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: S.Ct. 367. “[E]vidence of a general work atmosphere, including evidence of harassment of other racial minorities may be considered in evaluating a claim, as long as [the plaintiff] presents evidence that [she] knew about the offending behavior.” Tademy v. Union Pac. Corp., 614 F.3d 1132, 1146 (10th Cir.2008) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). It is unclear from the record whether Ms. Hernandez heard or was aware of the racially offensive references to the black cook. She testified, however, that she heard all the other racially tinged comments and jokes. And, contrary to Valley View’s assertion, the cook references are relevant to her claim whether or not they were directed at her personally. See McCowan v. All Star Maint., Inc., 273 F.3d 917, 925, n. 10 (10th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Valley View also argues that three of the Options: A. recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983 B. holding that plaintiff cannot meet hostile work environment threshold simply by pointing to comments directed at other individuals C. holding that comments not directed at plaintiff including a supervisor who called another worker the nword were relevant to the evaluation of hostile work environment claim D. holding that supervisors routine vulgar references to plaintiff could not support a hostile work environment claim because plaintiff was unaware of the comments and to show that he or she perceived the environment as hostile a title vii plaintiff must at least have been aware of those comments E. holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that comments not directed at plaintiff including a supervisor who called another worker the nword were relevant to the evaluation of hostile work environment claim
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if an update affects your use of the services or your legal rights as a user of our services , we 'll notify you prior to the update 's effective date by sending an email to the email address associated with your account or via an in-product notification .

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: Tenant represents and warrants that it is not an employee benefit plan as defined under Section 3(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (" ERISA "), or an entity (e.g. an insurance company separate or general account) subject to ERISA or holding ERISA "plan assets" within the meaning of the Department of Labor Regulations at Section 2510.3-101.

assistant: Erisa
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 has five Subsidiaries: Leomotors Korea, Inc., LGM Co. Ltd., Leo Trading, Inc., Leo Motors Factory 1, Inc. and Leo Motors Factory 2, Inc. The Company owns, directly or indirectly, the capital stock or other equity interests of each Subsidiary, in the amounts set forth on Schedule 3.1(a), free and clear of any Liens, and all of the issued and outstanding shares of capital stock of each Subsidiary are validly issued and are fully paid, non-assessable and free of preemptive and similar rights to subscribe for or purchase securities. If the Company shall at any time in which no Debentures remain outstanding have no subsidiaries, all other references to the Subsidiaries or any of them in the Transaction Documents shall be disregarded.

assistant: Subsidiaries
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: (a) There are no actions, suits or proceedings by or before any arbitrator or Governmental Authority pending against or, to the knowledge of the Borrower, threatened against or affecting the Borrower or any of the Subsidiaries (i) which could reasonably be expected, individually or in the aggregate, to result in a Material Adverse Effect (other than the Disclosed Matters) or (ii) that involve this Agreement or the Transactions.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement, as well as the exhibits hereto and any agreements referenced herein, is the final, complete and exclusive agreement of the parties and sets forth the entire agreement between Company and Employee with respect to Employee’s employment by Company, and there are no undertakings, covenants or commitments other than as set forth herein. The Agreement may not be altered or amended, except by a writing executed by Employee and a member of the Board. Except as otherwise indicated, this Agreement supersedes, terminates, replaces and supplants any and all prior understandings or agreements between the parties relating in any way to the hiring or employment of Employee by Company.

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: This Agreement shall become effective upon the consummation of the Social IPO (such date, the “ Effective Date ”). The parties hereto acknowledge that this Agreement is expressly contingent upon the consummation of the Social IPO and that in the event SciGames determines not to consummate the Social IPO, this Agreement shall be null and void ab initio .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be effective for two (2) years from the Effective Date. Either party may terminate the Agreement for any reason with sixty (60) days prior written notice to the other party. Unless a party delivers written notice of non-renewal to the other party at least sixty (60) days before the end of the current term, the Agreement shall renew automatically each year for an additional one (1) year term.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Swingline Loans shall bear interest at a per annum rate equal to the Base Rate as in effect from time to time plus the Applicable Margin for Revolving Loans that are Base Rate Loans or at such other rate or rates as the Borrower and the Swingline Lender may agree from time to time in writing. Interest on Swingline Loans is solely for the account of the Swingline Lender (except to the extent a Revolving Lender acquires a participating interest in a Swingline Loan pursuant to the immediately following subsection (e)). All accrued and unpaid interest on Swingline Loans shall be payable on the dates and in the manner provided in Section 2.5. with respect to interest on Base Rate Loans that are Revolving Loans (except as the Swingline Lender and the Borrower may otherwise agree in writing in connection with any particular Swingline Loan).

assistant: Interests
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 Underlying Repurchase Counterparty maintains, for itself and its Subsidiaries, Fidelity Insurance in an aggregate amount at least equal to $300,000. Each Underlying Repurchase Counterparty maintains, for itself and its Subsidiaries, Fidelity Insurance in respect of its officers, employees and agents, with respect to any claims made in connection with all or any portion of the Mortgage Loans it originates. The Underlying Repurchase Counterparty will notify the of any material change in the terms of any such Fidelity Insurance.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As soon as possible, and in any event within ten Business Days, after: (a) Borrower or any ERISA Affiliate knows that with respect to any Employee Benefit Plan, a “prohibited transaction,” a “reportable event,” or any other event or condition that could subject Borrower or any ERISA Affiliate to a material liability under ERISA or the Code; or (b) the institution of steps by Borrower or any ERISA Affiliate to withdraw from, or the institution of any steps by any party to terminate, any Employee Benefit Plan; has or may have occurred, Borrower shall deliver to Lender a certificate of a responsible officer setting forth the details of such matter, the action that Borrower proposes to take with respect thereto, and, when known, any action taken or threatened by the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Department of Labor, or the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. For purposes of this covenant, Borrower shall be deemed to have knowledge of all facts known by the fiduciaries of any Employee Benefit Plan of Borrower or any ERISA Affiliate.

assistant: Erisa
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: automated call services, “in some instances in connection with operators.” The district court permissibly interpreted the indemnity clause language encompassing “any and all” damages, to conclude that no material issue of fact regarding indemnity existed, and that the entire settlement amount arose from and was connected to Syntellect’s infringement. The district court’s decision is supported by its review of the evidence, including the nature of the Katz claims, the types of calls included in the settlement, and the expansive indemnity agreement. No material issue of fact was raised regarding whether Syntellect’s indemnity obligation extends to all damages included in the settlement. Cf. Peter Culley & Assocs. v. Superior Ct., 10 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1497, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 624 (1992) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. * This disposition is not Options: A. holding that a contract must entitle the plaintiff to money damages in the event of the governments breach of that contract B. holding that the trial courts exclusion of evidence about a partys damages was at best harmless error because the partys method of calculating damages contravened indiana law and was without merit C. holding that insurance obligation was primary to indemnity obligation D. holding that a party may rescind a contract and avoid liability thereunder if the partys consent to the contract was procured by the other partys either fraudulent or nonfraudulent material misrepresentations E. holding that allocation of damages may be appropriate if the contract limits the partys indemnity obligation

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that allocation of damages may be appropriate if the contract limits the partys indemnity obligation
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: this nd n. 3 (545 SE2d 179) (2001) (citing numerous cases applying waiver to OCGA § 17-8-57 claims and noting that in State v. Griffin, 240 Ga. 470, 470 (241 SE2d 230) (1978), this Court had granted certiorari to reiterate that “[t]he question of whether [what is now OCGA § 17-8-57] has been violated is not reached [on appeal] unless an objection or motion for mistrial is made [at trial]”). In 2000, however, this Court, after recognizing that “we have repeatedly held that such an error [under OCGA § 17-8-57] is waived in the absence of an objection or a motion for a mistrial,” decreed that “[w]e believe the plain error rule should be applied to cases of this kind.” Paul v. State, 272 Ga. 845, 848 (537 SE2d 58) (2000). See also Ledford v. State, 289 Ga. 70, 85 (709 SE2d 239) (2011) (<HOLDING>); Archie, 248 Ga. App. at 57 (stating that Paul Options: A. holding that direct appeal from subsequent conviction is the proper context in which to seek review of trial courts ruling declaring mistrial over defendants objection at previous trial B. recognizing that a defendant may not raise one ground for objection at trial and argue a different ground on appeal C. recognizing that paul and subsequent cases had disapproved the prior cases holding that appellate review of an alleged ocga 17857 violation is waived unless an objection or motion for mistrial is made on that ground at trial D. holding that the plain error review provided for in ocga 17858 is waived where the defendant requested the charge in question and made no objection to the charge at trial E. holding to preserve an issue for appellate review the issue must have been raised to and ruled upon by trial court and a party may not argue one ground for objection at trial and another ground on appeal

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that paul and subsequent cases had disapproved the prior cases holding that appellate review of an alleged ocga 17857 violation is waived unless an objection or motion for mistrial is made on that ground at trial
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 plaintiffs or the plaintiff class. Kleiner, 751 F.2d at 1206. A showing of actual harm is not necessary. Hampton Hardware, 156 F.R.D. at 633. “[I]t is unnecessary for a trial court to issue particularized findings of abusive conduct when a given form of speech is inherently conducive to overreaching and duress.” Kleiner, 751 F.2d at 1206. Plaintiffs cite Hampton Hardware for the proposition that ex parte contact with potential class members should be enjoined in situations where an ongoing commercial relationship exists, because of its inherently coercive nature. Pls.’ Reply at 5 (citing Hampton Hardware, 156 F.R.D. at 633). They cite the actual and potential dangers that exist when litigation looms over a continuing business relationship. Id; see also Kleiner, 751 F.2d at 1202 (<HOLDING>). The fear is that, “Crown’s employees, Options: A. holding that a corporation is entitled to due process of law insofar as property rights are concerned so that a money judgment may not be entered against it where it was not a party to a cause and was not served with process even though the principal stockholder was a party to the cause B. holding that an arbitration agreement enforceable against party who signed the agreement even where the other party did not sign it because generally it is enough that the party against whom the contract is sought to be enforced signs it C. holding that it may not D. holding that the other party must have adequate notice of the claim in order to defend against it E. holding that one partys economic status may cause it to forego certain rights it would otherwise have against the other party

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that one partys economic status may cause it to forego certain rights it would otherwise have against the other party
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 this case there is no substantive difference between the old rule and the new rule, which provides that two prior sentences count separately if the offenses were separated by an intervening arrest. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2). Thus, Huggins cannot be distinguished based merely on a nonpertinent change to the text of the applicable rule. The relevant distinction is that the defendant in Huggins received two separate sentences for his two prior offenses, notwithstanding the fact that the offenses were “consolidated for sentencing.” The prior offenses in Huggins occurred in 1987, six years before North Carolina enacted the consolidated sentence provision. See N.C. Gen. Ann. Laws 1993, c. 538, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 1994; see also State v. Branch, 134 N.C.App. 637, 518 S.E.2d 213, 215 (1999) (<HOLDING>). Thus, Huggins is inapposite because it does Options: A. holding that the date of the federal indictment not the date of the state arrest was the triggering date for the speedytrial act B. holding retroactive application of the act to prosecution that was pending before the effective date of the act was precluded because the act is prospective C. holding that although probation statute was repealed by sentencing reform act old provision continued to apply to offenses which occurred before effective date of act nov 1 1987 D. holding that the commission on remand can set the effective date of a rate to be the effective date of the original commission activity E. holding that as a matter of law offenses that were committed prior to 1 october 1994 the effective date of the structured sentencing act cannot be consolidated for judgment under the act

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that as a matter of law offenses that were committed prior to 1 october 1994 the effective date of the structured sentencing act cannot be consolidated for judgment under the act
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: (i) There is no action, suit, proceeding or investigation pending or, to the knowledge of such Person, threatened, against such Person before any Governmental Authority and (ii) such Person is not subject to any order, judgment, decree, injunction, stipulation or consent order of or with any Governmental Authority that, in the case of either of the foregoing clauses (i) and (ii) , (A) asserts the invalidity of this Agreement or any other Transaction Document, (B) seeks to prevent the grant of a security interest in any Collateral by such Person to the Administrative Agent, the ownership or acquisition by such Person of any Pool Receivable or other Collateral or the consummation of any of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement or any other Transaction Document, (C) seeks any determination or ruling that could materially and adversely affect the performance by such Person of its obligations under, or the validity or enforceability of, this Agreement or any other Transaction Document or (D) individually or in the aggregate for all such actions, suits, proceedings and investigations could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices, requests and demands to or upon the Administrative Agent or each Pledgor hereunder shall be effected in the manner provided for in Section 9.2 of the Credit Agreement; provided that any such notice, request or demand to or upon any Pledgor shall be addressed to such Pledgor at its notice address set forth on Schedule 1 .

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: acts of third parties. Id. The Barry decision is precisely analogous to the present matter insofar as Plaintiffs argue that Defendant has established minimum contacts with New Mexico because it possesses, as assignee, an interest in the New York Mortgage that the RTC, as assignor, negotiated and executed in New Mexico. This Court finds, as did the Barry court, that the RTC’s negotiation and execution of the Note and the New York Mortgage in New Mexico are irrelevant to Defendant’s contacts with New Mexico, because the RTC’s actions are “the unilateral activit[ies] of [a party] other than the non-resident [Defendant [and] cannot satisfy the requirement of [Defendant’s contact with the forum state.” Id.; see also Conwed Corp. v. Nortene, S.A., 404 F.Supp. 497, 501-02 (D.Minn.1975) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, Options: A. holding no personal jurisdiction over nonresident guarantor B. holding that a choice of law provision is not sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant C. holding that court did not have personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant where defendant assignee received patents from assignor over whom court had personal jurisdiction in part because the unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state D. holding that court did not have personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant because plaintiff failed to show that defendant was assignee of assignor over whom court had personal jurisdiction E. holding that nonresident defendants failure to make payments in florida coupled with forum selection clause sufficient for court to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that court did not have personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant where defendant assignee received patents from assignor over whom court had personal jurisdiction in part because the unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event the claims review procedure described in this Section 8.6 does not result in an outcome thought by the claimant to be in accordance with the Plan document, he may appeal to a third party neutral arbitrator. The claimant must appeal to an arbitrator within sixty (60) days after receiving the RPAC's denial or deemed denial of his request for review and before bringing suit in court. The arbitration will be conducted pursuant to the American Arbitration Association (" AAA ") Rules on Employee Benefit Claims.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of the Borrower and its Subsidiaries has title in fee simple to, or a valid leasehold interest in, all its material real property, and good title to, or a valid leasehold interest in, all its other material property, and none of such property is subject to any Lien except as permitted by Section 7.3.

assistant: Liens
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: trial court ruled at the conclusion of the Freemans’ casein-chief and therefore at least some of Sorchych’s evidence was apparently not presented or considered by the trial court, to the extent it is relevant a factual question still exists as to the previous condition of the road in 1969 and subsequently. 8 . The court further noted that the Freemans' request for contribution "is made even though [the Freemans] acknowledge that [Sorchych] never agreed to contribute despite the fact this issue was discussed by the parties." The Free-mans argue that the testimony at trial was that Sorchych did in fact agree to contribute, and therefore, the court erred in its find 2d 593, 598 (1982) (same); Meadow Run & Mountain Lake Park Ass’n v. Berkel, 409 Pa.Super. 637, 598 A.2d 1024, 1027 (1991) (<HOLDING>); Carson v. Jackson Land & Mining Co., 90 W.Va. Options: A. holding that the rules of criminal procedure should be common knowledge to lawenforcement and judicial officers who have the duty and responsibility to authorize searches B. holding that the statute in question served to modify prior common law and that the legislature was empowered to make such changes in the common law based on the public interest C. holding that repair and maintenance costs for common roads and other common areas were the responsibility of the residential users and not the homeowners association that held title to the roads D. holding that individual property owners holding an express easement to use roads in a privately developed residential area rather than the voluntary nonprofit association organized to raise funds to maintain the roads were obligated to contribute to the repair and maintenance of those roads E. holding that the statutes abrogated the common law

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that repair and maintenance costs for common roads and other common areas were the responsibility of the residential users and not the homeowners association that held title to the roads
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Subject to Section 8.1(d), at any time prior to the Closing, Sellers’ Representative (on behalf of Sellers, the Company and the Blocker) may (a) extend the time for the performance of any of the obligations or other acts of Buyer contained herein, (b) waive any inaccuracies in the representations and warranties of Buyer contained herein or in any document, certificate or writing delivered by Buyer pursuant hereto or (c) waive compliance by Buyer with any of the agreements or conditions contained herein. Subject to Section 8.1(e), at any time prior to the Closing, Buyer may (i) extend the time for the performance of any of the obligations or other acts of the Company, the Sellers or Blocker contained herein, (ii) waive any inaccuracies in the representations and warranties of the Company, the Sellers or Blocker contained herein or in any document, certificate or writing delivered by the Company, the Sellers or Blocker pursuant hereto or (iii) waive compliance by the Company, the Sellers or Blocker with any of the agreements or conditions contained herein. Any agreement on the part of any Party to any such extension or waiver shall be valid only if set forth in a written instrument duly authorized and executed on behalf of such Party. No course of dealing or other failure of any Party to assert any of its rights hereunder shall constitute a waiver of such rights.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No modification or waiver by the Lender of any of the terms of this Note shall be valid or binding on the Lender unless such modification or waiver is in writing and signed by the Lender. The Lender’s rights and remedies under this Note are cumulative with and in addition to all other legal and equitable rights and remedies which the Lender may have in connection with the Loan. The headings to sections of this Note are for convenient reference only and shall not be used in interpreting this Note. If this Note is lost, stolen, or destroyed, upon Borrower’s receipt of a reasonably satisfactory indemnification agreement executed by the Lender, or if this Note is mutilated, upon the Lender’s surrender of the mutilated Note to Borrower, Borrower shall execute and deliver to the Lender a new promissory note which is identical in form and content to this Note to replace the lost, stolen, destroyed or mutilated Note. Time is of the essence in the performance of each provision of this Note by Borrower.

assistant: Modifications
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: 106-11 (2d Cir.2001) (finding that the alleged misrepresentations as to the value of the variable annuities were “in connection with” the security); Korsinsky, 2002 WL 27775, at *5 (finding that the alleged misrepresentations as to the value of a stock were “in connection with” the stock); Hardy, 189 F.Supp.2d at 18 (same). In contrast, courts have found that the “in connection with” element was not met when the plaintiff did not allege that the fraud concerned the value of the security or the consideration received in return. See Anatian v. Coutts Bank (Switzerland) Ltd., 193 F.3d 85, 88 (2d Cir.1999) (finding that the alleged misrepresentations as to the authority to extend credit did not concern the value of a security or the consideration received); Spielman, 2001 WL 1182927, at *5 (<HOLDING>); Laub v. Faessel, 981 F.Supp. 870, 871 Options: A. holding that the same must pertain to the value of the security and where the facts indicated they did not B. holding that a plaintiff satisfied rule 9b by pleading which machines were the subject of alleged fraudulent transactions and the nature and subject of the alleged misrepresentations C. holding that the alleged misrepresentations concerning the transaction fees charged by a broker did not concern the value of a security or the consideration received D. holding that if the alleged misrepresentations are material a plaintiff is entitled to recovery whether or not the misrepresentations caused the alleged damage E. holding that plaintiff was entitled to sue under rule 10b5 for the difference between the price and the value received from the sale of the security where as here the evil is not the price at which plaintiff bought but the fact of being induced to buy

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the alleged misrepresentations concerning the transaction fees charged by a broker did not concern the value of a security or the consideration received
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 Parent and its Restricted Subsidiaries, taken as a whole, are, and immediately after giving effect to the Transactions (including the incurrence of all Indebtedness hereunder) and the extension of the Maturity Date pursuant to Section 2.06 , will be, Solvent.

assistant: Solvency
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: alleges that an unauthorized surgical procedure was performed, the burden is on plaintiff to prove that the operation that was performed was not authorized by him). In Appellants’ view, by proving that the “contact” or “touching” was not consented to, the patient establishes that it was “offensive,” which is sufficient to make the unauthorized surgery a de facto battery. Thus, they conclude, there is no need to instruct the jury on the elements of an “actual” battery. Appellants further argue that the trial court’s jury charge requiring proof of the surgeon’s intent to harm is inconsistent with well-settled case law establishing that a patient may pursue a claim for lack of consent even where no physical injury resulted from the unauthorized surgery. See Montgomery, 798 A.2d at 749 (<HOLDING>). Additionally, Appellants point out that the Options: A. holding that courts lack jurisdiction to address merits of a claim where party raising the claim is found to lack standing to maintain suit B. holding that a lack of consent claim is actionable even if the subject surgery was properly performed and the overall result is beneficial C. holding that lack of justiciable interest resulted in lack of standing to pursue claim and that lack of standing deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to act D. holding that lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent E. holding that claim for sons suicide was not actionable

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a lack of consent claim is actionable even if the subject surgery was properly performed and the overall result is beneficial
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: even in the absence of otherwise mandated safety protocols and procedures. However, as the emergency condition fades, as the rights and obligations of persons and entities engaged in the response effort become regulated by contract, as procedures and protocols are implemented to protect against potential dangers, the need for immunity diminishes and the obligations and duties otherwise imposed once again must be protected. There is no bright-line demarcation between that which is emergent and that which is done in the more normal course. In a jurisdictional setting, I proposed to create a two-week period after September 11, to September 29, 2001, at which time, pursuant to order of the Mayor, efforts turned from rescue of victims to clearance of debris. See Hickey, 270 F.Supp.2d at 374 (<HOLDING>). The Court of Appeals, however, disapproved of Options: A. holding that new york law applies to this matter B. holding that section 408 of air safety act extended to claims brought by workers for respiratory injuries suffered during rescue and cleanup efforts at the wtc after attacks C. holding under new york law in fact the failure to prove damages is fatal to a plaintiffs breach of contract cause of action D. holding that causes of action of workers claiming respiratory injury arose under the air transportation safety and system stabilization act before september 29 2001 and under new york state law thereafter E. holding that in the event that parties are from different states and the subject matter is national in scope and where the contract states it shall be deemed to be made under the laws of the state of new york and for all purposes construed in accordance with laws of said state new york law applies as the parties choice of law

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that causes of action of workers claiming respiratory injury arose under the air transportation safety and system stabilization act before september 29 2001 and under new york state law thereafter
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: 355 U.S. 465 78 S.Ct. 425 2 L.Ed.2d 419 AMERICAN AIRLINES, Inc., petitioner,v.NORTH AMERICAN AIRLINES, Inc., and Civil Aeronautics Board. No. 55. Supreme Court of the United States February 3, 1958 Mr. Howard C. Westwood, for petitioner. Mr. O. D. Ozment (Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Hansen, Messrs. Daniel M. Friedman, Franklin M. Stone and Robert L. Toomey, on the brief), for respondent Civil Aeronautics Board. On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment is reversed insofar as it set aside the Board's order. American Airlines, Inc. v. North American Airlines, Inc., 351 U.S. 79, 76 S.Ct. 600, 100 L.Ed. 953. Mr. Justice ODUGLAS dissents

assistant: 9
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 Administrator shall withhold, or shall direct the person making any payment to withhold, from payments made hereunder any taxes required to be withheld from a Participant’s wages for the federal or any state or local government. To the extent that benefits hereunder are subject to tax under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act or any other law prior to the time that they become payable, the Administrator may either withhold, or direct the Participant’s Employer to withhold, the amount of such taxes from any other compensation or other amounts payable to the Participant, or may deduct the amount of such tax from the Participant’s Account in accordance with Section 3.7(c). The Administrator’s determination of the amount to be so withheld or deducted shall be final and binding on all parties.

assistant: Withholdings
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: marriages have not been terminated by law or death of one spouse are “absolutely void ab ini-tio, without being so decreed, and their nullity may be shown in any collateral pro ceedings....” D.C.Code § 46-401 (2001). On the other hand, voidable marriages include the marriage of a person unable by reason of mental incapacity to give valid consent, a person under the age of 16 years, or marriages procured by fraud or force. D.C.Code § 46-403 (2001 as amended). The law provides that such voidable marriages “shall be void from the time when their nullity shall be declared by decree.” Id. The marriage at issue in this case falls within this latter category, and therefore, by statute, is voidable only from the time of the decree. Id.; see also Martin v. Martin, 240 A.2d 363, 365 (D.C.1968) (<HOLDING>). As such, it cannot be annulled after the Options: A. holding that the trial court erred by giving a misleading instruction B. holding that the trial court erred by refusing to admit evidence that the defendant did not have the sexually transmitted disease that the victim contracted C. holding that the trial court erred by dismissing the plaintiffs defamation claim D. holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss E. holding that the trial court erred in holding that a marriage contracted by a mentally incompetent person was void ab initio under a comparable statutory provision

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the trial court erred in holding that a marriage contracted by a mentally incompetent person was void ab initio under a comparable statutory provision
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: records do not become eligible for the privilege as “private property” simply because the legal entity which once held them has been dissolved. See, Id. at 88 (citing Wheeler v. United States, 226 U.S. 478 (1913)). Therefore, no Fifth Amendment protection is afforded to those records sought by the Bar’s subpoena which either are or were records of the law firm of Bryant & Porter, Ltd. The subpoena also seeks any relevant documents which are personal records of Stephen Bryant. Beilis also recites the long-held conclusion that Fifth Amendment protection extends to “compelled production of . . . personal papers and effects as well as compelled oral testimony.” Id. at 87. Accord, Rees v. Commonwealth, 203 Va. 850, 866-67, 127 S.E.2d 406, 417-18 (1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 964 (1963) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the protection may extend to any Options: A. holding that defendant was not in custody during search of his residence B. recognizing privilege C. holding that even personal papers of a defendant discovered during a permissive search of his parents home were protected by the privilege D. holding that search was reasonable where the prosecutor contacted witnesss parents on multiple occasions and issued subpoenas for the witness at the parents home E. holding that the information is not protected by attorneyclient privilege

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that even personal papers of a defendant discovered during a permissive search of his parents home were protected by the privilege
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: Dist. No. One, 894 S.W.2d 441, 447 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1995, writ denied). Second, Texas courts have long held that the term “encumbrance” includes easements. See, e.g., City of Dayton v. Allred, 123 Tex. 60, 68 S.W.2d 172, 178 (Tex.1934); Smith v. McMillan, 352 S.W.2d 871, 877 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston 1962), aff'd, 363 S.W.2d 437 (Tex.1962); Uszenski v. McNabb, 225 S.W.2d 210, 212 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1949, writ ref'd) (op. on reh’g); Shaw v. Morrison, 14 S.W.2d 953, 955 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1929, no writ). Holder argues that the parties did not intend the word “encumbrance” to include easements. “The language in an agreement is to be given its plain grammatical meaning unless to do so would defeat the parties’ intent.” DeWitt County Ele (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1940, no writ) (<HOLDING>). We hold that the easement granted by Lavigne Options: A. holding that in contrast to foreclosure of a mortgage secured by personal property foreclosure of real property under a deed of trust need hot be at a commercially reasonable sale and the failure to conduct a commercially reasonable foreclosure sale of real property is not actionable B. holding foreclosure of prior deed of trust extinguished subsequent easement C. holding that while nondebtor purchase money deed of trust can be described as part of the same transaction by which the buyer acquired debtors real property that does not elevate the deed of trust to status of something under a plan confirmed D. holding that buyer who purchased property at foreclosure sale took title free from easement granted after deed of trust E. holding that the terms of the trust deed foreclosure statutes must be strictly complied with

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that buyer who purchased property at foreclosure sale took title free from easement granted after deed of trust
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’s health insurance benefits shall cease on the last day of December 2017, subject to Executive’s right to continue Executive’s health insurance under COBRA. Executive’s participation in all benefits and incidents of employment, including, but not limited to, vesting in stock options, and the accrual of bonuses, vacation, and paid time off, ceased as of the Separation Date.

assistant: Benefits
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: references are to RSMo 2000 except as otherwise noted. 3 . The AU’s award and decision had used the phrase “no jurisdiction or basis." The Commission’s modification thus deleted the ALJ’s reference to "jurisdiction.” 4 . Mrs. Carter did not raise her constitutional challenge with the Commission. However, we recognize that “[d]eciding constitutional issues is beyond the authority of an administrative agency, and the courts must review agency actions that present constitutional questions.” Westwood P’ship v. Gogarty, 103 S.W.3d 152, 162 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003). Thus, by asserting her constitutional challenge in this appeal, Mrs. Carter has preserved the claim by raising it at the first available opportunity. See Mayes v. Saint Luke’s Hosp. of Kan. City, 430 S.W.3d 260, 266 (Mo. banc 2014) (<HOLDING>). 5 . In Schoemehl v. Treasurer of Missouri, Options: A. holding that an issue not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal B. holding constitutional challenge to void statute may be raised for first time on appeal C. holding that claims including constitutional claims must be asserted in trial court to be raised on appeal D. holding that a constitutional question must be raised at the first available opportunity E. holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised for the first time before this court

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a constitutional question must be raised at the first available opportunity
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 Release shall be binding upon me and my heirs, administrators, representatives, or executors, and upon Proto Labs’ successors or assigns. No assignment of this Release may be made by me, and any such purported assignment shall be null and void. Proto Labs may assign its rights or obligations under this Release to any successor or assign of Proto Labs without further consent by me.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any term, provisio n , covenant or condition of this Agreement, or the application thereof to any person, place or circumstance , shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be in valid , unenforceable or void , the remainder of this Agreement and such term , provision , covenant or condition as applied to other persons , places and circumstances shall remain in full force and effect.

assistant: Severability