flwrlabs/fed-legal huggingface dataset:
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Unless otherwise provided in the Loan Agreement, all notices, consents, approvals and requests required or permitted hereunder shall be given in writing and shall be effective for all purposes if delivered or sent by (a) hand delivery, with proof of attempted delivery, (b) certified or registered United States mail, postage prepaid, (c) expedited prepaid delivery service, either commercial or United States Postal Service, with proof of attempted delivery, or (d) by telecopy or email provided that such telecopy or email notice must also be delivered by one of the means set forth in (a), (b) or (c) above, to the address specified for the intended recipient at the address listed below or at such other address and person as shall be designated from time to time by any party hereto, as the case may be, in a written notice to the other parties hereto in the manner provided for in this Section 6.2. A notice shall be deemed to have been given: (a) in the case of hand delivery, at the time of delivery, (b) in the case of registered or certified mail, when delivered on a Business Day, (c) in the case of expedited prepaid delivery upon delivery on a Business Day, or (d) in the case of telecopy or email, upon delivery; provided that the transmitting party did not receive an electronic notice of a transmission failure. A party receiving a notice which does not comply with the technical requirements for notice under this Section 6.2 may elect to waive any deficiencies and treat the notice as having been properly given.

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: similarly alleges that IHS had a duty to control Bullis, and its failure to do so “proximately caused Mario to suffer ■... damage.” (Id. ¶¶ 33, 34.) Finally, Count V alleges the sexual assaults occurred while Bullis was in “the employ and control of IHS,” that IHS had a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff which it breached, and that the Plaintiff suffered injuries as a result. (Id. ¶¶ 36, 37.) Each of these claims are based upon the injury caused by Bullis’ sexual assaults upon the Plaintiff and his misuse of his professional relationship with the Plaintiff. Thus, each of these claims “arises out of’ the sexual assaults and other intentional torts alleged in the complaint, notwithstanding the Plaintiffs efforts to characterize these claims as sounding in negligence. See Hoot, 790 F.2d at 838 (<HOLDING>); Naisbitt v. United States, 611 F.2d 1350 Options: A. holding in any case in which the employee has intentionally injured another the tort asserted against the government regardless of whether it is called negligence is indeed an intentional tort attributable to the government B. holding comparative negligence not defense to intentional tort C. recognizing a tort for the intentional spoliation of evidence D. holding that 28 usc 2680h bars suits against the government in all eases where the intentional tort was committed by a government employee E. recognizing tort of negligence by words

assistant: The best answer is A. holding in any case in which the employee has intentionally injured another the tort asserted against the government regardless of whether it is called negligence is indeed an intentional tort attributable to the government
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: ... may submit an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board from any action which is appealable to the Board under any law, rule, or regulation.” This makes a petitioner’s status as an “employee” a prerequisite to having a right of appeal and to Board jurisdiction. Specifically, under 5 U.S.C. §§ 7511-7513, for purposes of appealing a removal action, a petitioner must be included in one of several possible categories in order to meet the definition of “employee.” As a preference eligible individual in the excepted service who had completed less than one year of current continuous service, Vernon is not covered by any of the categories in § 7511(a)(1). Vernon is, thus, not an “employee” under § 7511 and he has no right to appeal. See Horner v. Lucas, 832 F.2d 596 (Fed.Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). The Board correctly concluded that it had no Options: A. holding service on corporation proper where process server went to corporate defendants headquarters identified himself to an employee of corporate defendant and stated that he was there to serve legal papers and the employee then directed him to another employee who accepted service even though neither employee was authorized to accept service and neither represented that she was in fact so authorized because both were obviously corporate defendant employees and the employee redelivered the summons and complaint to an employee authorized to accept service on the same date B. holding that an appellant was not entitled to incorporate district court filings into his appellate brief by reference and that his pro se status did not except him from such established rules C. holding that as an individual with a probationary position in the competitive service the petitioner was not an employee and therefore the board had no jurisdiction at all over her appeal D. holding that the petitioner was not entitled to the protections of 5 usc 7511a1 and 7513 because under 7511a1a the temporary status of his position in the competitive service prevented him from qualifying as an employee E. holding that the petitioner in that case could not invoke the protections provided by miranda including the right to counsel because he was not in custody at the time he stated t think i need a lawyer

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the petitioner was not entitled to the protections of 5 usc 7511a1 and 7513 because under 7511a1a the temporary status of his position in the competitive service prevented him from qualifying as an employee
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The parties to each assignment shall execute and deliver to the Administrative Agent an Assignment and Assumption, together with a processing and recordation fee in the amount of $3,500 (to be paid by the assignor or the assignee); provided , however , that the Administrative Agent may, in its sole discretion, elect to waive such processing and recordation fee in the case of any assignment. The assignee, if it shall not be a Lender, shall deliver to the Administrative Agent an Administrative Questionnaire.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement, the payments and benefits described in Sections 5.1.2 , 5.1.3 , 5.6 , 7.1.4 and any other Section that incorporates such payment requirements are conditioned on (a) Executive’s execution and delivery to the Company of a release substantially identical to that attached hereto as Exhibit A in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act, if applicable, and any applicable state law (the “ Release ”), and (b) Executive’s compliance with the Restrictive Covenants set forth in Section 7 of this Agreement. A breach of the Restrictive Covenants by Executive shall constitute a breach of this Agreement, which shall relieve the Company of any further payment obligation under Sections 5.1.2 , 5.1.3 , 5.6 , and 7.1.4 .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: collection of payment for those sales less likely. According to the plaintiff, Buxton’s awareness or reckless disregard of the accounting treatment of these sales is shown by, among other things, her presence at a meeting where concerns about distributor sales were discussed and by the fact that reports were sent to her showing the rapidly increasing receivables and loosened terms. One confidential witness also alleges that the loosened terms were “shared with top management.” SAC ¶ 76. The defendants contend that the reference to “top management” is too vague to support an inference of scienter with respect to any individual defendant. See Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union No. 719 Pension Trust Fund v. Conseco Inc., No. 09cv6966, 2011 WL 1198712, at *23 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2011) (<HOLDING>). However, unlike in Conseco, the allegation Options: A. holding that allegations of motive and opportunity were not enough to create a strong inference of scienter B. holding vague allegations of bias insufficient C. holding that vague allegations against unnamed executives and senior employees do not raise a strong inference of scienter D. holding that recounting of analysts opinions did not prove underlying factual support necessary to create a strong inference of scienter E. holding that collective sales of 10 insufficient to raise strong inference of conscious fraud

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that vague allegations against unnamed executives and senior employees do not raise a strong inference of scienter
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: longer than eight consecutive years. 15 . A member who has not been nominated for a second term is not disqualified from serving as a holdover under the plain language of HRS § 26-34(b), as the member continues to occupy a status of being eligible for nomination and confirmation, whereas the Senate’s rejection of a member’s nomination for a second term renders the member ineligible, and therefore disqualified for membership under subsection (a). 16 . This court has stated that under HRS § 26-34, "the governor would be entitled to at least a reasonable time after a term expires to nominate a qualified person to a board or commission.” Life of the Land v. Burns, 59 Haw. 244, 251, 580 P.2d 405, 410 (1978). See Hanabusa v. Lingle, 119 Hawai'i 341, 351, 198 P.3d 604, 614 (2008) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). 17 . The Senate's discussion of the amendment Options: A. holding that where the law is unsettled at the time of trial but settled by the time of appeal the plainness of the error should be judged by the law at the time of appeal B. holding that the university of californias board of regents is shielded from suit under the eleventh amendment C. holding that governors duty to nominate and appoint members of the board of regents of the university of hawaii is subject to a reasonable time standard judged by the totality of the circumstances D. holding that communications between the university of colorados counsel and former employees of the university concerning activities during their period of employment may be protected by the attorneyclient privilege under the rationale presented in upjohn but holding that the university waived the privilege by disclosing the documents E. holding that the legislature which created the state board of education has the power to abolish modify and control it and therefore had the power to do away with the prerequisite that the senate affirm the governors appointments of all commissioners serving on the board

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that governors duty to nominate and appoint members of the board of regents of the university of hawaii is subject to a reasonable time standard judged by the totality of the circumstances
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: similar result in a case where the lawsuit was dismissed for want of prosecution and the exact same case was refiled. Sluka, 425 N.W.2d at 892. The Nebraska Supreme Court stated: We know of no rule in Nebraska which declares that the running of a statute of limitations is tolled during the pendency of an action so as to permit a second filing more than, in this case, [four] years after the trespass.... To interpret the law in that fashion would create a situation in which a plaintiff could file, have dismissed, refile, and have dismissed, an action, ad infinitum. Id. ¶ 29. Other jurisdictions similarly have found that the statute does not toll where cases are dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. See Suppeland v. Nilz, 128 Ariz. 48, 628 P.2d 832, 835 (Ariz. Ct.App.1980) (<HOLDING>); Shaw v. Corcoran, 570 S.W.2d 96, 98 Options: A. holding that when an action is dismissed without prejudice because of a failure to prosecute the interruption in the running of the statute is considered as never having occurred B. holding neither a lack of prejudice to the defendant nor the running of the statute of limitations constitutes good cause C. holding that plaintiffs suddenly discovered affection for arbitration came too late when the claim was made after the action was dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute D. holding that the running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense E. holding defendant still considered successful party under ars 1234101a where there was no adjudication on the merits as action was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that when an action is dismissed without prejudice because of a failure to prosecute the interruption in the running of the statute is considered as never having occurred
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the special protection of minors and their privacy where sensitive and possibly stigmatizing matters are concerned.” Webster Groves Sch. Dist. v. Pulitzer Publ’g Co., 898 F.2d 1371, 1375 (8th Cir.1990). Although these statutes do not govern this civil rights action in federal court, they do reflect a legislative judgment that the state has an interest in maintaining the confidentiality of court proceedings involving children. See M.P. v. Schwartz, 853 F.Supp. 164, 169 (D.Md.1994) (recognizing that section 1983 action was “inextricably bound up with allegations of child abuse” and that disclosing child’s name in that action would contravene state statutes mandating confidentiality of court records pertaining to a child); cf. Tower v. Leslie-Brown, 167 F.Supp.2d 399, 405 (D.Me.2001) (<HOLDING>); cf. Stone v. Univ. of Maryland Med. Sys. Options: A. holding records did not qualify as exempt confidential commercial information under exemption 4 because the information was not actually confidential B. holding that access to confidential information didnt transform janitorial staff into confidential employees under branti C. holding that the defendants statement was involuntary because it was made during a court ordered mental examination and a state statute provided that such statements would remain confidential D. holding that when underlying child protective proceedings relating to plaintiffs section 1983 civil rights complaint were kept confidential by state statute allowing parties to import confidential documents into federal court and thereby make them public would undermine the states policy E. holding that plaintiff could state a claim for conversion of confidential information

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that when underlying child protective proceedings relating to plaintiffs section 1983 civil rights complaint were kept confidential by state statute allowing parties to import confidential documents into federal court and thereby make them public would undermine the states policy
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: opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Benito Sanchez-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order and find no error in the Board’s conclusion that Sanchez-Garcia is statutorily ineligible for both forms of relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(c) (2012) (providing that an alien shall not be permitted to “depart voluntarily ... if the alien was previously permitted to so depart after having been found inadmissible under [8 U.S.C. § ]• 1182(a)(6)(A) [2012])”; Garcia v. Holder, 732 F.3d 308 (4th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>). We therefore deny the petition for review for Options: A. holding that boards ruling that aliens continuous physical presence terminated when he voluntarily departed country was a reasonable interpretation of 8 usc 1229b 2012 B. holding that under a due weight deference standard a more reasonable interpretation overcomes an agency interpretation C. holding petitioner cannot claim he was denied right to assistance of counsel when he knowingly and voluntarily decided to represent himself D. holding that a person must request a reasonable accommodation before he has been terminated he cannot wait until he is terminated and then months later request reinstatement and demand a reasonable accommodation E. holding erisa plan interpretation is simply one of contract interpretation

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that boards ruling that aliens continuous physical presence terminated when he voluntarily departed country was a reasonable interpretation of 8 usc 1229b 2012
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: but rather affords a bright-line, legal presumption of coercion, requiring suppression of all unwarned statements.” Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 306 n. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 1292 n. 1, 84 L.Ed.2d 222, 23 2 L.Ed.2d 975 (1958) (same). Essentially, the Court determined that the prejudicial quality of testimony regarding an actually coerced confession is, like all other improperly introduced testimony at trial, capable of review. At this point in time, the Fulminante decision stands as the sole, albeit the dispositive, case on this point. In contrast, cases applying the harmless error analysis to the introduction of presumptively coerced statements are legion. See e.g. Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 605 & n. 22, 110 S.Ct. 2638, 2652 & n. 22, 110 L.Ed.2d 528, 555 & n. 22 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 443, 104 Options: A. holding that waiver of miranda rights was valid where finding that the defendant initiated the conversation was implicit in the district judges denial of the suppression motion B. holding that in order to conclude that federal constitutional error is harmless court must find that error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt C. holding that booker constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because on remand the district court would have given defendant the same sentence D. holding that although defendant was a deputy sheriff miranda warnings were required irrespective of defendants knowledge of his fifth amendment rights E. holding that although miranda required the suppression of testimonial statements made before defendant was advised of his constitutional rights the state court is free of course to consider this harmless error question upon remand

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that although miranda required the suppression of testimonial statements made before defendant was advised of his constitutional rights the state court is free of course to consider this harmless error question upon remand
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: To the extent that any court action is permitted consistent with or to enforce Section 7 of this Agreement, the parties hereby consent to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Accordingly, with respect to any such court action, the Executive (a) submits to the personal jurisdiction of such courts; (b) consents to service of process; and (c) waives any other requirement (whether imposed by statute, rule of court, or otherwise) with respect to personal jurisdiction or service of process.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Should any provision of this Separation Agreement be declared or be determined by any court of competent jurisdiction to be wholly or partially illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the legality, validity, and enforceability of the remaining parts, terms, or provisions shall not be affected thereby, and said illegal, unenforceable, or invalid part, term, or provision shall be deemed not to be a part of this Separation Agreement.

assistant: Integration
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: has noted, that defense basically corresponds to the due process defense that a party was not given “the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner’” as defined in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 96 S.Ct. 893, 902, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). Iran Aircraft Indus. v. Avco Corp., 980 F.2d 141, 146 (2d Cir.1992) (also holding that enforcement of an arbitral award should be refused if a party was denied a due process hearing). Therefore, an arbitral award should be denied or vacated if the party challenging the award proves that he was not given a meaningful opportunity to be heard as our due process jurisprudence defines it. Id. at 145; Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co. v. Societe Generale de L’Industrie du Papier (Rakta), 508 F.2d 969, 975 (2d Cir.1974) (<HOLDING>). It is clear that an arbitrator must provide a Options: A. holding that the site of the injury does not invariably determine choice of law when the most substantial relationships of the parties and the dominant interest of the forum require application of another states law B. recognizing 1983 substantive due process claim C. recognizing that the due process guaranteed under the alabama constitution is coextensive with the due process guaranteed under the united states constitution D. holding that because the due process clause in the federal constitution is applicable to the states under the fourteenth amendment the right is also guaranteed to defendants pursuant to the identical provision in article i section 5 of the hawaii constitution E. recognizing that an article vlb defense essentially sanctions the application of the forum states standards of due process

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that an article vlb defense essentially sanctions the application of the forum states standards of due process
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except to the extent that a failure to do so could not be reasonably expected to result in a Material Adverse Event, each of the Borrowing Parties has filed all tax returns (federal, state, and local) required to be filed, including all income, franchise, employment, Property, and sales tax returns, and has paid all of their respective liabilities for taxes, assessments, governmental charges, and other levies that are due and payable, other than taxes the payment of which is being contested in good faith and by appropriate proceedings and reserves for the payment of which are being maintained in accordance with GAAP. No Borrower knows of any pending investigation of any Borrower or any Subsidiary by any taxing authority or of any pending but unassessed tax liability of any Borrower or any Subsidiary. No Borrowing Party is party to any tax sharing agreement.

assistant: Taxes
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: magnified in the prison context. Jolly, 923 F.Supp. at 949. Thus, Kassen held that where prison physicians exercise governmental discretion, they are entitled to official immunity. Id. at 949-50; Kassen, 887 S.W.2d at 10-11. On the other hand, the court concluded that where state-employed physicians exercise purely medical discretion (as in the diagnosis and treatment of patients), the purpose of official immunity no longer applies. See Kassen, 887 S.W.2d at 10-11. A physician’s exercise of purely medical discretion thus does not warrant official immunity. In 2003, the Texas Legislature superseded Kassen by extending official immunity to all employees acting within the scope of their employment. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.106 (West 2013); see Franka, 332 S.W.3d at 381-85 (<HOLDING>). Prior to its abrogation, several commentators Options: A. recognizing abrogation B. recognizing statutory abrogation of rule of liberality in workers compensation claims C. recognizing abrogation of kassen D. recognizing the abrogation of both dunett and bundles E. recognizing abrogation of fought v unum life ins co of am 379 f3d 997 1005 10th cir2004

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing abrogation of kassen
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: In Westmarc, the court held that the Cable Act preempted a state cable regulatory agency from imposing a restriction on the pass through of a fine incurred by the cable company for its negligent failure to renew an operating permit. The Westmarc court concluded that the pass-through restrictions sought to be imposed by the agency were in substance a "trapping” of costs on the shareholders of the cable company so that they would not be passed on to the customers. According to the Westmarc court, this is exactly the type of rate regulation that Congress sought to preempt in enacting the preemptive provisions of the Cable Act. Westmarc, 807 F. Supp. at 876; see also Mobile Oil Corp. v. Dubno, 492 F. Supp. 1004 (D. Conn. 1980), affd in part & dismissed in part, 639 F.2d 919 (2d Cir. 1981) (<HOLDING>). Here, plaintiff essentially is asking this Options: A. holding that state law fraud claims are preempted by the federal labor law duty of fair representation B. holding that state law claim regarding breach of settlement agreement was preempted by federal labor law C. holding that a state law prohibiting a pass through of a gasoline tax to customers was preempted by federal law D. holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law E. holding the state law claims were not preempted

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a state law prohibiting a pass through of a gasoline tax to customers was preempted by federal 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company and you acknowledge and agree that the Company’s restated Articles of Incorporation contain, and you are covered after your termination by, provisions which provide for the exculpation, indemnification and the advancement and reimbursement of legal and other expenses for former officers and directors among other eligible persons.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: life sentence, and the earliest date a convicted capital felon might be considered for parole under existing legislation, are questions of law; the trial court can determine the answers to these questions and should, if requested, instruct the sentencing jury accordingly. Clark now has been sentenced on his noncapital offense for kidnapping (twenty-six years of imprisonment), and the trial court has ordered that sentence to be served consecutively to his existing sentence for criminal sexual penetration in the course of a kidnapping (twenty-four years). On remand the sentencing jury shall be apprised of the earliest point in time that Clark can be considered for parole should the jury choose to sentence him to life imprisonment. Cf. Martinez v. State, 108 N.M. 382, 772 P.2d 1305 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Other issues. While most of the other issues Options: A. holding that njsa 2c113b requires a minimum sentence of thirty years without parole eligibility B. holding that where the capital defendants future dangerousness is at issue and state law prohibits the defendants release on parole due process requires that the sentencing jury be informed that the defendant is parole ineligible C. holding that an indictment for capital murder must contain at least one aggravating factor D. holding misrepresentation must at least be partial cause of plaintiffs injury E. holding that capital felons must be imprisoned for at least thirty years before being given a parole hearing regardless of any meritorious deductions allowed to noncapital felons

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that capital felons must be imprisoned for at least thirty years before being given a parole hearing regardless of any meritorious deductions allowed to noncapital felons
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the Ten Commandments and the other patriotic documents and symbols. A reasonable observer of the displays cannot connect the Ten Commandments with a unifying historical or cultural theme that is also secular. All of the other documents relate in some fashion to Western European or American culture since 1215; several of the documents are legal in nature, one is an American symbol, one is an American slogan and one is an American song. The Ten Commandments are several th ‘no sign can disclaim an overwhelming message of endorsement’ ”) (quoting Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 619, 109 S.Ct. 3086). Upon seeing the Ten Commandments, which sticks out in the displays like a proverbial “sore thumb,” a “reasonable person will think religion, not history.” Indiana Civil Liberties Union, 259 F.3d at 773 (<HOLDING>). The distinct court further found that the Options: A. holding that expert testimony usually is necessary to establish a causal connection between an injury and its source unless the connection is a kind that would be obvious to laymen such as a broken leg from being struck by an automobile B. holding the connection is an element C. holding discharge less than two months after plaintiff filed a sexual harassment complaint with management and ten days after filing a complaint with state human rights office provided prima facie evidence of a causal connection between protected activity and retaliation D. holding that reasonable observer would not be able to make an analytical connection between ten commandments bill of rights and preamble to indiana constitution E. holding that defending party may establish a right to summary judgment by showing that the plaintiff after an adequate period of discovery has not been able to produce and will not be able to produce evidence sufficient to allow the trier of fact to find the existence of any one of the claimants elements

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that reasonable observer would not be able to make an analytical connection between ten commandments bill of rights and preamble to indiana constitution
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by the Stockholder and the Company do not and will not (i) violate, conflict with or result in the breach of any provision of the charter, articles of organization, bylaws or operating agreement of the Company or the Stockholder, as applicable, (ii) conflict with or violate in any material respect any Law or Order applicable to the Stockholder or, to the Knowledge of the Stockholder, the Company, or (iii) conflict with, result in any breach of, constitute a default (or event which with the giving of notice or lapse of time, or both, would become a default) under, require any consent under, or give to others any rights of termination, amendment, acceleration, suspension, revocation or cancellation of, or result in the creation of any Encumbrance on any of the shares of Series A Preferred Stock owned by the Stockholder or on any of the other assets or properties of the Stockholder pursuant to, any note, bond, mortgage, indenture, license, permit, lease, sublease or other Contract to which the Stockholder is a party or by which any of the shares of Series A Preferred Stock owned by the Stockholder or any of such other assets or properties is bound or affected, except as would not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect on the Stockholder. The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by the Stockholder and, to the Knowledge of the Stockholder, the Company, do not and will not require any Approval or Order of any Governmental Entity.

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: The execution of this Agreement and the creation of the pledge set forth herein shall not constitute a novation, amendment, release or payment, or delivery as payment ( dación en pago ) of any of the Secured Obligations.

assistant: Amendments
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: 3 . The Cities appear to have done just that, appealing the NPDES permits to the Environmental Appeals Board and challenging the use of the 2009 Document in that appeal. See, e.g., Pet'n for Review at 46, In re Town of Newmarket, No. NPDES 12-05 (Dec. 14, 2012) (arguing that “EPA is illegally applying an unadopted, numeric criteri[on] violating applicable Federal law, in deciding that a 0.3mg/L TN criteria must be met throughout the Great Bay Estuary to protect eelgrass”), available at http://go.usa.gov/4yYR. 4 . Indeed, the havoc would likely be incompatible with a ''clear-cut” nondiscretionary duty to review that is' actionable under section 1365(a)(2), the citizen suit provision that forms the basis of plaintiffs’ suit. See Sierra Club v. Thomas, 828 F.2d 783, 791 (D.C.Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Plaintiffs’ reliance on the Eight Circuit Options: A. holding under a nearly identical provision of the clean air act that a nondiscretionaiy duty supporting a citizen suit must be nondiscretionary ie clearcut B. holding that the court had jurisdiction to hear the suit under the citizen suit provision of the caa C. holding the epa could regulate air pollutants under the clean air act solely on the basis of the pollutants risk to human health D. holding for a citizen suit brought under a substantially identical provision of the clean air act that whether plaintiffs have established a nondiscretionary duty to act by the epa is a merits question under rule 12b6 rather than a subjectmatter jurisdiction question under rule 12b1 E. holding that adequate notice is a mandatory precondition of a clean water act citizen suit

assistant: The best answer is A. holding under a nearly identical provision of the clean air act that a nondiscretionaiy duty supporting a citizen suit must be nondiscretionary ie clearcut
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: Guarantor, and by its acceptance hereof, Buyer, each hereby irrevocably and unconditionally submits, for itself and its property, to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State of New York sitting in the Borough of Manhattan and of the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York, and any appellate court from any thereof, in any action or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Guarantee Agreement, and each such party irrevocably and unconditionally agrees that all claims in respect of any such action or proceeding may be heard and determined in such State court or, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, in such Federal court. Guarantor, and by its acceptance hereof, Buyer, each hereby agrees that a final judgment in any such action or proceeding shall be conclusive and may be enforced in other jurisdictions by suit on the judgment or in any other manner provided by law. Nothing in this Guarantee Agreement or the other Repurchase Documents shall affect any right that Buyer may otherwise have to bring any action or proceeding for prejudgment remedies as for recognition or enforcement of any judgments arising out of or relating to this Guarantee Agreement against Guarantor or its properties in the courts of any jurisdiction where either Guarantor or such properties are located. Guarantor, and by its acceptance hereof, Buyer, each hereby irrevocably and unconditionally waives, to the fullest extent permitted by Requirements of Law, any objection that it may now or hereafter have to the laying of venue of any action or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Guarantee Agreement in any court referred to above, and the defense of an inconvenient forum to the maintenance of such action or proceeding in any such court. Guarantor, and by its acceptance hereof, Buyer, each hereby irrevocably consents to service of process in the manner provided for notices in Section 15 . Nothing in this Guarantee Agreement will affect the right of Buyer to serve process in any other manner permitted by applicable law.

assistant: Submission To Jurisdiction
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 Purchaser is a corporation duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of Wyoming. The Purchaser has the corporate power to own its properties, to carry on its business as now being conducted, and to enter into and perform the terms and provisions of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Administrative Agent and the Joint Lead Arrangers shall have received payment of all fees as the Borrower shall have agreed to pay on or prior to the First Amendment and Restatement Effective Date to the Administrative Agent or any Joint Lead Arranger in connection herewith, including the reasonable and documented fees and expenses of Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP , special New York counsel to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., in connection with the negotiation, preparation, execution and delivery of this Agreement and the other Loan Documents (to the extent that statements in reasonable detail for such fees and expenses have been delivered to the Borrower at least two (2) Business Days prior to the First Amendment and Restatement Effective Date).

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: this customary commercial licence is provided in accordance with far 12.211 ( technical data ) and far 12.212 ( software ) and , for us department of defense transactions , dfars 252.227-7015 ( technical data -- commercial items ) and dfars 227.7202-3 ( rights in commercial computer software or computer software documentation ) .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and Commerce Comm., Request for a House Bill 368 Hearing, in H. Jud. Comm. File for H.B. 368 (Jan. 12, 1990). 47 . AS 18.56.300(b). 48 . AS 18.56.300(e)(3)(B). 49 . Rep. C.E. Swaekhammer, Sectional Analysis for House Bill 368, in H. Jud. Comm. File for H.B. 368 (Jan. 12, 1990). 50 . Letter from Alaska Northern Chapter of International Conference of Building Officials to Rep. C.E. Swaekhammer, Ref. “An Act relating to residential housing assistance provided by the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation,” in H. Jud. Comm. File for H.B. 368 (Dec. 6, 1989). 51 . Letter from Jack Chenoweth, Legislative Counsel, to Rep. C.E. Swaekhammer, in H. Jud. Comm. File for H.B. 368 (Jan. 20, 1990). 52 . AS 18.56.300(e)(3)(A)-(D). 53 . See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. LeResche, 663 P.2d 923, 931 (Alaska 1983) (<HOLDING>). 54 . AS 44.62.100; Chevron U.S.A., 663 P.2d Options: A. holding that statutory notice provisions for notice of default and opportunity to cure were waived by provisions of note as to one obligor though provisions applied to coobligor who used property as residence B. holding that construction that neutralizes any provision of a contract should not be adopted if the contract can be construed to give effect to all provisions C. holding that specific statutory provisions take priority over general statutory provisions D. holding that the statutes could be harmonized E. holding that rule of construction that specific statutory provisions control general ones should not be applied where provisions can be harmonized

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that rule of construction that specific statutory provisions control general ones should not be applied where provisions can be harmonized
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: or threatened to be removed from a religious community sued the responsible state social service employees, claiming religious discrimination in violation of their free speech, free exercise of religion, and equal protection rights. In response, the employees moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity and proffered evidence showing that the children were being mistreated. On appeal of the district court’s denial of that motion, we assumed that the employees were motivated in part by substantial prejudice, but held that they nonetheless were entitled to qualified immunity since their conduct was “objectively reasonable” in light of the doctrines enunciated in Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 284-87, 97 S.Ct. 568, 574-76, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977)(<HOLDING>); and Village of Arlington Hts. v. Metropolitan Options: A. holding that a state official can be held individually hable under 1983 for acts taken within the scope of his or her official duties B. holding that state official can act lawfully even when motivated by hostility toward a certain protected class C. holding that the official charged with responsibility to act must be an official within the doj with the authority to act in the circumstances D. holding that state official can act lawfully even when motivated by a dislike for protected behavior E. holding that the question of whether a municipal official is a policymaking official is a matter of state law to be decided by the court

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that state official can act lawfully even when motivated by a dislike for protected behavior
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 of the Effective Date, there are no actions, suits, proceedings or counterclaims (including derivative or injunctive actions) pending or, to the knowledge of the Borrower, threatened against any Loan Party that would 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: This Agreement constitutes a legal, valid and binding obligation of Seller enforceable against Seller in accordance with its terms, except as limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium and other similar laws of general applicability relating to or affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights and general equitable principles.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: subject to the terms of these terms and conditions , duolingo grants you a non-transferable , non-exclusive license to download , install , and use one copy of each app in object code form only on an interactive wireless device that you own or control .

assistant: None