant engaged in wire fraud and caused 90000 in losses and the guidelines range was sixtythree to seventyeight months imprisonment B. holding that the district courts imposition of a 15month sentence when the guidelines range was 37 to 46 months imprisonment a 60 downward variance was unreasonable C. holding that a sentence of seven days imprisonment was substantively unreasonable where the defendant participated in a securities fraud conspiracy that caused more than 1 billion in losses D. holding a sentence is not based on the guidelines unless the plea agreement itself expressly uses a guidelines sentencing range to establish the term of imprisonment E. holding that a sentence of five years probation was unreasonably lenient where the defendant played a key role in an accounting fraud scheme that caused over 1 billion in losses to a companys shareholders and the guidelines range was seventyeight to ninetyseven months imprisonment

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a sentence of twelve months imprisonment was unreasonably lenient where the defendant engaged in wire fraud and caused 90000 in losses and the guidelines range was sixtythree to seventyeight months imprisonment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: be incomplete without a discussion as to the status of the Mountain States judgment lien on Debtors’ home. As previously explained, the two inherited properties became property of the bankruptcy estate pursuant to § 1306(a) when Debtors acquired them, and remain so today. The same is not true, however, of the Debtors’ home. When Debtors initiated this bankruptcy case, their home became part of the bankruptcy estate pursuant to § 541(a). However, pursuant to the terms of their plan and § 1327(b), the home revested in Debtors upon confirmation, and was thereafter not part of the bankruptcy estate. As a result, the automatic stay did not prohibit the attachment of Mountain States’ judgment lien with respect to Debtors’ home. See In re Petruccelli, 113 B.R. 5, 17 (Bankr.S.D.Cal. 1990) (<HOLDING>). Conclusion Mountain States did not violate Options: A. holding that effect of discharge of debt under bankruptcy code is the same as it was under the 1898 bankruptcy act it is not an extinguishment of the debt but only a bar to enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation of the debt or B. holding that a debt collectors filing of a lawsuit on a debt that appears to be timebarred is an unfair and unconscionable means of collecting the debt C. holding that reporting of historically accurate debt may violate the fcra when the reporting did not include that the debt was discharged in bankruptcy or that the debt was in dispute D. holding that the irss full participation in the bankruptcy proceeding in relation to an income tax debt did not bar it from collecting a gift tax debt that had also been listed in the debtors schedules where the irs did not file a proof of claim and the debtor did not force the irs into the proceeding on the gift tax debt E. holding that 362 did not prevent the irs from collecting a postpetition debt by levying upon property of the debt or

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that 362 did not prevent the irs from collecting a postpetition debt by levying upon property of the debt or
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: ERISA. Id. at 16. The First Circuit held that there was no invidious discrimination in the employer’s decision partially to terminate benefits where a legitimate business justification for the decision was readily apparent. Id. Here, more is alleged than a disparate impact to plaintiffs as a result of a business decision to alter a plan. Plaintiffs contend that intentional misstatements regarding the modification of retirement plans at MassMutual and Monsanto caused them prematurely to sever the employment relationship with their respective companies. The MassMutual plaintiffs further allege that there was an intentional design to deprive certain employees&emdash;but not others&emdash;of enhanced pension benefits. See Rodowicz v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co., 857 F.Supp. at 999 (<HOLDING>). The claims of Vartanian and the MassMutual Options: A. holding that factual pleadings on this issue are weak but sufficient B. holding that parties are bound by admissions in pleadings C. holding that as a general rule pleadings filed in this court are public records and are not subject to being sealed D. holding that defendants selfserving affidavit was sufficient to raise a factual issue to be resolved at trial E. holding that a trial court entered judgment on the pleadings where the decision did not depend on any document outside the pleadings

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that factual pleadings on this issue are weak but sufficient
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: order issued in Dormescar TV. 11 . Dormescar did not argue to the IJ or the Board that because he was convicted of counterfeiting in 2007 but was not deemed admitted until the Board issued its September 9, 2008 order, he had not been "convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission.” 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (emphasis added). Because Dormescar did not raise that issue before the IJ or the Board, we cannot and do not consider it here. See Sundar v. I.N.S., 328 F.3d 1320, 1323 (11th Cir.2003) ("[W]e lack jurisdiction to consider claims that have not been raised before the BIA.”). Nor did he raise the issue before this Court, which is another reason we do not consider it. See, e.g., Hamilton v. Southland Christian Sch., Inc., 680 F.3d 1316, 1318-19 (11th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>); Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 Options: A. holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal B. holding arguments not raised on appeal waived C. holding that an issue not raised on appeal is waived D. holding that issues not raised before a district court are waived on appeal E. holding that where an issue is raised in the district court but raised late and the district court declines to deem the issue waived the issue may be raised on appeal

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an issue not raised on appeal is waived
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 Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Nevada without regard to principles of conflicts of laws. Any action brought by either party against the other concerning the transactions contemplated by this Note shall be brought only in the state courts of Massachusetts or in the federal courts located in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The parties to this Note hereby irrevocably waive any objection to jurisdiction and venue of any action instituted hereunder and shall not assert any defense based on lack of jurisdiction or venue or based upon forum non conveniens . THE BORROWER HEREBY IRREVOCABLY WAIVES ANY RIGHT IT MAY HAVE TO, AND AGREES NOT TO REQUEST, A JURY TRIAL FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF ANY DISPUTE HEREUNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH OR ARISING OUT OF THIS NOTE OR ANY TRANSACTION CONTEMPLATED HEREBY . The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party its reasonable attorney's fees and costs. In the event that any provision of this Note or any other agreement delivered in connection herewith is invalid or unenforceable under any applicable statute or rule of law, then such provision shall be deemed inoperative to the extent that it may conflict therewith and shall be deemed modified to conform with such statute or rule of law. Any such provision which may prove invalid or unenforceable under any law shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision of any agreement. Each party hereby irrevocably waives personal service of process and consents to process being served in any suit, action or proceeding in connection with this Agreement or any other Transaction Document 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 other manner permitted by law.

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: Subject to Section 6.02 , each Recipient hereby releases the applicable Provider and its Affiliates and Representatives (each, a “ Provider Indemnified Party ”), and each Recipient hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless each such Provider Indemnified Party from and against (a) all Liabilities arising from, relating to or in connection with, in each case to the extent suffered, sustained or incurred by the Provider Indemnified Party pursuant to a Third-Party Claim, the provision of any Services by Provider hereunder or the use of any Services by any Recipient or any of its Affiliates, Representatives or other Persons, except in each case to the extent that such Liabilities arise out of, relate to or are a consequence of the applicable Provider Indemnified Party’s bad faith, gross negligence or willful misconduct, and (b) all Liabilities arising from, relating to or in connection with a breach by any Recipient of its obligations under this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Warrant Agreement and the Warrant Certificates constitute the entire agreement of the Company, the Warrant Agent and the Beneficial Owners and Warrantholders with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersede all prior agreements and undertakings, both written and oral, among the Company, the Warrant Agent and the Beneficial Owners and Warrantholders with respect to the subject matter hereof.

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 Administrative Agent shall have received evidence of insurance coverage in form, scope, and substance reasonably satisfactory to the Administrative Agent and otherwise in compliance with the terms of Section 5.06 hereof and the Security Agreement.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: these limitations and exclusions apply even if this remedy does n't fully compensate you for any losses or fails of its essential purpose or if we knew or should have known about the possibility of the damages .

assistant: Limitation of liability
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: the following terms ( `` software terms '' ) apply to any software ( including any updates or upgrades to the software ) and any related documentation we make available to you in connection with amazon services ( the `` amazon software '' ) .

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 term of this Agreement (the “ Term ”) shall commence on the Effective Date and, unless earlier terminated as provided in this ARTICLE XI, shall continue in full force and effect, on a Region-by-Region and Product-by-Product basis until there is no remaining royalty obligation in such Region with respect to such Product, at which time (unless earlier terminated) this Agreement shall expire with respect to such Product in such Region and the grants in Sections 2.1(a) and 2.1(b) shall become fully-paid, royalty-free, and irrevocable with respect to such Product in such Region. In addition, upon the expiration of the last Royalty Term, the grants in Sections 2.1(a) and 2.1(b) shall become fully-paid, royalty-free, and irrevocable with respect to all Products and Compounds and this Agreement shall otherwise terminate.

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: If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the other provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. The Parties further agree to use their best efforts to agree upon and replace such invalid, void or unenforceable provision with a valid and enforceable provision that will achieve, to the extent possible, the purposes of such invalid, void or unenforceable provision.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Plaintiffs CMT. The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) promulgates regulations to implement the ADA, 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.149-.151, and the DOJ’s interpretation of the regulations must be given controlling weight unless the interpretation is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulations, Alhambra Hosp. v. Thompson, 259 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir.2001). The regulations require a public entity to “operate each service, program or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(a) (emphasis added). When access to pathways and classrooms are obstructed, a public entity violates the ADA. See Huezo v. Los Angeles Cmty. Coll. Dist., 672 F.Supp.2d 1045, 1061-64 (C.D.Cal.2008) (<HOLDING>). The DOJ has interpreted the requirement for Options: A. holding that school district policy requiring that students obtain the review and approval of school officials prior to distributing any written material violated free speech rights of students B. holding the university owes a landownerinvitee duty to its students to take reasonable steps to protect against foreseeable acts of violence on its campus and the harm that naturally flows therefrom C. holding constitutional the granting of student activity funds to the campus newspaper D. holding that requiring disabled students to request accommodations each semester for transportation to otherwise inaccessible parts of campus is discriminatory and enjoining defendant from charging for an elevator key E. holding that a school districts policy requiring fulltime attendance by all students did not establish a system of individualized exceptions that give rise to the application of a subjective test when the exceptions to the policy were confined to strict categories of students such as fifthyear seniors and special education students

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that requiring disabled students to request accommodations each semester for transportation to otherwise inaccessible parts of campus is discriminatory and enjoining defendant from charging for an elevator key
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you understand and agree that , while you are free to provide additional payment as a gratuity to any third party provider who provides you with services or goods obtained through the service , you are under no obligation to do so .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Subject to Section 6.7(b) , nothing contained herein shall prohibit or in any way limit any First Lien Representative or any other First Lien Claimholder from objecting in any Insolvency or Liquidation Proceeding or otherwise to any action taken by any Second Lien Representative or any other Second Lien Claimholder, including the seeking by any Second Lien Representative or any other Second Lien Claimholder of adequate protection or the asserting by any Second Lien Representative or any other Second Lien Claimholder of any of its rights and remedies under the Second Lien Documents or otherwise.

assistant: No 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: tance due to a failure to object to the introduction of time-barred offenses (the burglary charge), and Claim XII, which claimed that Overton’s death sentences were unconstitutional under Ring, were both properly denied without an evidentia-ry hearing. Overton’s posteonvietion counsel conceded that these were purely legal issues that did not require an evidentiary hearing. Moreover, as previously developed, no prejudice resulted from the introduction of the burglary charge, which the trial court correctly recognized in denying the evidentiary hearing. Additionally, the claim that Overton’s death sentences violated Ring was clearly without merit because this Court has previously held that Ring cannot receive retroactive application. See Johnson v. State, 904 So.2d 400, 412 (Fla.2005) (<HOLDING>). Thus, these claims were legally insufficient Options: A. holding that the rule announced in ring does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review B. holding that ring does not apply retroactively in florida postconviction proceedings to cases that were final on direct review at the time of the ring decision C. holding that batson does apply retroactively to cases pending on direct review D. holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively in florida in postconviction proceedings to cases that were final on direct review at the time of the apprendi decision E. holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively in florida postconviction proceedings to cases that were final on direct review at the time of the apprendi decision

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that ring does not apply retroactively in florida postconviction proceedings to cases that were final on direct review at the time of the ring decision
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: according to the deferential principles of Chevron and whether the agency’s regulation was ultimately acceptable — pertinent to a decision in this matter, we disagree with its result. Even if we review the agency’s interpretation of HMTA’s preemption provisions deferentially under Chevron, we still cannot conclude that its interpretation is a permissible reading of the statute in light of the strong presumption against federal preemption in matters traditionally regulated by the state. Neither the Supreme Court nor this one has ever definitively decided whether an agency’s determination that an explicit preemption provision in a statute it administers blocks some state action is reviewed according to Chevron. See, e.g., Illinois Commerce Comm’n v. ICC, 879 F.2d 917, 921 (D.C.Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); City of New York v. FCC, 814 F.2d 720, 725-26 Options: A. holding that chevron deference is due only to a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency B. recognizing that the question of whether courts should extend chevron deference to an agencys interpretation of an explicit preemption provision remains open C. holding regulations entitled to chevron deference D. holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference E. recognizing the open question

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that the question of whether courts should extend chevron deference to an agencys interpretation of an explicit preemption provision remains open
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: id. at 5; (2) “fails to set forth facts evidencing proper exhaustion of his administrative remedies,” id.; and (3) “fails to allege any injury suffered by him as a result of Mr. Harrison’s alleged monitoring of ‘HRO personnel’s computers or their emails,’ ” id. at 6. In his opposition, the plaintiff fails to address directly the assertions and arguments advanced in the defendant’s motion to dismiss, but rather attempts to provide the Court additional facts about the situation. See Pl.’s Opp’n. The Supreme Court instructed in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) that the complaint of a pro se plaintiff must be held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Richardson v. United States 193 F.3d 545, 548 (D.C.Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); see also Haines, 404 U.S. at 520, 92 S.Ct. Options: A. recognizing courts special duty to construe liberally a pro se plaintiffs pleadings B. holding that courts must construe pro se filings liberally C. holding that courts should liberally construe the requirements of rule 3 D. holding that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed E. recognizing that we construe pro se complaints liberally

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that courts must construe pro se filings liberally
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 a debtor contribute disposable earnings. Therefore, according to Price, equating “ability to pay” with substantial abuse is an impermissible exercise of the court’s equitable powers in violation of the statutory scheme. As neither of these arguments were made to the bankruptcy court, we need not consider them. See Parker v. Comty. First Bank (In re Bakersfield Westar Ambulance, Inc.), 123 F.3d 1243, 1248 (9th Cir.1997). In any event, Price’s argument that the Kelly court assumed individual debtors not engaged in business could not file under chapter 11 assumes the Kelly court would have followed Wamsganz. However, at the time Kelly was decided, authority in this circuit was to the contrary: see Warner v. Universal Guardian Corp. (In re Warner), 30 B.R. 528, 529 (9th Cir. BAP 1983) (<HOLDING>). See also In re Moog, 774 F.2d 1073, 1074 Options: A. holding that an individual debtor not engaged in business is eligible for chapter 11 B. holding that individual debtors may use chapter 11 to save the family home from foreclosure C. holding denial of motion to convert from chapter 11 to chapter 7 is interlocutory D. holding consumer debtors may be eligible for chapter 11 under certain circumstances E. holding that a wife with a child from a prior relationship was not entitled to use and possession of the family home

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that individual debtors may use chapter 11 to save the family home from foreclosure
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 found the 1973 RO decision to be final is SET ASIDE, and the appeal is DISMISSED. 1 . Although a request for revision on the grounds of CUE is frequently referred to as a "CUE claim” or a "claim of CUE,” the Court will use the statutory and regulatory language, as appropriate. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109A, 7111; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, 20.1400 (2005). 2 . The 1983 Board decision replaced the 1981 Board decision that subsumed the 1979 RO decision, see 38 U.S.C. § 7103(a); Link v. West, 12 Vet.App. 39, 45 (1998) (once a case is reconsidered by Board, reconsideration decision constitutes final decision of Board and previous Board decision is nullified) (citing Smith (George) v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 546, 550 (1996) (en banc)); see abo Herndon v. Principi, 311 F.3d 1121, 1125 (Fed.Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1104 (2004). 3 . The Court Options: A. holding that the findings of fact conclusions of law and decision signed by the school board president constituted the decision of the board B. holding vcaa inapplicable to claim that ro decision contained cue C. holding that prior ro decision that had not become final was not subject to cue collateral attack D. holding that a board affirmance of an ro decision subsumes that decision E. holding that a claim before an ro remains pending until a final decision is rendered

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a board affirmance of an ro decision subsumes that decision
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you acknowledge and agree that : ( i ) it is your responsibility to purchase traditional wireless ( mobile ) or fixed-line telephone services that offer access to emergency services , and ( ii ) skype is not a replacement for your primary telephone service .

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: Should any one or more of the provisions of this Amendment be determined to be illegal or unenforceable as to one or more of the parties hereto, all other provisions nevertheless shall remain effective and binding on the parties hereto.

assistant: Enforceability
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: You shall indemnify, defend and hold IRCTC, its agents, affiliates, and licensors harmless from any claim, costs, losses, damages, liabilities, judgments and expenses (including reasonable fees of attorneys and other professionals), arising out of or in connection with any claim, action or proceeding (any and all of which are “Claims”) arising out of or related to any act or omission by you in using the IRCTC API, or relating to the development, operation, maintenance, use and contents of an API Client, including but not limited to any infringement of any third-party proprietary rights. At IRCTC's option, you shall assume control of the defense and settlement of any Claim subject to indemnification by you (provided that, in such event, IRCTC may at any time thereafter elect to take over control of the defense and settlement of any such Claim, and in any event, you shall not settle any such Claim without IRCTC's prior written consent).

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 Borrower will, and will cause each Guarantor and their respective Subsidiaries to, maintain insurance which is consistent with the representation contained in Section 5.17 on all their Property and the Borrower will furnish to any Lender upon reasonable request full information as to the insurance carried.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Consultant may terminate this Agreement upon giving the Company seven (7) days’ prior written notice of such termination pursuant to Section 10 of this Agreement. The Company may terminate this Agreement immediately and without prior notice if Consultant refuses to or is unable to perform the Services or is in breach of any material provision of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: There are no actions, suits, proceedings, claims or disputes pending or, to the knowledge of Borrower, threatened or contemplated, at law, in equity, in arbitration or before any Governmental Authority, by or against any Loan Party or against any of their properties or revenues that (a) purport to affect or pertain to this Agreement or any other Loan Document, or any of the transactions contemplated hereby, or (b) except as specifically disclosed in Schedule 6.06 , either individually or in the aggregate, if determined adversely, could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, and there has been no material adverse change in the status, or financial effect on any Loan Party or any Subsidiary thereof, of the matters described on Schedule 6.06 .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: with regard to the modification of previously granted spousal support awards. The divorce court has no express or implied authority to modify retroactively a spousal support award that was merely erroneous and not entered as a result of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties or as a result of fraud upon the court. In such cases, until prospectively modified or terminated by the divorce court, the obligated spouse is required to make his or her spousal support payments in accordance with the terms of the court’s decree. See generally Richardson v. Moore, 217 Va. 422, 229 S.E.2d 864 (1976); Cofer v. Cofer, 205 Va. 834, 140 S.E.2d 663 (1965); Newton v. Newton, 202 Va. 515, 118 S.E.2d 656 (1961); accord Martin v. Bales, 7 Va. App. 141, 147, 371 S.E.2d 823, 826 (1988) (<HOLDING>). When an erroneous spousal support award is Options: A. holding that a court is without authority to modify its spousal support decree retroactively and relieve a party of the obligation to pay past due installments B. holding that the trial court was without authority to modify a spousal support obligation when the modification proceeding was initiated ten years after the obligation to pay spousal support under the dissolution judgment had been terminated by order C. holding that the trial court lacked authority to renew spousal support payments pursuant to a motion that was filed after the expiration of time during which spousal support was required to be paid under the original judgment D. holding that where payments are made on past due support they must first be applied to current child support installments due then to accrued and outstanding interest on delinquent child support obligations and finally to the principal amount due on unpaid child support E. holding that a trial court has broad discretion to modify a spousal maintenance award

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a court is without authority to modify its spousal support decree retroactively and relieve a party of the obligation to pay past due installments