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: adverse action. Davis v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 383 F.3d 309, 319 (5th Cir.2004). “An employee has engaged in activity protected by Title VII if [he] has either (1) ‘opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice’ by Title VII or (2) ‘made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing’ under Title VII.” Long v. Eastfield Coll., 88 F.3d 300, 304 (5th Cir.1996) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)). McKinney concedes that he did not engage in any protected activity- Nevertheless, he alleges that Bolivar retaliated against-him because it believed that he was engaging in protected activity and that such a misperception suffices for a retaliation claim. See Fogleman v. Mercy Hosp. Inc., 283 F.3d 561, 571-72 (3d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). As noted by the district court, the Fifth Options: A. holding that the plaintiff failed to show retaliation where there was no evidence that the employees who disciplined him knew of his protected activity B. holding that for purposes of a title vii retaliation claim an action is cognizable as an adverse employment action if it is reasonably likely to deter employees from engaging in protected activity C. holding that the fact that employer had knowledge of the employees protected activity was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation where the timing of the discharge was not proximate to the protected activity D. holding that a plaintiffs retaliation claim is cognizable even in the absence of protected activity as long as his employer perceived him to be engaged in such activity E. holding that plaintiff was not similarly situated to another employee who also engaged in protected activity for purposes of plaintiffs retaliation claim

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a plaintiffs retaliation claim is cognizable even in the absence of protected activity as long as his employer perceived him to be engaged in such activity
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 agrees that the provisions of SECTION 4 and SECTION 5 shall survive the termination of this Agreement and the termination of the Executive’s employment. Executive acknowledges that a breach by him of the covenants contained in SECTION 4 or SECTION 5 cannot be reasonably or adequately compensated in damages in an action at law and that such breach will cause the Company immeasurable and irreparable injury and damage. Executive further acknowledges that he possesses unique skills, knowledge and ability and that competition in violation of SECTION 4 or SECTION 5 would be extremely detrimental to the Company. By reason thereof, each of the Company and Executive agrees that the other shall be entitled, in addition to any other remedies it may have under this Agreement, at law or in equity, or otherwise, to temporary, preliminary and/or permanent injunctive and other equitable relief to prevent or curtail any actual or threatened violation of SECTION 4 or SECTION 5, without proof of actual damages that have been or may be caused to the Company by such breach or threatened breach, and waives to the fullest extent permitted by law the posting or securing of any bond by the other party in connection with such remedies.

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: economic loss doctrine in some de tail. See Air Prods, 256 F.Supp.2d 329. In Pennsylvania, “negligence and strict liability theories do not apply in an action between commercial enterprises involving a product that malfunctions where the only resulting damage is to the product itself.” REM Coal Co. Inc. v. Clark Equipment Co., 386 Pa.Super. 401, 563 A.2d 128 (1989) (en banc). The economic loss doctrine has been extended outside the realm of products liability to cases involving negligence in the performance of services contracts. Ashburner Concrete and Masonary Supply, Inc. v. O’Connor Truck Sales, Inc., No. 489, 2001 WL 1808035, at *3 (Pa. Cm.Pl. Aug. 10, 2001) (citing Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Associated Constr. and Management Corp., 2000 WL 424273, at *7 (E.D.Pa. Apr.19, 2000) (<HOLDING>); Factory Market, Inc. v. Schuller Int'l Inc., Options: A. holding that economic loss doctrine bars negligence claims as to engineering services related to roof repair and reconstruction B. holding that the economic loss doctrine barred a negligence claim without regard to whether the parties were in privity of contract C. holding economic loss doctrine bars negligence claim based on service contract D. holding that the preclusion of tort remedies for only economic loss extended to negligence claims E. holding that negligence in the performance of engineering services is inherently undiscoverable

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that economic loss doctrine bars negligence claims as to engineering services related to roof repair and reconstruction
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: BIA’s decision as the final agency determination. See INA § 242(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). Where the BIA affirms an IJ’s decision without issuing its own opinion, we review the IJ’s decision directly. Habtemicael v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 774, 779 (8th Cir.2004). Yann challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. A credibility determination is a finding of fact, and § 1252(b)(4)(B) provides it should be accepted “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Singh v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 553, 556 (8th Cir.2007). Applying this standard, we conclude the IJ’s adverse credibility finding is supported by specific, cogent reasons to doubt Yann’s credibility. See Gemechu v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 944, 947-48 (8th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Yann’s inconsistent testimony and suspect Options: A. holding that explicit credibility finding must be more than passing remark of disbelief and must be supported by specific cogent reasons B. holding that substantial evidence supports an adverse credibility finding if it is supported by specific cogent reasons C. holding that an ijs credibility determinations enjoy highly deferential review when supported by specific cogent reasons that bear a legitimate nexus to the findings D. holding that where adequately supported credibility findings are for the alj to make E. holding an ijs credibility findings are entitled to deference if supported by specific cogent reasons

assistant: The best answer is E. holding an ijs credibility findings are entitled to deference if supported by specific cogent reasons
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: Borrowing Agent may, upon at least fifteen (15) Business Days prior written notice to each Agent, terminate this Agreement by paying to Administrative Agent, in cash, the Obligations in full, plus the Applicable Premium, if any, payable in connection with such termination of this Agreement. If the Borrowing Agent has sent a notice of termination pursuant to this Section 13.2, then Lenders’ obligations to extend credit hereunder shall terminate and Borrowers shall be obligated to repay in cash the Obligations in full, plus the Applicable Premium, if any, payable in connection with such termination of this Agreement on the date set forth as the date of termination of this Agreement in such notice. The termination of the Agreement shall not affect any Agent’s or any Lender’s rights, or any of the Obligations having their inception prior to the effective date of such termination or any Obligations which pursuant to the terms hereof continue to accrue after such date, and the provisions hereof shall continue to be fully operative until (a) all transactions entered into, rights or interests created and Obligations have been fully paid, disposed of, concluded or liquidated, and (b) all Loan Parties have released Secured Parties from and against any and all claims of any nature whatsoever that any Loan Party may have against Secured Parties. The security interests, Liens and rights granted to Agents and Lenders hereunder and the financing statements filed hereunder shall continue in full force and effect, notwithstanding the termination of this Agreement or the fact that Borrowers’ Account may from time to time be temporarily in a zero or credit position, until all of the Obligations of each Loan Party have been paid and performed in full after the termination of this Agreement or each Loan Party has furnished Agents and Lenders with an indemnification satisfactory to Agents and Lenders with respect thereto. Accordingly, each Loan Party waives any rights which it may have under the Uniform Commercial Code to demand the filing of termination statements with respect to the Collateral, and Collateral Agent shall not be required to send such termination statements to each Loan Party, or to file them with any filing office, unless and until this Agreement shall have been terminated in accordance with its terms and all Obligations have been paid in full in immediately available funds. All representations, warranties, covenants, waivers and agreements contained herein shall survive termination hereof until all Obligations are paid and performed in full.

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: Disclosing Party may serve written request on Recipient for return or destruction of its Confidential Information at any time up to six (6) months after the termination or expiry of this Agreement and Recipient shall, within thirty (30) days of such request or termination, return to the Disclosing Party (or its designees) or certify as destroyed all Confidential Information, in whatever form, including written or electronically recorded information and all copies thereof (other than copies retained in automatic back-up and archive systems), provided however that Recipient shall be entitled to retain one copy of the Confidential Information with its legal counsel or other appropriate corporate representative to evidence the exchange of information hereunder and in connection with legal or statutory requirements.

assistant: No
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: not be considered preferential because the creditor would not receive more than in a chapter 7 liquidation,’ ” Committee of Creditors Holding Unsecured Claims v. Koch Oil Co. (In re Powerine Oil Co.), 59 F.3d 969, 972 (9th Cir.1995) (quoting 5 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 547.08, at 547-47 (Lawrence P. King ed., 15th ed.1995)), our previous cases have not defined what it takes to make a creditor “fully secured” within the meaning of § 547(b)(5). The mere fact that the value of a creditor’s collateral exceeds the bankrupt’s indebtedness in a “snapshot” on the petition date does not establish that a creditor is fully secured for purposes of § 547(b)(5) analysis. See Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors v. Am. Sterilizer (In re Comptronix Corp.), 239 B.R. 357, 362-63 (Bankr.M.D.Tenn.1999) (<HOLDING>). Instead, § 547(b)(5) requires the court to Options: A. holding that the secured creditor was only entitled to the amount of its claim as provided in the debtors chapter 13 plan when the destruction of the vehicle yielded insurance proceeds greater than the secured creditors claim B. holding that a debt incurred for a personal family or household purpose is a consumer debt even though it is secured by the debtors real property C. holding that a creditor cannot defeat a claim of preference merely by showing that the debt is fully secured on the petition date D. holding that a 910claim is fully secured and requires that interest be added to the payment to arrive at the present value of the claim E. holding that where a security agreement contained collateral other than collateral for which creditor advanced funds to debtor since it secured antecedent debts as well as new debt and the agreement provided that the security interest secured payment and performance of the debtors present and future debts to the creditor the creditor did not have a pmsi and the debtors could avoid the creditors lien on collateral claimed as exempt

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a creditor cannot defeat a claim of preference merely by showing that the debt is fully secured on the petition date
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 execution and delivery of this Agreement by Borrower and the performance of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement have been duly authorized by Borrower by all necessary action on the part of Borrower. Borrower has delivered to Lender, in form and substance satisfactory to Lender, resolutions or unanimous written consent of the board of directors or members, as applicable, of Borrower and each such Guarantor approving and adopting the Credit Documents, the transactions contemplated therein and authorizing execution and delivery thereof, certified by a secretary or assistant secretary of Borrower and each such Guarantor to be true and correct and in force and effect as of the date hereof. All shareholder, member, Governmental Authority and other third party consents and approvals required in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby have been obtained.

assistant: Authorizations
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 provide Executive’s reasonable cooperation in connection with any action or proceeding (or any appeal from any action or proceeding) which relates to events occurring during Executive’s employment hereunder. This provision shall survive any termination of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: The second exception is for procedural rules that are “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” id. (citation omitted), or “watershed rules of criminal procedure implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding.” Tyler, 533 U.S. at 665, 121 S.Ct. 2478 (quoting Graham v. Collins, 506 U.S. 461, 478, 113 S.Ct. 892, 122 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993)). The Supreme Court has not made the new rule announced in Apprendi retroactive. See Forbes v. United States, 262 F.3d 143, 145 (2d Cir.2001) (per curiam). Moreover, Courts in the Southern District of New York have largely held that the Apprendi holding does not fit either of the two exceptions set forth in Teague, and therefore is hot retroactively applicable on collateral review. See Raulston, 2002 WL 826810, at *4 (<HOLDING>); Fiumara v. United States, 198 F.Supp.2d 427, Options: A. 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 B. holding that the apprendi decision is not applicable on collateral review C. holding that apprendi does not apply on collateral review D. holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively E. holding that alleyne does not apply to cases on collateral review

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that apprendi does not apply on collateral review
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 ( i ) except as may be provided in a Joinder Agreement, constitutes the entire agreement among the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement and supersedes any prior discussions, correspondence, negotiation, proposed term sheet, agreement, understanding or agreement and there are no agreements, understandings, representations or warranties between the parties other than those set forth or referred to in this Agreement, and ( ii ) except as provided in Section 5 with respect to an Indemnified Party, is not intended to confer in or on behalf of any Person not a party to this Agreement (and their successors and assigns) any rights, benefits, causes of action or remedies with respect to the subject matter or any provision 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 parties hereto acknowledge that each of the Company and PDL BioPharma, Inc. shall be irreparably harmed and that there shall be no adequate remedy at law for a breach of any of the covenants or agreements of the Investors set forth herein. Therefore, it is agreed that, in addition to any other remedies that may be available to each of the Company and PDL BioPharma, Inc. upon any such breach (or threatened breach), each of the Company and PDL BioPharma, Inc. shall have the right to enforce such covenants and agreements by specific performance, injunctive relief or by any other means available at law or in equity.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower is a Delaware limited partnership. The Parent MLP, the Borrower and each other Restricted Subsidiary: (a) is duly organized or formed, legally existing and in good standing, if applicable, under the laws of the jurisdiction of its formation, except where failure to so exist or remain in good standing could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, (b) has all requisite power, and has all material governmental licenses, authorizations, consents and approvals necessary to own its assets and carry on its business as now being or as proposed to be conducted, except where failure to have such power could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect and (c) is qualified to do business in all jurisdictions in which the nature of the business conducted by it makes such qualification necessary and where failure so to qualify could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Existence
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 Employment Period, Executive shall receive an initial annual base salary in an amount equal to $400,000, less all applicable withholdings, which shall be paid in accordance with the customary payroll practices of the Company and prorated for partial calendar years of employment (as in effect from time to time, the “Annual Base Salary”). The Annual Base Salary shall be subject to annual review by the Board, in its sole discretion, for possible increase and any such increased Annual Base Salary shall constitute “Annual Base Salary” for purposes 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: the offense of conviction, the conviction cannot qualify as an ACCA predicate. Holloway, 630 F.3d at 257. An offense qualifies under ACCA’s residual clause if the offense poses a risk “comparable to that posed by its closest analog among the enumerated offenses.” Sykes v. United States, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 2267, 2273, 180 L.Ed.2d 60 (2011). In this case, Defendant has pleaded guilty to three violent felonies under Massachusetts law, two of which have been held by the First Circuit to qualify categorically as violent felonies, and a third which clearly would qualify based on the holdings of the Commonwealth’s courts. Defendant pleaded guilty to larceny from the person in 1989, which qualifies as a violent felony under ACCA. See United States v. Rodriguez, 659 F.3d 117, 119 (1st Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). In 1990, Defendant pleaded guilty to assault Options: A. holding south carolina conviction for failure to stop for a blue light to be violent felony under acca because prohibited conduct creates potential for confrontation and violence B. holding massachusetts conviction for larceny from the person constitutes violent felony under the residual clause of the acca C. holding that a massachusetts conviction of larceny from the person qualifies as a violent felony because the potential for confrontation and physical injury invariably exists D. holding that vehicular manslaughter qualifies as a violent felony under section 924e2bii in that it involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another E. holding categorical approach to determine whether a prior conviction qualifies as a violent felony for acca purposes raises no sixth amendment issue

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a massachusetts conviction of larceny from the person qualifies as a violent felony because the potential for confrontation and physical injury invariably exists
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 PARTY IRREVOCABLY WAIVES, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, ANY RIGHT IT MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY LEGAL PROCEEDING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY OR THEREBY (WHETHER BASED ON CONTRACT, TORT OR ANY OTHER THEORY). EACH PARTY (i) CERTIFIES THAT NO REPRESENTATIVE, AGENT OR ATTORNEY OF ANY OTHER PERSON HAS REPRESENTED, EXPRESSLY OR OTHERWISE, THAT SUCH OTHER PERSON WOULD NOT, IN THE EVENT OF LITIGATION, SEEK TO ENFORCE THE FOREGOING WAIVER AND (ii) ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT AND THE OTHER PARTIES HAVE BEEN INDUCED TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT AND THE OTHER LOAN DOCUMENTS BY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE MUTUAL WAIVERS AND CERTIFICATIONS IN THIS SECTION 10.6(D) .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except with respect to the material terms and conditions of the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Documents, the Company confirms that neither it nor any other Person acting on its behalf has provided any of the Purchasers or their agents or counsel with any information that it believes constitutes or might constitute material, non-public information which is not otherwise disclosed in the SEC Reports. The Company understands and confirms that the Purchasers will rely on the foregoing representation in effecting transactions in securities of the Company. All of the disclosure furnished by or on behalf of the Company to the Purchasers regarding the Company and its Subsidiaries, their respective businesses and the transactions contemplated hereby, including the Disclosure Schedules to this Agreement, is true correct and 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 (12) 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 no Purchaser makes or has made any representations or warranties with respect to the transactions contemplated hereby other than those specifically set forth in Section 3.2 hereof.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: in no event will snap group limited , snap inc. , or their affiliates ' aggregate liability for all claims relating to the services exceed the greater of # 100 gbp or the amount you paid snap group limited , if any , in the last 12 months .

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: directing Deason to ascend the scaffolding for dismantling, Walker performed a visual inspection of its condition. Walker contends that, in light of the foregoing facts and prior decisions of this Court, even assuming that he negligently performed his duties with regard to the inspection and ascension of the scaffolding, those duties were performed in' the line and scope of his discretionary authority as a carpenter supervisor. See Ex parte Randall, 971 So.2d 652, 664 (Ala.2007) (“This Court has previously held that poor judgment or wanton misconduct, an aggravated form of negligence, does not rise to the level of willfulness and maliciousness necessary to put the State agent beyond the immunity recognized in Cramnan. See Giambrone [v. Douglas], 874 So.2d [1046] at 1057 [ (Ala.2003),] (<HOLDING>).”). The undisputed evidence before us Options: A. holding that a state agent was entitled to immunity notwithstanding the fact that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to return a verdict for malicious prosecution because malice for purposes of malicious prosecution can be based upon a lack of probable cause but such malice in law is not enough to satisfy the ex parte cranman exception for acts committed willfully maliciously fraudulently in bad faith beyond his or her authority or under a mistaken interpretation of the law B. holding that for a defendant to recoup attorneys fees under 706k of title vii a court must find that the plaintiff litigated his or her claim beyond the point where it became frivolous unreasonable or groundless or where plaintiff acted in bad faith C. holding that stateagent immunity is not abrogated for negligent and wanton behavior instead immunity is withheld only upon a showing that the state agent acted willfully maliciously fraudulently in bad faith or beyond his or her authority D. holding that awarding fees under 35a is inappro priate absent an explicit finding that the losing party acted willfully or in bad faith E. holding that a bad faith claim is a tort

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that stateagent immunity is not abrogated for negligent and wanton behavior instead immunity is withheld only upon a showing that the state agent acted willfully maliciously fraudulently in bad faith or beyond his or her authority
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: (alteration in original) (quoting Livadas, 512 U.S. at 125, 114 S.Ct. 2068); see Hawaiian Airlines, 512 U.S. at 262, 114 S.Ct. 2239 (“[A]s long as the state-law claim can be resolved without interpreting the agreement itself, the claim is ‘independent’ of the agreement for ... pre-emption purposes.” (quoting Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 408-10, 108 S.Ct. 1877, 100 L.Ed.2d 410 (1988))). In Kobold, where the state law required employers to transmit paycheck deductions to health insurance plans in a timely manner, we held that the claim was not preempted at Burnside’s second step because the CBA “unambiguously specif[ied]” the parties’ rights and obligations and therefore did not require interpretation. 832 F.3d at 1040; see also Balcorta, 208 F.3d at 1109-10 (<HOLDING>). In Matson v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 840 Options: A. holding claim not preempted where court is required to read and apply cba provisions that are neither uncertain nor ambiguous B. holding that plaintiffs state law claim against a nonsignatory to the cba was preempted by 301 C. holding negligent misrepresentation claim was not preempted because it neither sought benefits under plan nor alleged improper processing of benefits D. holding that designation is neither a sentence nor a punishment E. holding that a claim based on a supervisors circulation of a suspension letter accusing the plaintiff of cocaine use was not preempted despite cba provisions authorizing employee discipline

assistant: The best answer is A. holding claim not preempted where court is required to read and apply cba provisions that are neither uncertain nor ambiguous
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: 420 Pa.Super. 115, 616 A.2d 6, 8 (1992). This Court has previously held delays of fifteen months, two years, and four years are not “intrinsically reasonable.” Woods, supra at 1228; Clark, supra at 124; Bischof, supra. ¶ 12 When examining the reasons for the delay, the court looks at the circumstances surrounding the delay to determine whether the Commonwealth acted with due diligence in scheduling the revocation hearing. Clark, supra at 124. The court should not fault the Commonwealth for delays resulting from the Department of Corrections’ inability to find, transport, or house defendants in their custody. Id. at 125. Similarly, a court should not attribute to the Commonwealth delays caused by the defendant. Commonwealth v. Gaus, 300 Pa.Super. 372, 446 A.2d 661, 663-64 (1982) (<HOLDING>). Nonetheless, where the Commonwealth provides Options: A. holding delay of two years and four months lengthy enough to warrant review of other factors B. holding only two months of four year and eight month delay attributable to commonwealth where defendant fled and concealed his whereabouts for four years and six months C. holding a four month delay to be reasonable under 3161h7 D. holding that dismissal was required where overall length of prosecution was 16 months state was responsible for 13 months of delay and six months of that delay was due to simple neglect E. holding that a six month delay was unreasonable

assistant: The best answer is B. holding only two months of four year and eight month delay attributable to commonwealth where defendant fled and concealed his whereabouts for four years and six months
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: Landlord and Tenant hereby warrant to each other that they have had no dealings with any real estate broker or agent in connection with the negotiation of this Sixth Amendment, and that they know of no real estate broker or agent who is entitled to a commission in connection with this Sixth Amendment. Each party agrees to indemnify and defend the other party against and hold the other party harmless from any and all claims, demands, losses, liabilities, lawsuits, judgments, and costs and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees) with respect to any leasing commission or equivalent compensation alleged to be owing on account of any dealings with any real estate broker or agent occurring by, through, or under the indemnifying party. The terms of this Section 2 shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of the Lease.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Parties agree that the terms and provisions of this Agreement embody their mutual intent, each Party has had the opportunity to negotiate its provisions and contribute to its drafting, and therefore, it is not to be construed more liberally in favor of, or more strictly against, any Party hereto.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: factual issue of discrimination vel non for clear error. See Merwine v. Bd. of Trustees for State Institutions of Higher Learning, 754 F.2d 631, 636 (5th Cir.1985). We agree with the district court that Wallace’s salary was based on the workings of the classified and unclassified civil service system, as well as the operation of the LSU employee system, which the district court accurately described at trial as “Byzantine.” Wallace fails to show that any disparity in pay was based on his race, and his claim is supported by only his own subjective belief. See Byers v. Dallas Morning News, Inc., 209 F.3d 419, 427 (5th Cir.2000) (rejecting plaintiffs reliance on subjective belief regarding discriminatory intent); Anderson v. Douglas & Lomason Co., 26 F.3d 1277, 1297-98 (5th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). We conclude there is no clear error in the Options: A. holding that more favorable treatment of similarly situated employees outside the race classification is required to make a prima facie race discrimination case B. holding that mere presence at the crime scene without more is insufficient to prove accomplice liability C. holding that the test for good faith is the actual belief of the party and not the reasonableness of that belief D. holding that an employee may establish that the legitimate reason for an employment decision offered by an employer is pretextual by showing by a preponderance of the evidence either that the discrim inatory reason was the true reason motivating the employers conduct or that the profferred legitimate reason was false E. holding that plaintiffs mere collective belief was insufficient to prove that race was the true reason for disparate treatment

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that plaintiffs mere collective belief was insufficient to prove that race was the true reason for disparate treatment
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 Shawn Oneal Williams, a native and citizen of Jamaica, seeks review of a March 30, 2012, decision of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. See In re Shawn Oneal Williams, No. A074 840 789 (B.I.A. Mar. 30, 2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and pro ssing whether Williams’s second immigration attorney was ineffective, while Williams’s claim was that his first immigration attorney was ineffective. Nonetheless, we decline to remand as remand would be futile. See Alam v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 184, 187 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). The BIA’s finding that Williams failed to Options: A. holding that apprendi error is harmless if the court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the result would have been the same absent the error internal quotation marks and citation omitted B. holding that remand is not required where there is no realistic possibility that absent the errors the ij or bia would have reached a different conclusion internal quotation marks omitted C. holding that remand is unnecessary when it is clear that the same decision would have been reached in the absence of the errors D. recognizing that party is not permitted to use the accident of a remand to raise an issue that it could just as well have raised in the first appeal internal quotation marks and alterations omitted E. holding there was not plain error because a different result probably would not have been reached absent the trial courts alleged error

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that remand is not required where there is no realistic possibility that absent the errors the ij or bia would have reached a different conclusion internal quotation marks omitted
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 U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 372 U.S. 605 83 S.Ct. 925 10 L.Ed.2d 8 STATE TAX COMMISSION OF UTAH, Petitioner,v.PACIFIC STATES CAST IRON PIPE COMPANY. No. 178. Argued March 20, 1963. Decided April 1, 1963. F. Burton Howard, Salt Lake City, Utah, for petitioner. C.M. Gilmour, Salt Lake City, Utah, for respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 Respondent, a Nevada corporation qualified to do business in Utah, manufactures cast-iron pipe and related items in Provo, Utah, and sells its products throughout the Western States. Prices set by respondent are for the goods delivered at a specific job site, and interstate delivery is usually made by common carrier or in respondents's own equipment. The sales here involved occurred in a different manner. In each case the material was manufactured to meet the specifications of specific out-of-state jobs. The contract called for out-of-state shipment, and respondent set a destination price which included the going common carrier freight charges between the two points involved. But delivery was made and title passed to the purchaser at respondent's foundry in Provo. The purchaser then transported the pipe with its own equipment to the predetermined out-of-state destination. The common carrier tariff was credited to the purchaser. 2 The Utah Tax Commission imposed upon respondent a sales tax deficiency covering these sales. 3 The Supreme Court of Utah reversed the Tax Commission, on the grounds that the certainty of interstate shipment made the imposition of the tax on these shipments unconstitutional under the Commerce clause. 13 Utah 2d 113, 369 P.2d 123. We reverse its judgment on the authority of International Harvester Co. v. Department of Treasury, 322 U.S. 340, 345, 64 S.Ct. 1019, 88 L.Ed. 1313, which holds on facts close to those of this case that a State may levy and collect a sales tax, since the passage of title and delivery to the purchaser took place within the State. 4 Reversed.

assistant: 8
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 Plan Administrative Committee shall have all powers specified in the Plan in addition to all others as may be necessary to discharge its duties hereunder, including, but not by way of limitation, the power to construe or interpret the Plan, to determine all questions of eligibility hereunder, to determine the method of payment of any Account hereunder, to adopt rules relating to the giving of timely notice, and to perform such other duties as may from time to time be delegated to it by the Board.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the Government fairly describes the content of the material withheld and adequately states its ground for non-disclosure, and if those grounds are reasonable and consistent with the applicable law, the district court should uphold the Government’s position. The court is entitled to accept the credibility of the affidavits, so long as it has no reason to question the good faith of the agency. Barney v. IRS, 618 F.2d 1268, 1272 (8th Cir.1980) (quotation omitted). “Boilerplate affidavits,” without more, are insufficient to show that no genuine issue of fact exists, but a court may rely on affidavits “giving reasonably detailed explanations why any withheld documents fall within an exemption.” ACLU v. DOJ, 681 F.3d 61, 69 (2d Cir.2012); see also Wilner v. NSA 592 F.3d 60, 73 (2d Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Exemption 5 FOIA Exemption 5 protects from Options: A. holding that different justifications for an adverse action are not sufficient to defeat summary judgment when those reasons are not incompatible B. holding that an agency carries its burden of proof by providing affidavits to explain why documents are subject to an exemption C. holding affidavits must include competent evidence and affidavits are not competent if they fail to show a basis for actual person knowledge or if they state conclusions without the support of evidentiary facts D. holding that affidavits are sufficient if they describe the justifications for nondisclosure with reasonably specific detail demonstrate that the information withheld logically falls within the claimed exemption and are not controverted by either contrary evidence in the record nor by evidence of agency bad faith E. holding that the prosecutors nondisclosure of material evidence affecting a witnesss credibility which goes uncorrected falls within the requirements of brady

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that affidavits are sufficient if they describe the justifications for nondisclosure with reasonably specific detail demonstrate that the information withheld logically falls within the claimed exemption and are not controverted by either contrary evidence in the record nor by evidence of agency bad faith
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 communication or notice required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be in writing, and, if to the Company, to its principal place of business, attention: Secretary, and, if to the Participant, to the address appearing on the records of the Company. Such communication or notice shall be delivered personally or sent by certified, registered, or express mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or by a reputable overnight delivery service. Any such notice shall be deemed given when received by the intended recipient. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any notice required or permitted hereunder from the Company to the Participant may be made by electronic means, including by electronic mail to the Company-maintained electronic mailbox of the Participant, and the Participant hereby consents to receive such notice by electronic delivery. To the extent permitted in an electronically delivered notice described in the previous sentence, the Participant shall be permitted to respond to such notice or communication by way of a responsive electronic communication, including by electronic mail.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Neither party shall issue or make any public announcement, press release or other public disclosure regarding this Sublease or its subject matter or the parties without the other party’s prior written consent, except for any such disclosure that is, either required for a party to comply with its rights and obligations under the Sublease, or which in the opinion of the disclosing party’s counsel, required by law or the rules of a stock exchange on which the securities of the disclosing party are listed. In the event a party is, in the opinion of its counsel, required to make a public disclosure by law or the rules of a stock exchange on which its securities are listed, such party shall submit the proposed disclosure in writing to the other party at least five (5) days prior to the date of disclosure for an opportunity to comment thereon.

assistant: Confidentiality
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: claimant’s claim for hearing aids is barred by the statute of limitations. Arkansas Code Annotated § ll-9-702(a)(l) (1987)', provides, “A claim for compensation for disability on account of injury, other than an occupational disease and occupational infection, shall be barred unless filed with the Commission within two (2) years from the date of injury.” The Commission determined that Rollon’s 1.9% permanent hearing impairment had developed and become apparent to Rollon more than two years prior to the date he filed his claim for benefits on March 3, 1993, and was therefore barred by the statute of limitations, a finding not appealed to this court. However, the Commission recognized that although Rollon’s permanent impairment remained the same under the AMA Guides, he W.2d 193 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Likewise, in the present case, we hold that Options: A. holding the law presumes that a cause lies outside the limited jurisdiction of the federal courts and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction B. holding that appellant bears burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence C. holding that it is the claimants burden to show that the injury was the result of an accident that not only arose in the course of the employment but that it also grew out of or resulted from the employment D. holding that the liberal construction of workers compensation laws did not relieve a claimant of the burden of showing a causal relation between his injury and the employment E. holding that the burden rests upon the party seeking benefits to prove the injury sustained was the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment and the rule of liberal construction is not a substitute for the claimants burden of establishing his claim by a preponderance of the evidence

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the burden rests upon the party seeking benefits to prove the injury sustained was the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment and the rule of liberal construction is not a substitute for the claimants burden of establishing his claim by a preponderance of the evidence