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: 5, 16 (1st Cir.2009) (quoting United States v. Vázquez-Rivera, 407 F.3d 476, 486 (1st Cir.2005)). If, on the contrary, no contemporaneous objection was made, we review under the four-pronged plain-error standard. United States v. Hilario-Hilario, 529 F.3d 65, 74-75 (1st Cir.2008) (citing United States v. Allen, 469 F.3d 11, 16 (1st Cir.2006)). “An unpreserved error is deemed plain (and, therefore, to affect substantial rights) only if the reviewing court finds that it skewed the fundamental fairness or basic integrity of the proceeding below in some major respect.” United States v. Taylor, 54 F.3d 967, 972 (1st Cir.1995) (citing United States v. Griffin, 818 F.2d 97, 100 (1st Cir.1987)); see also United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 163 n. 14, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982) (<HOLDING>). To make this determination, we consider all Options: A. holding that issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered absent exceptional circumstances of plain error or fundamental miscarriage of justice B. holding that courts of appeal should only correct a forfeited error at the trial level in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result C. holding that the plainerror doctrine applies in those circumstances in which absent appellate intervention a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result D. holding that failure to consider an improper jury instruction would constitute a miscarriage of justice E. holding that issues raised for first time on appeal generally will not be considered absent exceptional circumstances of plain error or fundamental miscarriage of justice

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the plainerror doctrine applies in those circumstances in which absent appellate intervention a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result
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 the execution of this Agreement by the Company, nor the issuance, offering or sale of the Placement Shares, nor the consummation by the Company of any of the transactions contemplated herein and therein, nor the compliance by the Company with the terms and provisions hereof thereof will conflict with, or will result in a breach of, any of the terms and provisions of, or has constituted or will constitute a default under, or has resulted in or will result in the creation or imposition of any lien, charge or encumbrance upon any property or assets of the Company pursuant to the terms of any contract or other agreement to which the Company may be bound or to which any of the property or assets of the Company is subject, except (i) such conflicts, breaches or defaults as may have been waived and (ii) such conflicts, breaches and defaults that would not have a Material Adverse Effect; nor will such action result (x) in any violation of the provisions of the organizational or governing documents of the Company, or (y) in any material violation of the provisions of any statute or any order, rule or regulation applicable to the Company or of any court or of any federal, state or other regulatory authority or other government body having jurisdiction over the Company.

assistant: No Conflicts
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, during the Employment Period and for one (1) year thereafter, Executive shall not, in any communications with the press or other media or any customer, client or supplier of OUTFRONT or any of OUTFRONT’s affiliated companies, criticize, ridicule or make any statement which disparages or is derogatory of OUTFRONT or any of OUTFRONT’s affiliated companies or any of their respective directors, officers or employees.

assistant: Non-Disparagement
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: sufficient support for his allegations so as to trigger the protections discussed in Remmer. It was not enough for Barnes to allege “contact between a juror and her pastor,” Barnes also needed to present a credible allegation that this contact was “about a matter pending before the jury.” Denying the Remmer presumption of prejudice or an evidentiary hearing based on the conclusion that the communication alleged did not call into question the integrity of the verdict, i.e., did not concern the “matter pending before the jury,” fully complies with Remmer. To that end, this Court has previously recognized that it is the petitioner’s initial burden to show prejudicial contact in considering whether Remmer’s presumption of prejudice has been triggered. See Blauvelt, 638 F.3d at 295 (<HOLDING>); Wolfe, 565 F.3d at 162 (holding that “the Options: A. recognizing a remmer presumption but noting that sometimes the circumstances are such that the remmer presumption does not even apply B. holding that a defendant did not waive his right to be present at an ex parte encounter between the judge and juror because he was not present at the time of the communication and therefore had no opportunity to object when the error was committed C. holding that the remmer presumption did not apply where the communication was innocuous and the defendant had failed to present evidence that the communication was prejudicial D. holding in a postaedpa habeas case that the remmer presumption did not apply due to the innocuous nature of an intrusion upon a jury implying that the remmer presumption could apply in the habeas context E. holding that a communication between the judge and juror which is unrelated to the case being tried is not improper and prejudicial

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the remmer presumption did not apply where the communication was innocuous and the defendant had failed to present evidence that the communication was prejudicial
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: Subordinated Creditor hereby represents and warrants to Agent and Senior Lenders that as of the date hereof: (a) the Subordinated Creditor has the legal capacity and authority to enter into, execute, deliver and carry out the terms of this Agreement, all of which have been duly authorized by all proper and necessary action; (b) the execution of this Agreement by the Subordinated Creditor will not violate or conflict with any material agreement binding upon the Subordinated Creditor, or any law, regulation or order or require any consent or approval which has not been obtained; (c) the Subordinated Creditor has delivered to Agent a true, correct and complete executed copy of each Subordinated Debt Document; (d) this Agreement is the legal, valid and binding obligation of the Subordinated Creditor, enforceable against the Subordinated Creditor in accordance with its terms, except as such enforceability may be limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium or similar laws affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights generally and by equitable principles; (e) the Subordinated Creditor is the sole owner, beneficially and of record, of the rights and obligations under the Subordinated Debt Documents and of the Subordinated Debt; and (f) the Subordinated Debt is, and at all times prior to the termination of this Agreement shall remain, an unsecured obligation of the Company and any of its Subsidiaries or affiliates.

assistant: Representations
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: Tire Co. v. Martinez, 977 S.W.2d 328, 340-41 (Tex.1998); General Motors Corp. v. Saenz, 873 S.W.2d 353, 356 (Tex.1993); Gen. Chem. Corp. v. De La Lastra, 852 S.W.2d 916, 921-22 (Tex.1993); Boatland of Houston, Inc. v. Bailey, 609 S.W.2d 743, 746 (Tex.1980)). Significantly, the Nissan court expressly recognized the admissibility of incidents to show that a safer design w .D. 611, 614-16 (D.Kan.2005) (granting plaintiffs motion to compel the production of information concerning the defendant manufacturer’s European version of a child car seat in a lawsuit involving a child car seat manufactured by the same parent corporation in the United States where the discovery was relevant to the feasibility of a safer alternative design); Herman v. Andrews, 50 S.W.3d 836, 844 (Mo.App. E.D.2001) (<HOLDING>); Preston v. Montana Eighteenth Judicial Dist. Options: A. holding a substantially similar probation condition overbroad B. holding deadline 120 days before election was not unreasonable or unduly burdensome C. holding 241 not vague or overbroad D. holding 3631 not vague or overbroad E. holding that plaintiffs request for substantially similar product types was not overbroad unduly burdensome or oppressive

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that plaintiffs request for substantially similar product types was not overbroad unduly burdensome or oppressive
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 sets forth the entire agreement of the parties hereto in respect of the subject matter contained herein and supersedes all prior agreements, promises, covenants, arrangements, communications, representations or warranties, whether oral or written, by any officer, employee or representative of any party hereto in respect of the subject matter contained herein; and any prior agreement of the parties hereto in respect of the subject matter contained herein is hereby terminated and cancelled. Except for the provisions of Section 4.1 hereof, nothing in this Agreement shall modify, amend or alter, in any manner, any stock option, stock restriction or other equity incentive arrangement or any non-disclosure, non-competition, non-solicitation, assignment of invention, or any similar agreement, to which the Executive is a party. Executive shall not be entitled to any severance or similar benefits in excess of the benefits the Executive is owed under this Agreement. To the extent that, at the time of the Executive’s termination of employment, any laws or regulations provide for the payment of a severance or similar benefit that is in addition to, or in excess of, the amounts Executive is owed with respect to any similar element of compensation under this Agreement, the Executive hereby waives any rights or benefits to which the Executive may be entitled pursuant to any such laws or regulations; provided that, to the extent the foregoing waiver is ineffective or unenforceable, the benefits to which the Executive is owed under this Agreement shall be reduced to an amount such that the sum of such reduced amount and the amount the Executive actually receives pursuant to any such laws or regulations is equal to the amount that would have been payable under this Agreement but for the operation of this proviso.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Overflow Owner does not allege simply that Structure Owners sat on their rights to the point of waiving them. Instead, it argues that some affirmative acts were taken by Structure Owners, including closing the parking garage and closing a large portion of the mall retail space, that violated the ROA restriction on parking ratios and that, by engaging in those affirmative acts, they waived the ability to prevent Overflow Owner from contravening that same restriction. See Musgrove, 2009 WL 976010, at *6 (noting that “a restriction can be waived to the extent it is violated, even if a more expansive ‘waiver’ would not be supported by the evidence”); cf. Friedman v. Rozzlle, No. 13-12-00779-CV, 2013 WL 6175318, at *4-5 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Nov. 21, 2013, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (<HOLDING>). The limited terms of this nonwaiver clause do Options: A. holding that a restrictive covenant with worldwide restrictions on competition is not reasonable B. holding there is no duty to third parties on the part of a premises owner who could not have foreseen the criminal acts of third parties C. holding that a restrictive covenant with a tenyear term was unenforceable D. holding that property owner who violated restrictive covenant multiple times over several years waived enforcement of same restriction against third parties as matter of law E. recognizing the courts right to modify the parties obligations under a restrictive covenant in light of current developments and the parties initial expectations

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that property owner who violated restrictive covenant multiple times over several years waived enforcement of same restriction against third parties as matter of law
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: Defendants and the Individual Defendants in their official capacity and Plaintiffs Law 17 and Law 69 claims against the Individual Defendants in their personal capacities. . The court hereby DISMISSES Plaintiffs Title VII claims against the Individual Defendants in their individual capacity, Section 1983 claims; and Law 115 against Individual Defendants. To the extent that Plaintiffs claims against the Commonwealth Defendants and Individual Defendants in their official capacity request monetary- damages, those claims are likewise -DISMISSED with préjudicé." SO ORDERED. 1 . The'Supreme Court of Puerto Rico has approved this identicality requirement. Rodríguez-Garcia, 354 F.3d at 97. See Cintron v. Estado Libre Asociado de P.R., 27 P.R. Offic. Trans. 582, 127 D.P.R. 582 (1990) (<HOLDING>). 2 . Plaintiff correctly asserts that Options: A. holding that a timely filed extrajudicial claim did not toll the statute of limitations for a suit in the puerto rico courts because it did hot pursue identical claims B. holding that equitable considerations did not toll the statute of limitations under the tort claims act where plaintiffs conduct was not in strict compliance with congressional waiver of immunity C. holding that under the law of the district of columbia the filing of a complaint does not toll the statute of limitations on a counterclaim D. holding that the statute of limitations is tolled during a malicious prosecution suit when a timely complaint is filed E. holding that duress toll to statute of limitations under state law had no application to federal rico statute of limitations

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a timely filed extrajudicial claim did not toll the statute of limitations for a suit in the puerto rico courts because it did hot pursue identical claims
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 findings are insufficient to qualify him as a “leader, manager, or supervisor.” According to Brown, “it appears that Clark may have been using Brown” for a place to stay, and for food, alcohol, and drugs. Thus, he contends “[t]he fact that he and Brown went out together a few times to deliver Brown’s crack cocaine, and Clark happened to be the driver, does not categorically place Clark in the position of being “controlled” by Brown.” Brown may well be correct such evidence would not, as a matter of law, suffice to establish a defendant’s role as a supervisor or manager. The problem, however, is his view of the evidence, as recited above, differs markedly from the district court’s view. “Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the district court’s 8th Cir. 1992) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, I concur in the majority’s Options: A. holding that defendant was not resident of his mothers household even though his drivers license listed his mothers address and he received mail there because he expressed a belief that his residence was in a different location than his mothers home he rented and occupied his own residence and he testified that he was only living with his mother after expiration of his lease until he could find another place to live B. holding that there was a sufficiently direct relationship between restricting the defendants selfemployment as a roofer and his bank fraud conviction when the defendant used his roofing business to facilitate the fraud and after his initial sentence he failed to provide information about his business activities to his probation officer C. holding that an applicant may establish eligibility for asylum based exclusively on activities undertaken after his arrival in the united states so long as he demonstrates that authorities in his country are aware of his activities or likely to become aware of his activities D. holding that the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts in his complaint to state a claim for wrongful discharge where he alleged he was discharged due to his political affiliation and activities E. holding that a defendant may be seen as supervising the four drivers he used in his criminal activities

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a defendant may be seen as supervising the four drivers he used in his criminal activities
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall make reasonable efforts to comply with all applicable federal and state securities laws; provided , however , notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the Company shall not be obligated to issue any of the Common Shares covered by this Agreement if the issuance thereof would result in violation of any such law.

assistant: Compliance With 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: Exhibit 3.24 lists all trade secrets, names, assumed names, registered or unregistered trade names, patents, inventions or discoveries that may be patentable, registered or unregistered trademarks, registered or unregistered service marks, registered or unregistered copyrights, registered or unregistered brands, applications for any of the foregoing, and proprietary rights in internet web sites and internet domain names, as owned, used or licensed by Seller in connection with the Facility (collectively, the “ Intellectual Property Assets ”). The Intellectual Property Assets owned by Seller do not infringe, misappropriate, violate or conflict with any patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret or any other intellectual property or proprietary right of any other person.

assistant: Intellectual Property
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: installation services. In addition, Siemens has stated that when installation services are provided, “they are part and parcel of the contract for sale of equipment to the customer.” These are clear indications that Siemens has provided recurrent work for installation services as defined by the Kentucky courts. See Cain, 236 S.W.3d at 588; Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company v. Sherman & Fletcher, 705 S.W.2d 459, 462 (Ky.1986) (finding that “a person who engages another to perform a part of the work which is a recurrent part of his business, trade, or occupation is a contractor”). Siemens has also continued to provide installation services since the NAS contract and indicates that this work is recurrent. See Daniels v. Louisville Gas and Electric Company, 933 S.W.2d 821, 823 (Ky.App.1996) (<HOLDING>). We find that Plaintiffs placed an unwarranted Options: A. holding that uncharged conduct may be considered at sentencing when that conduct is proven by a preponderance of the evidence B. holding that lg e may be classified as a contractor when it subcontracted with tsa to conduct emissions testing at irregular or sporadic intervals which satisfied the definition of regular or recurrent work C. holding that when attorneys were acting as members of the firm with respect to the case in question section 504b1 applies to allow fee sharing with any member whether that membership is regular or sporadic D. holding that duty to ensure that independent contractor performs its work in safe manner arises if the general contractor retains some control over the manner in which the independent contractor performs its work E. holding that if contractor is hable to sub that liability though not yet satisfied by payment might well constitute actual damages to the contractor and sustain their suit under rule that contractor may only sue to recover its own damages

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that lg e may be classified as a contractor when it subcontracted with tsa to conduct emissions testing at irregular or sporadic intervals which satisfied the definition of regular or recurrent work
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: Seller has all requisite power and authority to execute and deliver this APA, to perform its obligations hereunder, and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby. The execution and delivery of this APA by Seller and the consummation by Seller of the transactions contemplated hereby have been duly authorized by all necessary action, and no other proceedings on the part of Seller are necessary to authorize this APA or to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby. This APA has been duly executed and delivered by Seller and, assuming the due authorization, execution, and delivery thereof by Purchaser, constitutes the legal, valid, and binding obligation of Seller, enforceable against Seller in accordance with its terms, except that: (a) such enforcement may be subject to applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, or other similar laws, now or hereafter in effect, affecting creditors' rights generally; and (b) the remedy of specific performance and injunctive and other forms of equitable relief may be subject to equitable defenses and to the discretion of the court before which any proceeding therefor may be brought.

assistant: 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: 503 F.3d at 717-719 (concluding that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of age discrimination but holding that defendant’s decision to replace the plaintiff with someone twenty-eight years younger was insufficient to persuade jury that the plaintiff was discriminated against). The approximately thirty-seven year age difference between Dunn and Brittany is significant enough to satisfy the fourth element of Dunn’s prima facie case. See Riley v. Lance, Inc., 518 F.3d 996, 1000 (8th Cir.2008) (“As to part four of the prima facie case, Lance does not dispute Riley’s contention that he was replaced with a substantially younger person. That fact alone gives rise to the necessary inference of age discrimination.”); Keathley v. Ameritech Corp., 187 F.3d 915, 920-21 (8th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>) abrogated on other grounds by Torgerson, 643 Options: A. holding that age discrimination claim was subject to compulsory arbitration B. holding that age discrimination is not a personal injury tort C. holding that fourteenyear age difference is sufficient to infer discrimination D. holding age discrimination claim barred E. holding that a statement of fact relating to the plaintiffs age was not direct evidence of age discrimination because the relevance of the comment is provided by inference

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that fourteenyear age difference is sufficient to infer discrimination
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to Texas Farm Bureau’s June 2011 settlement offer as a matter of law. “A counteroffer constitutes a rejection, not an acceptance, of the original offer.” Blackstone v. Thalman, 949 S.W.2d 470, 473 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no writ). An offeree’s power of acceptance is terminated by the making of a counteroffer, unless the offeror has manifested a contrary intention or unless the counteroffer manifests a contrary intention of the offeree. Thurmond, 699 S.W.2d at 682; see also Restatement (Seo-ONd) Of CONTRACTS § 39(2). Once it has been terminated by the making of a counteroffer, an offeree’s power to accept the original offer cannot be revived by later accepting the offer. See Legal Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, 373 S.W.2d 693, 698 (Tex.Civ.App. — Austin 1963, no writ) (<HOLDING>); see also Figueroa v. Davis, 318 S.W.3d 53, Options: A. holding that the rejection of an offer has the effect of terminating it and it cannot be revived by later acceptance B. holding that under oregon law an acceptance of an offer must be positive unconditional unequivocal and unambiguous C. holding that a valid contract requires acceptance of an offer D. holding that an offer to donate cannot be an offer to sell E. holding purchaser of software product was bound by terms of shrinkwrap agreement upon opening the packaging of the product reasoning that a vendor as master of the offer may invite acceptance by conduct and may propose limitations on the kind of conduct that constitutes acceptance a buyer may accept by performing the acts the vendor proposes to treat as acceptance

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the rejection of an offer has the effect of terminating it and it cannot be revived by later acceptance
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: Set forth on Schedule 5.20(b) as of the Closing Date and as of the last date such Schedule was required to be updated in accordance with Sections 6.02, 6.14 and 6.15, is a list of all registered or issued Intellectual Property (including all applications for registration and issuance) owned by each of the U.S. Loan Parties or that each of the U.S. Loan Parties has an exclusive in-bound license right to (including the name/title, current owner, registration or application number, and registration or application date and such other information as reasonably requested by the Lender), in each case that is registered or in respect of which an application for registration has been applied for in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office or the U.S. Copyright Office.

assistant: Intellectual Property
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 notice or other communication required or desired to be given to a party under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed given when: (a) received by the recipient, after being sent via certified mail, return receipt requested, and addressed to that party at the address for such party set forth at the end of this Agreement; or (b) received by the recipient after being sent via Federal Express, Airborne, or similar overnight delivery service for delivery to that party at that address. A party may change its address for notices under this Agreement by giving the other parties notice of such change in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Our holding that SB 1145 did not apply retroactively rested solely on A.R.S. § 1-244 and the Legislature’s failure to expressly declare in SB 1145 that it applied to offenses committed before its effective date. Garcia, 214 Ariz. at 252-53 ¶¶ 7-11, 151 P.3d at 535-36. ¶ 11 Nor did Garcia suggest that “at no time in the future could the Legislature make [SB 1145] retroactive.” Rios, 225 Ariz. at 299-300 ¶ 25, 237 P.3d at 1059-60. Thus, the Legislature’s later enactment of SB 1449 did not “overrule” Garcia. Although SB 1449 was enacted in response to Garcia, every legislative enactment retroactively changing a court’s pronouncement on a statute is not a per se separation of powers violation. See, e.g., Hale v. Wellpinit Sch. Dist. No. 19, 165 Wash.2d 494, 198 P.3d 1021, 1027-28 (2009) (<HOLDING>). Rather, the Legislature does not violate Options: A. holding legislatures retroactive amendment of statutory definition which rejected court interpretation did not violate separation of powers B. recognizing that the judicial rewriting of a statute would violate the separation of powers doctrine C. recognizing a referendum on a court judgment would violate separation of powers D. holding that statute that retroactively reduced penalties for drug offenses did not violate separation of powers E. recognizing separation of powers doctrine

assistant: The best answer is A. holding legislatures retroactive amendment of statutory definition which rejected court interpretation did not violate separation of 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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: office consumer-based services , applications , or products ( including sway and onenote ) are for your personal , noncommercial use , unless you have commercial use rights under a separate agreement with microsoft .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Employee agrees that, within five business days of the Separation Date, he shall provide ID Systems (attention: Chris Wolfe) with a written comprehensive summary of all outstanding work activities, current and prospective customer contact information, and otherwise reasonably cooperate as necessary to effect a transition of his responsibilities. Employee also agrees that he will cease from communicating with any current ID Systems employees (with the exception of Chris Wolfe, Ned Mavrommatis and Lindsay Estelle) regarding ID Systems personnel or other business-related matters. Employee agrees to reasonably cooperate in any ID Systems investigations and/or litigation regarding events that occurred during Employee’s tenure with ID Systems. ID Systems will compensate Employee for reasonable expenses Employee incurs in extending such cooperation regarding investigations and/or litigation, so long as Employee provides advance written notice of Employee’s request for compensation.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Employee agrees that he/she will not make any disparaging comments about Magellan or any negative reference to the character, quality, or propriety of Magellan’s personnel or business operations, except as may be required by law, or take other action intended to hamper, impede, or obstruct the successful and continued business operations of Magellan. Employee acknowledges that as of the date of the execution of this Severance Agreement he/she has not made any such disparaging or negative comments or taken any such hampering, impeding, or obstructing action.

assistant: Non-Disparagement
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: Pharmacy II has no justiciable interest in the payment of funds out of the account. When determining whether Pharmacy II has standing, we must determine whether Pharmacy II has a “ ‘cause of action, which involves the combination of a right on the part of the plaintiff and a violation of such right by defendant.’ ” See Exxon Corp v. Pluff, 94 S.W.3d 22, 28 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2002, pet. denied) (quoting Nobles v. Marcus, 533 S.W.2d 923, 927 (Tex.1976)). A party has standing when it is personally aggrieved. Nootsie, 925 S.W.2d at 661. “Standing deals with whether a litigant is the proper person to bring a lawsuit, not whether that party can ultimately prevail on the claims asserted.” Faulkner v. Bost, 137 S.W.3d 254, 259 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2004, no pet.); see also Hunt, 664 S.W.2d at 324 (<HOLDING>). A partnership has standing to file suit in Options: A. holding it is a question of fact B. holding that the question of whether an existing constitutional right is infringed is strictly a question of law C. holding that generally the question of waiver and estoppel is a question of fact D. holding the question of standing is distinct from the question of proof and once the plaintiffs alleged an interest peculiar to themselves and distinguishable from the public generally they were entitled to a factual hearing E. holding that the plaintiffs in an election case were not required to show a substantial injury distinct from that suffered by the public in general

assistant: The best answer is D. holding the question of standing is distinct from the question of proof and once the plaintiffs alleged an interest peculiar to themselves and distinguishable from the public generally they were entitled to a factual hearing
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Guarantee and any information disclosed under this Guarantee shall be governed under the Confidentiality Agreement. This Guarantee may not be used, circulated, quoted or otherwise referred to in any document, except with the written consent of Guarantor and the Guaranteed Party; provided that no such written consent will be required (and the Guaranteed Party and its Affiliates will be free to release such information) for disclosures to employees, agents, legal, financial, accounting or other advisors or representatives on a confidential basis; provided , that the Guarantor, Parent, Merger Sub and Guaranteed Party may disclose or use such information and this Guarantee to the extent required by Law, the applicable rules of any national securities exchange or in connection with any SEC filings relating to the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.

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: of the Developer stating that since the moratorium, the Developer “has been effectively forced to leave its ... property economically idle.” The affidavit appears to be based on consultation with land-use experts, but does not explain who they are, what they considered, or what then-opinions are, and the affidavit also appears to admit that agricultural use of the property is possible, but denies that it is “economically viable.” In our view, this self-serving affidavit without any explanation of the underlying factual basis for its conclusions does not serve to create a material issue of fact that “all reasonable beneficial use” of the property has been deprived by the County’s actions. See Galvan v. City of Albuquerque, 85 N.M. 42, 44-45, 508 P.2d 1339, 1341-42 (Ct.App.1973) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, summary judgment was properly Options: A. holding that unsupported affidavits setting forth ultimate or conclusory facts and conclusions of law are insufficient to either support or defeat a motion for summary judgment B. holding that unsupported affidavits setting forth ultimate or conclusoiy facts and conclusions of law are insufficient to either support or defeat a motion for summary judgment C. holding that summits adoption of the facts set forth in mitchells brief was admissible D. holding that affidavits must set forth facts admissible in evidence and explain its conclusions E. 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

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that affidavits must set forth facts admissible in evidence and explain its conclusions
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: importantly, (3) “[w]here the disclosure of an informer’s identity, or of the contents of his communication, is relevant and helpful to the defense of the accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a cause ....” Id. at 60. The first limitation provides that where the informant’s communication will not reveal the informant’s identity, such communication may be divulged. This limitation applies where the government has concealed both the informant’s identity and the contents of that informant’s communication. In such a situation, if it is possible to release only the contents of the communication, without making obvious the informant’s identity, the government is often required to reveal such information. Carbajal v. Village of Homestead, 2003 WL 23138447 at *4 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (<HOLDING>). In the present case, however, ASG has already Options: A. holding that a release of unknown claims has no effect in the absence of evidence apart from the words of the release B. holding that inclusion of a general release was merely a suggestion of how to terminate the lawsuit and that acceptance was not qualified on use of the specific release and party was willing to discuss the terms of a release C. holding that government should release contents of videotaped tip where contents of the tape do not reveal identity of those involved D. holding that release discharges only those tortfeasors specifically named in the release agreement E. holding that for purposes of revoking supervised release the applicable guidelines are those in effect at the time of the supervised release violations rather than those in effect at the time of initial offense

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that government should release contents of videotaped tip where contents of the tape do not reveal identity of those involved
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to life would provide a harsher sentence. Now that the defendant has challenged that sentence and this court has held it illegal, the prosecution on remand may seek and the court may impose a habitual offender sentence without violating any rights Mr. Davis might have under the Double Jeopardy Clause. In Harris v. State, 645 So.2d 386, 388 (Fla.1994), the supreme court observed that “the Double Jeopardy Clause is not an absolute bar to the imposition of an increased sentence on remand from an authorized appellate review of an issue of law concerning the original sentence. [The defendant] has not been deprived of any reasonable expectation of finality in his original sentence, nor has he been subject to repeated attempts to convict.” See also Trotter v. State, 825 So.2d 362 (Fla.2002) (<HOLDING>); Ellis v. State, 869 So.2d 52, 53 (Fla. 5th Options: A. holding that where the original drug quantity determination is not specific enough for the district court to determine whether it has the authority to reduce a defendants sentence under 3582c2 that court may make new findings of fact that are supported by the record and are not inconsistent with the findings made in the original sentencing proceedings B. holding that in a new sentencing proceeding after the original sentence has been vacated by the appellate court the trial court is not precluded from applying a drugtrafficking multiplier that it did not use in formulating the original sentence C. holding that a judge who imposes a more severe sentence after the original sentence is successfully attacked must affirmatively state objective reasons for the harsher sentence to ensure that vindictiveness against the defendant plays no part in the sentence he receives after a new trial D. holding that a trial court is not required to reimpose the original sentence but has discretion to impose a new sentence within the statutory limits governing the offense for which she was convicted E. holding that double jeopardy principles are not violated where the trial court did not impose a multiplier at the original sentencing but imposed a multiplier on remand

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that in a new sentencing proceeding after the original sentence has been vacated by the appellate court the trial court is not precluded from applying a drugtrafficking multiplier that it did not use in formulating the original sentence
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 shall consult with the other Parties, and shall, subject to the requirements of Section 5.03 , provide the other Parties the opportunity to review and comment upon, any press releases or other public statements in connection with the Separation or the Initial Public Offering or any of the other transactions contemplated hereby and any filings with any governmental authority or national securities exchange with respect thereto, in each case prior to the issuance or filing thereof, as applicable (including the Registration Statement and the Parties’ respective Current Reports on Form 8-K to be filed in connection with the Initial Public Offering).

assistant: Publicity
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: J.A. 179. The requirement is a necessary predicate to further consideration of the request for an exemption; no requests will be considered until the inmate “ha[s] authenticated [his] Native American heritage.” J.A. 179. And, it seems the policy was just so applied in Morrison’s case. Morrison was not refused a religious exemption because he failed to meet the requirements applicable to all inmates requesting a religious exemption to the personal property restrictions. Rather, Morrison was denied an exemption, and was told that he was being denied an exemption, because he did not prove Native American heritage. The district court’s findings in this regard enjoy overwhelming support in the record. See Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 287-88, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982) (<HOLDING>). Defendant Millard told Morrison that he could Options: A. holding that generally the question of waiver and estoppel is a question of fact B. recognizing but finding inapplicable pure question of law exception to doctrine of exhaustion C. holding that the issue of discriminatory intent in a race discrimination case is a factual question for the trier of fact whose findings are reviewed only for clear error D. holding that intent to discriminate on account of race is a pure question of fact subject to rule 52as clearlyerroneous standard E. holding it is a question of fact

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that intent to discriminate on account of race is a pure question of fact subject to rule 52as clearlyerroneous standard
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: like Debtor, the Carver court concluded that “[b]y rendering [§ 506] inapplicable to [claims covered by the flush language of section 1325(a) ], Congress expressly eliminated the mechanism by which they could be treated as secured claims under the Chapter 13 plan.” Id. at 525-26. See also Jean Braucher, Rash and Ride-Through Redux: The Terms for Holding on to Cars, Homes and Other Collateral under the 2005 Act, 13 AM. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev. 457, 471 (2005) (“A large problem with the argument that the intention [of the flush language of § 1325(a) ] was to dictate full debt repayment for certain recently acquired collateral is that section 1325(a) nowhere says that.”); 8 Collier on Bankruptcy at ¶ 1325.06[l][a], at pp. 1325-28— 1325-29 (Lawrence P. King et al. eds., 15th ed. Revised 2005) (<HOLDING>). However, unlike Debtor, the Carver court does Options: A. holding that if claim is not an allowed secured claim pursuant to section 506a by its terms section 1325a5b is inapplicable B. holding that if 506 does not apply to an allowed claim such claim cannot become a secured claim C. holding that the meaning of allowed secured claim in 506a does not determine the meaning of allowed secured claim in 506d D. 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 E. recognizing that the flush language of 1325a may be intended to that require certain secured claims are treated as fully secured regardless of the value of collateral but concluding even if that was the intent because the new language added to section 1325a ren ders entirely inapplicable for some creditors the only section section 506 that gives those creditors allowed secured claims it does not carry out such intent

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that the flush language of 1325a may be intended to that require certain secured claims are treated as fully secured regardless of the value of collateral but concluding even if that was the intent because the new language added to section 1325a ren ders entirely inapplicable for some creditors the only section section 506 that gives those creditors allowed secured claims it does not carry out such intent