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: Borrowers shall use the proceeds of the Term Loans solely for (a) transaction fees incurred in connection with the Financing Documents, (b) refinancing on the Closing Date of Debt, and (c) for general business purposes and working capital needs of Borrowers and their Subsidiaries as permitted hereunder. No portion of the proceeds of the Term Loans will be used for family, personal, agricultural or household use or the purchase of margin stock.

assistant: Use Of Proceeds
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 authorized capital stock of the Company and the shares thereof issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2016, are set forth on Schedule 2.1(c) hereto. All of the outstanding shares of the Company’s Common Stock and any other security of the Company have been duly and validly authorized. No shares of Common Stock or any other security of the Company are entitled to preemptive rights or registration rights and there are no outstanding options, scrip, rights to subscribe to, call or commitments of any character whatsoever relating to, or securities or rights convertible into, any shares of capital stock of the Company. Furthermore, except as set forth on Schedule 2.1(c) hereto, there are no contracts, commitments, understandings, or arrangements by which the Company is or may become bound to issue additional shares of the capital stock of the Company or options, securities or rights convertible into shares of capital stock of the Company. Except for customary transfer restrictions contained in agreements entered into by the Company in order to sell restricted securities or as provided on Schedule 2.1(c) hereto, the Company is not a party to or bound by any agreement or understanding granting registration or anti-dilution rights to any individual or corporation, partnership, trust, incorporated or unincorporated association, joint venture, limited liability company, joint stock company, government (or an agency or subdivision thereof) or other entity of any kind (each, a “ Person ”) with respect to any of its equity or debt securities. The Company is not a party to, and it has no knowledge of, any agreement or understanding restricting the voting or transfer of any shares of the capital stock of the Company. The offer and sale of all capital stock, convertible securities, rights, or options of the Company issued prior to the Closing complied with all applicable federal and state securities laws, and no holder of such securities has a right of rescission or claim for damages with respect thereto which could have a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: There are no actions, suits, proceedings, claims or disputes pending or, to the knowledge of any Loan Party after due investigation, threatened or contemplated, at law, in equity, in arbitration or before any Governmental Authority (other than (i) the Cases and (ii) with respect to any Debtor, any of the foregoing that have been stayed), by or against any Loan Party or any of its Subsidiaries or against any of their properties or revenues that (a) purport to affect or pertain to this Agreement or any other DIP Loan Document or any of the Transactions (other than objections or pleadings that may have been filed in the Cases with respect to the Debtor Loan Parties seeking authorization to enter into the DIP Loan Documents and incur the Obligations under this Agreement) or (b) except as specifically disclosed in Schedule 6.06 , either individually or in the aggregate, if determined adversely, could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, and there has been no adverse change in the status, or financial effect on any Loan Party or any Subsidiary thereof, of the matters described on Schedule 6.06 .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The terms and provisions of this Agreement will inure to the benefit of, and will be binding upon, the permitted successors, assigns, personal representatives, heirs, devisees, and legatees of Tenant and Landlord. Tenant and Landlord have executed this Agreement on the respective dates set forth beneath their signatures below. Any agent or other person executing this Agreement on behalf of any party represents and warrants to the others and to Landlord that he or she has full power and authority to execute this Agreement on such party’s behalf.

assistant: Binding Effects
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: Supreme Court then summarized the operative rule for application of the exclusionary rule: To trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system. As laid out in our cases, the exclusionary rule serves to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances recurring or systemic negligence. Id. ¶ 82. The United States Supreme Court's decision in Herring has been widely seen as establishing broad principles that dramatically narrow application of the exclusionary rule. See, e.g., Russell L. Weaver, The Irrelevancy of the Fourth Amendment in the Roberts Court, 85 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 191, 203-04 (2010) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 83. What says the majority about these Options: A. recognizing that the broad language in herring signals a dramatic restriction in the application of the exclusionary rule and represents a significant recasting of modern exclusionary rule theory B. holding that a violation of 6103 does not require the application of the exclusionary rule C. holding that exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture proceedings D. holding judicial exclusionary rule inapplicable to administrative license revocation proceedings but acknowledging application of statutory exclusionary rules where applicable E. recognizing good faith exception to fourth amendment exclusionary rule

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that the broad language in herring signals a dramatic restriction in the application of the exclusionary rule and represents a significant recasting of modern exclusionary rule theory
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 list of all Registered Intellectual Property of each Credit Party and all in-bound license or sublicense agreements, exclusive out-bound license or sublicense agreements, or other rights of any Credit Party to use Intellectual Property (but excluding in-bound licenses of over-the-counter software that is commercially available to the public), as of the Closing Date and, as updated pursuant to Section 4.15, is set forth on Schedule 3.19. Schedule 3.19 shall be prepared by Borrower in the form provided by Agent and contain all information required in such form. Except for Permitted Licenses, each Credit Party is the sole owner of its Intellectual Property free and clear of any Liens. Each patent is valid and enforceable and no part of the Material Intangible Assets has been judged invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, and to the best of Borrower’s knowledge, no claim has been made that any part of the Intellectual Property violates the rights of any third party.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In this Guaranty, unless Lender and each Guarantor otherwise agree in writing, the singular includes the plural and the plural the singular; references to statutes are to be construed as including all statutory provisions consolidating, amending or replacing the statute referred to; the word “or” shall be deemed to include “and/or”, the words “including”, “includes” and “include” shall be deemed to be followed by the words “without limitation”; and references to sections or exhibits are to those of this Guaranty unless otherwise indicated. Section headings in this Guaranty are included for convenience of reference only and shall not constitute a part of this Guaranty for any other purpose.

assistant: Interpretations
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 Supreme Court of the United States has noted that “the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel and for litigant.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936). In Colorado River Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976), the Supreme Court held that the abstention doctrine empowers federal courts to decline to exercise or to postpone the exercise of their jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances where a parallel state-court proceeding is pending, and where permitting the state-court proceeding to proceed would clearl 3 S.Ct. 1098, 87 L.Ed. 1424 (1943)(<HOLDING>). There is no precise rule for parallel Options: A. holding that where state criminal proceedings are begun against the federal plaintiffs after the federal complaint is filed but before any proceedings of substance on the merits have taken place in the federal court the principles of younger v harris should apply in full force B. holding that the federal claims which arose from state court criminal contempt proceedings were inextricably intertwined with the state court action and thus the federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims pursuant to the rookerfeldman doctrine C. holding that a federal court litigant who is forced into state court under pullman may reserve a right to return to federal court in that the plaintiff can preserve the right to the federal forum for federal claims by informing the state court of his or her intention to return following litigation of the state claims in the state court D. holding that after all federal claims had been dismissed if the district court does decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction these state claims shall be remanded to state court rather than dismissed because this case was originally filed in state court and removed to federal court E. holding that federal proceedings should have been dismissed where the subject matter of the lawsuit in the federal district court in volved the review of oil drilling permits by a state agency because the state had established its own review system for the permits and a federal court ruling would have an impermissibly disruptive affect on state policy for management of the oil fields

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that federal proceedings should have been dismissed where the subject matter of the lawsuit in the federal district court in volved the review of oil drilling permits by a state agency because the state had established its own review system for the permits and a federal court ruling would have an impermissibly disruptive affect on state policy for management of the oil fields
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Authorised Person means, in relation to the Recipient, any of the following only to the extent that they are engaged in respect of the Purpose: its officers, directors, employees, and any other person who has been previously approved in writing by the Disclosers; The Recipient may disclose any of the Confidential Information to any of its Authorised Persons, provided that it informs them beforehand of the duties of confidence under this Agreement, ensures that they undertake to the Recipient to comply with the same duties of confidence, keeps a written account of each of the disclosures, advises the Disclosers immediately it becomes aware of any breach by an Authorised Person, and gives upon any request by the Disclosers evidence of compliance with this clause.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall pay promptly as incurred, to the full extent permitted by law, all legal, accounting and other professional fees and expenses that Executive may reasonably incur as a result of any contest (regardless of the outcome thereof) by the Company or its Affiliates, Executive or others of the validity or enforceability of, or liability under, any provision of this Agreement or any guarantee of performance thereof (including as a result of any contest by Executive about the amount of any payment pursuant to this Agreement).

assistant: Expenses
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: agree. Griffen, J., concurs. Stroud, C.J., dissents. Wendell L. GRIFFEN, Judge, concurring. I agree that Trooper Ramsey violated appellants’ Fourth Amendment rights by detaining them after he determined that the Texas registration of Dodd’s van was valid. However, I write separately to state in the clearest terms that assertion of one’s constitutional rights, even if asserted with rudeness, does not automatically provide a police officer with reasonable suspicion to conduct a war-rantless search. The United States Supreme Court has held that a suspect’s mere assertion of constitutional rights cannot constitute the sole basis for establishing probable cause to conduct a search. See Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991). See also United States v. Hyppolite, 65 F.3d 1151 (4th Cir. 1995) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1162 (1996); Snow v. Options: A. holding that consent searches do not require probable cause to justify the search of a home B. holding under state constitution that validity of consent search requires knowledge of right to refuse consent C. holding that a defendant has no constitutional right to challenge the search or seizure of property belonging to a third party even if the search was without probable cause D. holding that the mere assertion of constitutional right to refuse consent to search does not supply probable cause to search E. holding that persons knowledge of his right to refuse a consent to search is a factor but not a necessary prerequisite to demonstrating a voluntary consent

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the mere assertion of constitutional right to refuse consent to search does not supply probable cause to search
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 shootings to any of the charges in the indictment. Its only real probative value is to establish the criminal propensities of those involved. And even if this evidence did have some probative worth, the details of the Amoco double homicide are so chilling that its prejudicial impact substantially outweighs any such probative value. The admission of this evidence thus constitutes error that is plain. See United States v. Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d 1288, 1291 (11th Cir.2003) (“It is the law of this circuit that, at least where the explicit language of a statute or rule does not specifically resolve an issue, there can be no plain error where there is no precedent from the Supreme Court or this Court directly resolving it.”); United States v. Gore, 298 F.3d 322, 324-25 (5th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). In sum, admission of this evidence was an Options: A. holding that plain error exists when 1 an error was committed 2 that was plain 3 that affected the defendants substantial rights and 4 the error seriously affects the fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings B. holding that the courts review is conducted under the plain error standard C. holding that error was plain when the district courts ruling was obviously contrary to the text of a federal statute D. holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error E. holding that omission was not plain error

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that error was plain when the district courts ruling was obviously contrary to the text of a federal statute
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 may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be deemed an original, but all such counterparts together shall constitute but one and the same instrument. Delivery of an executed counterpart of this Agreement by facsimile or electronic mail shall be equally effective as delivery of an original executed counterpart.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each party’s obligations under this Section 3.3 shall survive the resignation or replacement of the Administrative Agent or any assignment of rights by, or the replacement of, a Lender, the termination of the Commitments and the repayment, satisfaction or discharge of all obligations under any Credit Document.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: By that peculiar reasoning, a majority can be held to have decided an issue — and made it law of the circuit — when it never said a word on the subject. The Jeffries V majority had very little to say about law of the circuit, and what it did say totally undermines the majority here: “The dissent seems to acknowledge that [the] law of the circuit doctrine would preclude the Jeffries IV panel from contradicting the Jeffries III opinion, thus reaching the same result as the majority.” Id. at 1493 n. 12. The majority somehow manages to squeeze blood from a turnip. Second, to the extent Washington IV says something different from Jeffries V, it is the most recent en banc opinion and therefore clearly controls. See United States v. Heredia, 483 F.3d 913, 918-19 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). The majority objects that Washington IV Options: A. holding that in the absence of an intervening supreme court decision only the en banc court may overrule a decision by a threejudge panel B. recognizing that a later en banc court may overrule an earlier en banc opinion C. holding ajbsent en banc reconsideration we are bound by prior decisions of this circuit D. holding that only intervening law from the supreme court or this court sitting en banc can overrule a prior panel decision E. holding that a panel may not reconsider issues decided earlier in the same case by the en banc court

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that a later en banc court may overrule an earlier en banc opinion
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: Middleton I and in the majority’s decision here, prejudice was presumed once Appellant established he would have moved for mistrial if given the opportunity. Thus, a new trial for capital murder may be conducted. As the United States Supreme Court noted in United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600, 607, 96 S.Ct. 1075, 47 L.Ed.2d 267 (1976) (quoting United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 91 S.Ct. 547, 27 L.Ed.2d 543 (1971)), “ ‘where circumstances develop not attributable to prosecutorial or judicial overreaching, a motion by the defendant for mistrial is ordinarily assumed to remove any barrier to reprosecution, even if the defendant’s motion is necessitated by prosecutorial or judicial error.’ ” Cf. United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 97 S.Ct. 1349, 51 L.Ed.2d 642 (1977) (<HOLDING>). Appellant’s position is no different than Options: A. holding double jeopardy did not bar retrial where a jury could not render a verdict and a mistrial was granted B. holding that when jury acquitted defendant on greater offense but deadlocked on lesserincluded offenses double jeopardy did not bar retrial of the lesers C. holding that a sua sponte dismissal of the charges during trial was not an acquittal that barred retrial based on double jeopardy D. holding double jeopardy prohibits government appeal and retrial following valid judgment of acquittal entered by trial court after jury deadlocked on criminal contempt charge E. holding that when the jury acquitted the defendant on the greater offense but deadlocked on the lesserincluded offenses double jeopardy did not bar retrial of the lessers

assistant: The best answer is D. holding double jeopardy prohibits government appeal and retrial following valid judgment of acquittal entered by trial court after jury deadlocked on criminal contempt charge
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 the entire agreement between the parties respecting the employment of the Executive, there being no representations, warranties or commitments except as set forth herein and supersedes and replaces all other existing agreements related to the subject matter hereof, including, without limitation, the Amended and Restated Executive Change of Control Severance Agreement, dated as of December 20, 2012. The Executive acknowledges that, in connection with her entry into this Agreement, she was advised by an attorney of her choice on the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including, without limitation, on the application of Code Section 409A (as defined below) on the payments and benefits payable or to be paid to the Executive hereunder.

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: Except as set forth on Schedule 7.14 or as disclosed in writing to the Administrative Agent (which shall promptly furnish a copy to the Lenders), and which disclosure shall be a supplement to Schedule 7.14 , none of the Obligors has any direct or indirect Subsidiaries. Neither the Borrower nor the Parent Guarantor has any direct or indirect Foreign Subsidiaries.

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: Any notice required to be delivered to the Company under this Agreement shall be in writing and addressed to the Committee, care of the Company, at the Company's principal corporate offices. Any notice required to be delivered to the Grantee under this Agreement shall be in writing and addressed to the Grantee at the Grantee's address as shown in the records of the Company. Either party may designate another address in writing (or by such other method approved by the Committee) from time to time.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower believes that the insurance maintained by or on behalf of the Borrower and the Subsidiaries is in such amounts (with no greater risk retention) and against such risks as is (a) customarily maintained by companies of established repute engaged in the same or similar businesses operating in the same or similar locations and (b) adequate.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Court within thirty days after publication in the Federal Register of certain decisions by Commerce. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(A). Second, within thirty days of filing a summons, the party also must file a complaint. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(a)(2)(A). Only after both a summons and complaint are filed does the Court’s jurisdiction attach. See Georgetown Steel v. United States, 801 F.2d 1308, 1313 (Fed.Cir.1986). See also Wire Rope Importers’ Ass’n v. United States, 17 CIT 1092 (1993). It is firmly established that both thirty day periods are conditions of the United States’ waiver of sovereign immunity; and thus, jurisdictional prerequisites. See NEC Corp. v. United States, 9 CIT 557, 622 F.Supp. 1086 (1985), reh’g denied, 10 CIT 15, 628 F.Supp. 976 (1986), aff'd, 806 F.2d 247 (Fed.Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>); Georgetown Steel, 801 F.2d 1308 (holding that Options: A. holding that failure to serve debtors with filed complaint and issued summons rendered default judgment void B. holding that the court lacks jurisdiction where a complaint was filed more than 30 days after the filing of the summons C. holding that to be timely the notice of a charging lien must be filed before the lawsuit has been reduced to judgment D. holding that a summons must have sufficient postage affixed to be timely filed E. holding that transmitting legal documents by facsimile machine does not reheve the attorney of his duty to ensure that documents which must be timely filed have been timely received

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a summons must have sufficient postage affixed to be timely filed
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: at 1688 (2014) (quoting Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990)). Under appropriate circumstances, however, “an anonymous tip can demonstrate ‘sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop.’ ” Id. (quoting White, 496 U.S. at 327). ¶ 26. We spoke to this in Floyd, which, as the majority points out, is distinguishable from the case before us, in that, unlike here, the person who called authorities was not anonymous. Floyd expressed, though, again as the majority points out, that an anonymous tip can be sufficiently credible and reliable and provide sufficient basis of knowledge to justify an investigatory stop. Floyd, 749 So.2d at 119 (citing State v. Melanson, 140 N.H. 199, 665 A.2d 338, 340-41 (1995)) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 27. Floyd reiterated that the test is “one Options: A. holding that although officers observation and stop of the defendants vehicle occurred outside of the officers geographical jurisdiction the officer still had jurisdiction where the officer was requested by a state trooper to stop the suspects vehicle B. holding reasonable and articulable suspicion existed to support the investigatory stop of a vehicle in view of the time of day and the officers prior knowledge of reports of criminal activity in the area C. holding that officer had reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle when confidential informant personally observed the vehicle provided a description of the vehicle and its direction detailed the basis for her suspicion that the vehicle was engaged in illegal activity and had previously given reliable information that led to the successful apprehension of individuals engaged in various criminal activity D. holding that unknown callers report that provided a specific description of a car whose driver was thought to be intoxicated knowledge of its exact location at the time and specific information of its movements reasonably supported the conclusion for the purpose of determining whether officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle that the basis of the callers knowledge was his personal observation of the vehicle E. holding that a conclusion that reasonable suspicion supported the stop of a vehicle was subsumed within the trial courts ruling that the officer had probable cause for the stop

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that unknown callers report that provided a specific description of a car whose driver was thought to be intoxicated knowledge of its exact location at the time and specific information of its movements reasonably supported the conclusion for the purpose of determining whether officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle that the basis of the callers knowledge was his personal observation of the vehicle
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: is, at best, in remission. A condition in remission is still a mental disease.” However, the state submitted no evidence that, at the time of the hearing, petitioner’s prior mental health disease was in remission. The only evidence submitted established that a year earlier petitioner had suffered from a medical disease. It is equally as inferable from that evidence that petitioner no longer suffers from a mental disease as it is that the disease continues but is in remission. Once petitioner offered evidence at the hearing that established that he currently no longer suffers from the disease, the state had the burden to overcome that evidence and to show that petitioner still suffers from a mental disease that is in remission. See Martin v. PSRB, 312 Or 157, 166, 818 P2d 1264 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Because the medical records do not suffice to Options: A. holding that jeopardy does not attach in the administrative process preliminary to formal forfeiture proceedings even when the petitioner has filed a petition for remission or mitigation B. holding that the state courts determination that the petitioner could not show prejudice because he did not allege that the witness was available to testify was a reasonable application of federal law to the facts of the case C. holding that to continue jurisdiction over the petitioner it was necessary to show that he had a mental disease or defect which was in remission at the time of the hearing D. holding that the state court ruling was objectively unreasonable where prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence that the petitioner murdered a known drug dealer although the state established that the petitioner planned to rob drug dealers for drugs or money the victim was a known drug dealer who kept drugs in his freezer and that freezer was open and empty after the homicide the petitioner and the victim had engaged in drug transactions in the past the petitioner had a motive because he had seen the victim make a pass at the petitioners girlfriend and the petitioner had possessed and once purchased the murder weapon and a similar gun was seen in his home two weeks before the murder evidence placing the petitioner at the scene was conspicuously absent leaving only a reasonable speculation that the petitioner was present E. holding that trial court abused its discretion in denying petitioners request for counsel in evidentiary hearing where petitioner had requested counsel and had indicated in his motion that all documents had been prepared by prison law clerk he had only ninthgrade education he had no training in the law and he lacked the skills necessary to participate in hearing

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that to continue jurisdiction over the petitioner it was necessary to show that he had a mental disease or defect which was in remission at the time of the hearing
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: premise subject matter jurisdiction on section 502(k) of ERISA. However, plaintiffs contend that the statute is not an exclusive grant of jurisdiction and that other parties, if they can show an injury and that the injury falls within the zone of interests protected by ERISA, may bring suit under the statute. See, e.g., Fentron Indus. v. National Shopmen Pension Fund, 674 F.2d 1300, 1305 (9th Cir.1982) (“There is nothing in the legislative history to suggest either that the lis 845 F.2d 1286, 1288-89 (5th Cir.1988); Grand Union Co. v. Food Employers Labor Relations Ass’n., 808 F.2d 66, 71 (D.C.Cir.1987); Northeast Dept. ILGWU v. Teamsters Local Union No. 229 Welfare Fund, 764 F.2d 147, 153-54 (3d Cir.1985); Whitworth Bros. Storage Co. v. Central States, 794 F.2d 221, 228 (6th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1007, 107 S.Ct. 645, Options: A. holding that section 502 is an exclusive grant of jurisdiction B. holding that the grant of subject matter jurisdiction in 502e1 is exclusive C. holding that the clause at issue granted jurisdiction but not exclusive jurisdiction D. recognizing that the court has construed broadly the grant of jurisdiction in section 201 E. holding that based on franchise tax board grant of jurisdiction in section 502e is exclusive

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that section 502 is an exclusive grant of 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: did not provide a basis on which this Court could decline to subordinate the IRS’s claim. Finally, the trustee argued that the non-pecuniary, IRS-imposed penalty lacked an equitable foundation. DISCUSSION The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, like two other Circuit Courts of Appeals, has held that section 510(c) of the Bankruptcy Code gives a court presiding over a Chapter 11 liquidation bankruptcy the power to subordinate a government’s claims for non-peeu-niary loss tax penalties to the claims of non-insider, general, unsecured creditors. Schultz Broadway Inn v. U.S., 912 F.2d 230, 234 (8th Cir.1990) see Burden v. U.S., 917 F.2d 115 (3rd Cir.1990); In re Virtual Network Servs. Corp., 902 F.2d 1246 (7th Cir.1990); see also In re Landbank Equity Corp., 973 F.2d 265, 271 (4th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). The Schultz Broadway Inn case involved the Options: A. holding that equitable relief under rico is available only to the government B. recognizing that equitable doctrines such as subordination are available for use in some bankruptcy cases C. holding that dischargeability proceedings are inherently equitable in nature and as such parties are not entitled to jury trials D. recognizing that equitable tolling doctrines may toll the time period for filing E. recognizing application of the doctrines may involve a fact question for the jury but not finding such a question in the case before it

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that equitable doctrines such as subordination are available for use in some bankruptcy cases
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 consolidated financial statements for Borrower and its Subsidiaries, delivered to Collateral Agent fairly present, in conformity with GAAP, in all material respects the consolidated financial condition of Borrower and its Subsidiaries, and the consolidated results of operations of Borrower and its Subsidiaries as of the dates and for the periods presented . Lender understands that interim financial statements may not be audited and may be subject to ordinary course year-end adjustments, such as for the sake of example only, changes in the fair market value of warrants. Lender therefore understands and agrees that such financial statements are therefore considered to be in draft form and subject to adjustment. There has not been any material deterioration in the consolidated financial condition of Borrower and its Subsidiaries since the date of the most recent financial statements submitted to any Lender.

assistant: Financial Statements
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: An FHA fully-insured Mortgage Loan for the construction or substantial rehabilitation of a Multi-Family Property. No Warehousing Advance will be made against an FHA Construction Mortgage Loan unless (i) the Administrative Agent has or at one time had or will obtain (as provided in Exhibit B-2 — FHA/GNMA) possession of the related Mortgage Note, or (ii) the related Mortgage Note is in the possession of a Person other than Borrower or an Affiliate of Borrower.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All amounts due under this Section 8 shall be payable within ten (10) days of written demand therefor. If any amount payable by any Person under this Agreement is not paid when due, such amount thereafter bear interest at a fluctuating interest rate per annum at all times equal to the Base Rate plus 2% per annum to the fullest extent permitted by applicable Laws.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provision or provisions of this Agreement shall be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable for any reason whatsoever (a) the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions of this Agreement (including without limitation, all portions of any paragraphs of this Agreement containing any such provision held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, that are not by themselves invalid, illegal or unenforceable) shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby, and (b) to the fullest extent possible, the provisions of this Agreement (including, without limitation, all portions of any paragraph of this Agreement containing any such provision held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, that are not themselves invalid, illegal or unenforceable) shall be construed so as to give effect to the intent of the parties that Freddie Mac provide protection to Indemnitee to the fullest enforceable extent. This Agreement shall supersede and replace any prior indemnification agreements entered into by and between Freddie Mac and Indemnitee and any such prior agreements shall be terminated upon execution of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as set forth on Schedule 4.7 attached hereto, the Company shall use the net proceeds from the sale of the Securities hereunder for working capital purposes and shall not use such proceeds: (a) for the satisfaction of any portion of the Company’s debt (other than payment of trade payables in the ordinary course of the Company’s business and prior practices or payment by the Company of tax obligations of the directors and officers of the Company under currently outstanding equity incentive awards), (b) for the redemption of any Common Stock or Common Stock Equivalents, (c) for the settlement of any outstanding litigation or (d) in violation of FCPA or OFAC regulations.

assistant: Use Of Proceeds
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: fraud or misconduct to Brenner, nor do they suggest a general unfitness, incapacity, or inability to perform her duties. Further, the statements that Brenner “hates homosexuals” and was “a loose cannon” and a liar do not specifically reflect upon her competence as a fitness instructor or as an owner of Pure Power, but, rather, constitute a “more general reflection” upon Brenner’s character and, therefore, do not fall within the “trade, business, or profession” exception. Moreover, with the exception of Lee’s statements regarding Brenner’s firing of one of her drill instructors, the Court finds the remaining allegedly defamatory statements to be statements of pure opinion, and not fact. See Daniel Goldreyer, Ltd. v. Van de Wetering, 217 A.D.2d 434, 435, 630 N.Y.S.2d 18 (1st Dep’t 1995) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court concludes that Options: A. holding that pure questions of law that are discernible from the record are subject to de novo review B. holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york C. holding that expressions of pure opinion receive absolute protection under the new york constitution D. holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership E. holding that imaginative expression and rhetorical hyperbole are pure opinion subject to new york constitutional protection

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that imaginative expression and rhetorical hyperbole are pure opinion subject to new york constitutional protection
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 initial term of employment of the Employee hereunder shall commence on March 15, 2017 (the “ Commencement Date ”) and shall continue until the third (3rd) anniversary of the Commencement Date (the “ Initial Term ”), unless earlier terminated pursuant to §6, and shall be renewed automatically for additional one (1) year terms (each, a “ Renewal Term ”) thereafter unless terminated by either party by written notice to the other given at least forty-five (45) days prior to the expiration of the then current 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: The undersigned Authorized Officer or chief financial officer or chief accounting officer of Parent Borrower certifies that the Credit Parties are and will be in compliance with all covenants under the Loan Documents after giving effect to the making of the Loan requested hereby and no Default or Event of Default has occurred and is continuing. Attached hereto is a Borrowing Base Availability Certificate setting forth a calculation of the Borrowing Base Availability after giving effect to the Loan requested hereby. Except as set forth on Schedule 1 attached hereto, no condemnation proceedings are pending or, to the undersigned’s knowledge, threatened against any Collateral Property.

assistant: No Defaults
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: interest, through her own counsel. She did not seek prior authorization from the University and in fact failed to consult or notify her employer in advance of copying the University on her submission, presumably simultaneously with its filing. The fact that the University did not voice an objection at the time or take affirmative steps to reverse Sharp’s unilateral action does not defeat assertion of the privilege by its true holder. We have previously found that a disclosure of a privileged communication by another party was not authorized even when the client did not object to the disclosure at the time it occurred. In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum, 241 N.J.Super. at 31, 574 A.2d 449; see also Stewart Equipment Co. v. Gallo, 32 N.J.Super. 15, 107 A.2d 527 (Law Div.1954) (<HOLDING>); Doe, supra, 219 F.3d at 189-90 (suggesting Options: A. holding that courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the directors of a corporation B. holding that the responsibility of another did not absolve the plaintiff of his own responsibility where the plaintiff helped incorporate the company served as vice president and president owned varying levels of stock and possessed authority to hire and fire C. holding that the findings of fact conclusions of law and decision signed by the school board president constituted the decision of the board D. holding that a disclosure by a vice president and sales manager of a corporation did not constitute waiver because he did not seek authorization from the board of directors E. holding the existence of a deadlock in the board of directors creates no extraordinary powers in the corporate president

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a disclosure by a vice president and sales manager of a corporation did not constitute waiver because he did not seek authorization from the board of directors