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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: [forum selection clauses] should not be given dispositive weight.... The party opposing the transfer can overcome the presumption in favor of enforcing the forum selection clause by showing that the clause is unreasonable [under federal law].”). IDC responds that its motion concerns applying the forum selection clause to arbitration, not litigation, and the cases cited by Aspen are therefore distinguishable. See Def.’s Reply Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss 1-2 (“[T]he Bremen analysis (or any other federal analysis) is improper in situations regarding the forum of arbitration.”). IDC notes that both Allen and Rice, as well as the Supreme Court jurisprudence on which they are based, apply to forum selection clauses in the context 24 n. 1, 31, 108 S.Ct. 2239, 101 L.Ed.2d 22 (1988) (<HOLDING>); M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. Options: A. holding that forum selection clause providing that any appropriate state or federal district court located in the borough of manhattan new york city new york shall have exclusive jurisdiction was not dispositive but merely one factor to consider in transfer analysis quoting underlying contract B. holding that outofstate defendants transmittal into new york of ceaseanddesist letter to new york plaintiff for purported trademark infringement was insufficient to create jurisdiction over defendant in a new york declaratory judgment action C. 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 D. 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 E. recognizing forum selection clause providing that no such claim shall be commenced prosecuted or continued in any forum other than the courts of the state of new york located in the city and county of new york or in the united states district court for the southern district of new york as clear and unambiguous expression of parties selection of exclusive forum in affirming district courts dismissal of action commenced in united states district court for the district of new jersey

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that forum selection clause providing that any appropriate state or federal district court located in the borough of manhattan new york city new york shall have exclusive jurisdiction was not dispositive but merely one factor to consider in transfer analysis quoting underlying contract
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: prohibition against public disclosure of tax information. Id. at 896. Mr. Ashton also argues that his state tax returns are privileged and exempt from discovery. He asserts that any privilege with regard to the state tax return must be governed by Pennsylvania law, but he also cites the similar Maryland statute , dismissing it as inapplicable. Appellee disagrees with Mr. Ashton’s reliance on both the Maryland and Pennsylvania statutes, because, like the federal statute, they only provide for nondisclosure of tax information by current or former officers, agents, or employees of the government, not by the taxpayer himself. We agree with appellee. There is no specific privilege in Maryland that protects state income tax returns from disclosure by a taxpayer, nor has any 2d 621 (1957) (<HOLDING>); Leave v. Boston E.R. Co., 306 Mass. 391, 28 Options: A. holding that agency could not claim confidentiality for tax returns that had been exhibits in tax court and were therefore public records B. holding that tax returns and tax return information cannot regain their confidential status once the returns have become part of the public record by their use in a public trial C. holding the conduct element satisfied where debtor earned income during the tax years at issue but did not make any estimated tax payments had inadequate or no withholdings and latefiled his tax returns D. holding that the lower court erred both in requiring production of copies of the defendants income tax returns and in receiving the returns into evidence over objection E. holding that tax returns are privileged under the statutes that prohibited the tax board and employees from disclosing any information and this privilege should not be nullified by allowing third parties to obtain the information by demanding copies of the returns

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that tax returns are privileged under the statutes that prohibited the tax board and employees from disclosing any information and this privilege should not be nullified by allowing third parties to obtain the information by demanding copies of the returns
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: substantially outweighed by the dangers listed in Rule 403. Rule 404(c)(l)(C)-(D); State v. Aguilar, 209 Ariz. 40, 49 ¶ 30, 97 P.3d 865, 874 (2004). Benson argues the trial court erred by making this finding because the attack on Yolanda was dissimilar to and remote in time from the other crimes. See Rule 404(e)(l)(C)(i)-(ii) (listing dissimilarity and remoteness as factors to consider). ¶ 14 The trial court did not abuse its discretion. Although the attack on Yolanda differed in some ways from the attacks on the other victims (for example, it involved a second assailant and the use of a chemical to render her unconscious), the attacks did not have to precisely align for the evidence to be cross-admissible. See State v. Lehr (Lehr III), 227 Ariz. 140, 147 ¶ 21, 254 P.3d 379, 386 (2011) (<HOLDING>); see also Rule 404 emt. to 1997 amendment Options: A. holding that the fact of a prior conviction for sentencing purposes need not be proved to a jury or admitted by defendant to satisfy the sixth amendment B. recognizing that jurors have the right to reject that part of the evidence believed by them to be untrue and to accept that found by them to be true C. holding death sentence need not be pending in order for this court to engage in review of issues on appeal D. holding that ajets need not be perfectly similar in order for evidence of them to be admitted under rule 404 E. holding that the 1979 policy interpretation need not be approved by the president in order to become effective as it is not a rule regulation or order

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that ajets need not be perfectly similar in order for evidence of them to be admitted under rule 404
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 Executive may not assign any of his rights or delegate any of his duties hereunder without the prior written consent of the Company. The Company may not assign any of its rights or delegate any of its obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the Executive, except that any successor to the Company by merger or purchase of all or substantially all of the Company’s or Holdings’ assets shall assume this Agreement.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: was the proper party to authorize the sale, George Bailey signed the revised Consignment Agreement in his official capacity as trustee and general partner of Orchard. Based on Crabtree’s March 13, 1987, letter and the revised Consignment Agreement, Christie cannot assert that it was ignorant of the limitations on Crabtree’s authority. And, “one who deals with an agent knowing that his authority is circumscribed and that the agent’s acts transcends the agent’s powers cannot hold the agent’s principal” liable. State v. West, 796 P.2d 1178, 1180 (Okla.App.1990) (citing Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp. v. Wilhoit, 270 P.2d 645 (Okla.1954)) (relating to a claim of apparent authority) (emphasis added); see also Truscon Steele v. Cooke, 98 F.2d 905, 909 (10th Cir.1938) (citations omitted) (<HOLDING>); Hartford Fire Ins. v. McAvoy, 177 Okla. 60, Options: A. holding that a principal is not hable for the actions of an agent when these actions exceed the agents authority and the thirdparty has knowledge that the agent does not have the authority asserted B. holding that the insurer is not bound by acts of the agent which are beyond the scope of his authority when the insured has notice of the limitations upon an agents authority or when the circumstances are sufficient to suggest that an inquiry should be made as to such limitations C. holding that a principal is bound by a contract entered into by the principals agent on her behalf if the agent had authority to bind the principal D. holding that while an agents knowledge is imputed to the principal due to the identity of interests that is presumed when an agent acts within the scope of an agency relation this rule does not operate in the converse and the agent cannot be imputed with the information which its principal has failed to give it E. holding that when an agent has limited authority and informs the third party of this limitation the principal is not bound by the agents actions that exceed that authority

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a principal is not hable for the actions of an agent when these actions exceed the agents authority and the thirdparty has knowledge that the agent does not have the authority asserted
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: that provides for nationwide service “is predicated on the well-settled principle that service of process constitutes the vehicle by which the court obtains jurisdiction.” Id., 115 F.3d at 1543 (citation and internal marks omitted). Thus, the rule applies “[wjhere process is served pursuant to a federal statute authorizing nationwide or worldwide service^] Id. In fact, the Ninth Circuit’s statement of the rule in Go-Video is followed by a parenthetical discussing the national contacts test “when service [is] effected under [the] Clayton Act § 12[.]” Go-Video, 885 F.2d at 1416 (citing Amtrol, Inc. v. Vent-Rite Valve Corp., 646 F.Supp. 1168, 1172 (D.Mass.1986)). Just as it would be unwise for a court to make its own rule author s & Consultants, S.R.L., 817 F.Supp. 326, 332 (E.D.N.Y.1993) (<HOLDING>). In short, because RICO’s “national contacts” Options: A. holding that television station was not subject to personal jurisdiction in new york under that states longarm statute since libel claim did not arise from defendants delivery of mail orders to new york B. holding plaintiff could bring rico action against persons outside united states by relying on longarm statute of forum state and stating whether service occurred in new york or abroad determined whether new york jurisdictional statutes applied C. 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 D. recognizing forum selection clause providing that no such claim shall be commenced prosecuted or continued in any forum other than the courts of the state of new york located in the city and county of new york or in the united states district court for the southern district of new york as clear and unambiguous expression of parties selection of exclusive forum in affirming district courts dismissal of action commenced in united states district court for the district of new jersey E. holding that for purposes of longarm jurisdiction because plaintiff was employed in new york the original event causing his injury occurred in new york

assistant: The best answer is B. holding plaintiff could bring rico action against persons outside united states by relying on longarm statute of forum state and stating whether service occurred in new york or abroad determined whether new york jurisdictional statutes applied
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event one or more of the provisions of this Agreement should, for any reason, be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, the parties agree that such provisions shall be legally enforceable to the extent permitted by applicable law, and that any court of competent jurisdiction shall so enforce such provision, or shall have the authority hereunder to modify it to make it enforceable to the greatest extent permitted by law.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: by implication or analogy “to a situation that the statute creating the privilege does not provide for.” In re Aldar Investments, Inc., 330 B.R. 540, 546 (Bankr.M.D.La.2005); P.B.C. Systems, Inc. v. L.A.D. Construction Co., Inc., 428 So.2d 984, 987 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1983) (citing Louisiana Civil Code Article 3185). Article 3237(8) states that the privilege extends to the following parties: “to sellers, to those who have furnished materials and to workmen employed in the construction” of the vessel. Construing this provision stricti juris, Louisiana courts have held that the privilege is limited to those who supply materials or labor, and does not extend to creditors who advance funds used to pay for materials or labor. See Grant v. Fiol & Al., 17 La. 158, 1841 WL 1239 (La.1841) (<HOLDING>); Owens v. Davis, 15 La. Ann. 22, 1860 WL 5490 Options: A. holding that no recovery exists for speculative damages B. holding that drug buy money advanced by the government is not recoverable under the vwpa C. recognizing privilege D. holding that no scholars privilege exists under the first amendment or common law E. holding that no privilege exists for money advanced to a steamer even though it was used for the vessels necessities

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that no privilege exists for money advanced to a steamer even though it was used for the vessels necessities
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 represents and warrants as of the Effective Date that the Borrower is not and will not be using “plan assets” (within the meaning of 29 CFR § 2510.3-101, as modified by Section 3(42) of ERISA) of one or more Benefit Plans in connection with the Loans, the Letters of Credit or the Commitments.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: receiver, particularly because the scope of a bankruptcy receiver’s power is set forth in statutes. See, e.g., In re Cannon, 277 F.3d 838, 848 (6th Cir.2002) (noting that a bankruptcy statute grants a bankruptcy trustee the standing and power to avoid the transfer of an interest in property); see also In re Van Dresser Corp., 128 F.3d 945, 947 (6th Cir.1997) (construing the scope of a bankruptcy estate under the relevant bankruptcy statutes). The Receiver has standing to pursue claims against the brokerage firms because he has been expressly authorized by the district court to bring claims on behalf of the receivership estate and defrauded investors. The Receiver is assigned the rights of the parties he is representing. See, e.g., Goodman v. FCC, 182 F.3d 987, 991-92 (D.C.Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). While this representation is often limited to Options: A. holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue B. holding that courts lack jurisdiction to address merits of a claim where party raising the claim is found to lack standing to maintain suit C. holding that a litigant may not claim standing to assert the rights of a third party D. holding that employers have standing to sue E. holding that a receiver may lack standing to sue if the party he is representing cannot allege an injury or assert a claim

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a receiver may lack standing to sue if the party he is representing cannot allege an injury or assert a claim
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: (Iowa 2001) (citing Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 219, 93 S.Ct. at 2043-44, 36 L.Ed.2d at 858). Under this exception, the reasonableness requirement of the Search and Seizure Clause is satisfied when an individual consents to a search. See Katz, 389 U.S. at 358 n. 22, 88 S.Ct. at 515 n. 22, 19 L.Ed.2d at 586 n. 22. The consent establishes a waiver of rights under the Search and Seizure Clause. Thus, the question before us narrows to whether the parole agreement in this case establishes consent. The nature of con W.2d 329, 330 (1991) (“A probationer ... has given his consent in return for more lenient treatment.” (quoting People v. Peterson, 62 Mich.App. 258, 233 N.W.2d 250, 257 (1975) (Danhof, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part))); State v. Anderson, 733 N.W.2d 128, 139 (Minn.2007) (<HOLDING>); State v. Morgan, 206 Neb. 818, 295 N.W.2d Options: A. holding that the warrantless search of knights supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized by a condition of probation was reasonable within the meaning of the fourth amendment B. recognizing that before a special condition of probation may be imposed there must be an oral pronouncement of the condition at sentencing C. holding acceptance of probation subject to a search condition significantly diminished andersons reasonable expectation of privacy quoting knights 534 us at 11920 122 sct at 591 151 led2d at 504 D. holding requirement that a prisoner agree to search condition of parole is reasonable in light of the parolees significantly diminished privacy interests E. holding condition of probation requiring probationer to consent at any time to a warrantless search by a law enforcement officer was unconstitutional

assistant: The best answer is C. holding acceptance of probation subject to a search condition significantly diminished andersons reasonable expectation of privacy quoting knights 534 us at 11920 122 sct at 591 151 led2d at 504
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: mute swans, some of which may be those with which they have developed relationships, or have observed and plan to observe again in the future. Defendants have cited no authority suggesting that such an allegation of harm is insufficient based on failure to raise similar challenges in the past. Finally, although defendants appear to be correct in their assertion that the procedural harm arising from a NEPA violation is insufficient, standing alone, to constitute irreparable harm justifying issuance of a preliminary injunction, when combined with the irreparable aesthetic injuries alleged by plaintiffs, such procedural harm does bolster plaintiffs’ case for a preliminary injunction. See Amoco Production Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 545, 107 S.Ct. 1396, 94 L.Ed.2d 542 (1987) (<HOLDING>); Fund for Animals v. Clark, 27 F.Supp.2d at Options: A. holding that movant must demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction B. holding that loss of customers and resulting injury to goodwill can constitute irreparable harm that is not compensable by an award of money damages C. holding that there could be no presumption of irreparable harm based on a statutory violation yet finding that ejnvironmental injury by its nature can seldom be adequately remedied by money damages and is often permanent or at least of long duration ie irreparable if such injury is sufficiently likely the balance of harms will usually favor issuance of the injunction to protect the environment D. holding that where the uncontradicted evidence shows that a former employee is working for a direct competitor no finding of irreparable injury is necessary to support a permanent injunction to protect trade secrets because irreparable injury is established as a matter of law E. holding that a plaintiff must demonstrate that in the absence of an injunction irreparable injury is likely and not merely a possibility

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that there could be no presumption of irreparable harm based on a statutory violation yet finding that ejnvironmental injury by its nature can seldom be adequately remedied by money damages and is often permanent or at least of long duration ie irreparable if such injury is sufficiently likely the balance of harms will usually favor issuance of the injunction to protect the environment
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: been substantial in gross,” we reversed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint and remanded for a factual determination of whether the alleged “campaign reached the threshold of actionability under section 1983.” Id. at 625. We reiterated this point in DeGuiseppe v. Village of Bellwood, 68 F.3d 187, 192 (7th Cir.1995), by explaining that “even minor forms of retaliation” such as “diminished responsibilities” or “false accusations” can be actionable under the First Amendment if sufficiently adverse to chill employee speech on matters of public concern. Since then, we have consistently applied this standard. E.g., Fairley v. Femaint, 482 F.3d 897, 903 (7th Cir.2007) (“Suppose the white guards at a prison mercilessly harass the black guards and make their lives miserabl r.2002) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, even the Fourth Circuit case cited by Options: A. recognizing that outside of the employment context speech that would chill a person of ordinary firmness is actionable B. holding that in the first amendment employment context harassing speech must constitute constructive adverse employment action to be actionable C. recognizing that code is speech D. holding that speech must be a threat or coercion to be actionable E. holding that statute reaching beyond purely commercial speech to chill fully protected speech can merit application of the overbreadth doctrine

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that outside of the employment context speech that would chill a person of ordinary firmness is actionable
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: if needed. on v. Varney, 586 So.2d 463 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), “[t]he payment of wages is the least important factor” in determining an employment relationship. Id. at 464. Because neither the law nor the record on appeal supports the trial court’s ruling, the trial court erred in denying the motion for summary judgment based on lack of an employment re B-2-00-3 (2001) (concluding that an employee injured while crossing a street to eat lunch at a restaurant also located on campus sustained a compensable injury, because “as a matter of law, the grounds of an entire college campus constitute its ‘premises,’ rather than simply the building or buildings in which an employee happens to regularly work”). See generally In the Matter of Anneliese Ross and Dep’t of the Army, 42 E.C.A.B. 371 (1991) (<HOLDING>); In the Matter of Gordon R. Woodruff and Dep’t Options: A. holding that civilian distributing leaflets on military base could not constitutionally be convicted of unlawfully entering the base where the military had abandoned any right to exclude civilian vehicular and pedestrian traffic from the avenue greer 424 us at 835 96 sct at 1216 B. holding the employee was clearly within the zone of her employment even though not at her work station because she was on the universitys premises the campus C. holding that when an employee is injured by his employers tortious conduct his employer owes him damages and compensation under the act D. holding that whether the tortious act was committed during the time the employee was on duty and whether the tortious act was committed while the employee was on the employers premises were both factors weighing in favor of finding the activity within the scope of employment E. holding that a civilian employee injured when her automobile was hit by a military vehicle while she was driving on a road on the employers premises the military base to report to work sustained a compensable injury under the federal employees compensation act

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a civilian employee injured when her automobile was hit by a military vehicle while she was driving on a road on the employers premises the military base to report to work sustained a compensable injury under the federal employees compensation act
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: at 73. The BIA’s finding that Dong was not credible is supported by substantial evidence. There is at least one material inconsistency between Dong’s and his wife’s account of his family’s persecution at the hands of the family planning officials. Dong testified on direct examination that he did not witness he family planning officials taking his wife from their home for a forced abortion. In a letter to the IJ, Dong’s wife stated that her husband had been home and had been beaten by the family planning officials. This inconsistency is directly related to Dong’s claim of persecution, and therefore is a “specific, cogent” reason that bears a “legitimate nexus” to the BIA’s conclusion that Dong was not credible in his description of his family’s persecution. See Zhang, 386 F.3d at 77-78 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Dong failed to carry his burden Options: A. holding that any alleged inconsistencies in dates that reveal nothing about a petitioners credibility cannot form the basis of an adverse credibility finding B. holding the bias decision upholding the ijs finding of removability was the final order C. holding that ijs and bias finding of applicants lack of credibility was substantially supported by the inconsistencies regarding the date of spouses alleged sterilization D. holding that in light of an applicants omission of various relevant facts from his asylum application substantial evidence supported the ijs adverse credibility determination E. holding that the ijs or bias credibility determinations are not questioned if they are substantially reasonable

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that ijs and bias finding of applicants lack of credibility was substantially supported by the inconsistencies regarding the date of spouses alleged sterilization
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 Mayor and Council with respect to the issues involved which will be useful to the 2009 taxpayers and can be used against the Assessor and Mayor and Council in 2009 is so great that the lawyers must be barred from switching sides in these eases. To rule otherwise would do violence to the confidence and loyalty that the City and Assessor had a right to expect when they hired Miller & Gallagher to represent them in the defense of challenges to 2006 and 2007 tax assessments. Accordingly, Miller, Gallagher & Grimley may not represent taxpayers who challenge their tax assessments by Atlantic City for the tax year 2009. An order implementing this opinion accompanies the opinion. N.J.S.A. 2B:13-2d. 2 See G.F. Inds. v. American Brands Inc., 245 N.J.Super. 8, 583 A.2d 765 (App.Div. 1990) (<HOLDING>); see also Home Care Inds. v. Murray, 154 Options: A. holding that a warranty claim survived alongside a contract claim where a service was promised in addition to the sale of a good B. holding plaintiff had to commence his breach of implied warranty action under the dtpa within two years because tjhis special statute of limitations denies plaintiffs alternative proposal of entitlement to recover for breach of the common law implied warranty C. holding that a breach of warranty claim arising out of a corporate acquisition was substantially related to a firms longterm service as the acquired companys general counsel who had advised the acquired company regarding inspection D. holding that warranty claim accrued at tender where 180 day warranty on computer not a warranty for future performance as it involved a remedy only E. holding that breach of contract claim related back to misrepresentation claim because operative facts upon which the breach of contract claim was based were contained in the misrepresentation counts of the original complaint

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a breach of warranty claim arising out of a corporate acquisition was substantially related to a firms longterm service as the acquired companys general counsel who had advised the acquired company regarding inspection
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: Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Eden Services, 823 F.2d 1215, 1235 (8th Cir.1987)). In Ryko, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals asserted that a higher standard of proof of “substantial foreclosure” is required “[wjhere the exclusive dealing restraint operates at the distributor level, rather than at the consumer level.” Ryko, 823 F.2d at 1235. There is no Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit precedent that adopts this rule. Tampa, Jefferson, and Twin City all call for individualized examination of an alleged substantial foreclosure. See Tampa, 365 U.S. at 329, 81 S.Ct. at 629 (listing several factors to consider in evaluating “substantiality”); Jefferson, 466 U.S. at 29, 104 S.Ct. at 1567 (calling for “inquiry into actual effect of the exclusive contract on competition”); Twin City, 676 F.2d at 1302 (<HOLDING>). These cases do not suggest that a different Options: A. holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing B. holding that evidence of five prior antitrust actions brought against the defendants was irrelevant on issue of defendants motive to conspire and noting that simply because the defendants were named in past antitrust cases involving similar allegations does not make it more probable that the defendants had a motive to carry out their conspiracy C. holding that a prior settlement of an antitrust conspiracy case and the resulting judgment dismissing the suit with prejudice could not have res judicata effect in a later suit against additional parties in which the plaintiffs alleged claims based on new types of antitrust violations that were not contemplated by the earlier settlement when it would have the effect of conferring on defendants partial immunity from civil liability for distinct future antitrust violations D. holding that proof of relevant market is essential under 2 E. holding that a defendants antitrust liability depends on the overall effects of a defendants conduct in the relevant market

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a defendants antitrust liability depends on the overall effects of a defendants conduct in the relevant market
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 will not create, incur, assume or permit to exist any Lien on any Pool Property or any direct or indirect Equity Interest in any Subsidiary Guarantor owned by the Borrower or the Parent or hereafter acquired by such Persons, or assign or sell any income or revenues (including accounts receivable) or rights in respect of any thereof, except Permitted Encumbrances.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Parent and each Borrower will, and will cause each of their Subsidiaries to, at Borrowers’ expense, maintain insurance respecting each of Parent’s and its Subsidiaries’ assets wherever located, covering liabilities, losses or damages as are customarily are insured against by other Persons engaged in same or similar businesses and similarly situated and located. All such policies of insurance shall be with financially sound and reputable insurance companies and in such amounts as is carried generally in accordance with sound business practice by companies in similar businesses similarly situated and located and, in any event, in amount, adequacy, and scope reasonably satisfactory to Agent (it being agreed that the amount, adequacy, and scope of the policies of insurance of Parent and Borrowers in effect as of the Closing Date are acceptable to Agent). All property insurance policies are to be made payable to Agent for the benefit of Agent and the Lenders, as their interests may appear, in case of loss, pursuant to a standard lender’s loss payable endorsement with a standard non-contributory “lender” or “secured party” clause and are to contain such other provisions as Agent may reasonably require to fully protect the Lenders’ interest in the Collateral and to any payments to be made under such policies. All certificates of property and general liability insurance are to be delivered to Agent, with the lender’s loss payable and additional insured endorsements in favor of Agent and shall provide for not less than thirty days (ten days in the case of non-payment) prior written notice to Agent of the exercise of any right of cancellation. If Parent, any Borrower or any of their Subsidiaries fails to maintain such insurance, Agent may arrange for such insurance, but at Borrowers’ expense and without any responsibility on Agent’s part for obtaining the insurance, the solvency of the insurance companies, the adequacy of the coverage, or the collection of claims. Borrowers shall give Agent prompt notice of any loss exceeding $150,000 covered by Parent’s or any Subsidiary’s casualty or business interruption insurance. Upon the occurrence and during the continuance of an Event of Default, Agent shall have the sole right to file claims under any property and general liability insurance policies in respect of the Collateral, to receive, receipt and give acquittance for any payments that may be payable thereunder, and to execute any and all endorsements, receipts, releases, assignments, reassignments or other documents that may be necessary to effect the collection, compromise or settlement of any claims under any such insurance policies.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: For the benefit of the Company, such Purchaser previously agreed to keep confidential all information concerning the private placement of Notes. Such Purchaser is prohibited from reproducing or distributing the Agreement or any other offering materials or other information provided by the Company in connection with such Purchaser’s consideration of its investment in the Company, in whole or in part, or divulging or discussing any of their contents, except to its financial, investment or legal advisors, on a confidential basis, in connection with its proposed investment in the Notes (and the Common Stock into which the Notes are potentially convertible) or as required by applicable law or regulation. Further, such Purchaser understands that the existence and nature of all conversations and presentations, if any, regarding the Company and the offering of Notes must be kept strictly confidential. Such Purchaser understands that the federal securities laws impose restrictions on trading based on information regarding the offering of Notes. In addition, such Purchaser hereby acknowledges that unauthorized disclosure of information regarding the offering of Notes may result in a violation of Regulation FD. This obligation will terminate upon the filing by the Company of the press release or Current Report on Form 8-K referred to in Section 4(a) below, which shall include any material, non-public information provided to such Purchaser prior to the date hereof. The foregoing agreements shall not apply to any information that is or becomes publicly available through no fault of such Purchaser, or that such Purchaser is legally required to disclose; provided , however , that if such Purchaser is requested or ordered to disclose any such information pursuant to any court or other government order or any other applicable legal procedure, it shall use its reasonable best efforts to provide the Company with prompt notice of any such request or order in time sufficient to enable the Company to seek an appropriate protective order.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: court’s decision is procedurally sound, then we will consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed, applying an abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. at 855 (quoting United States v. Braggs, 511 F.3d 808, 812 (8th Cir.2008)). The district court correctly interpreted and applied the sentencing guidelines. The guidelines provide: “Where a statutorily required minimum sentence is greater than the maximum of the applicable guideline range, the statutorily required minimum sentence shall be the guideline sentence.” U.S.S.G. § 5Gl.l(b). The district court thus properly determined the mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months was the guidelines sentence, and thus the appropriate point from which to depart downward. See United States v. Auld, 321 F.3d 861, 867 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Stewart, 306 F.3d 295, Options: A. holding that even if the minimum mandatory exceeds the statutory maximum the court must impose the minimum mandatory B. holding the mandatory minimum sentence to be constitutionally applicable to respondent C. holding that a sentence was based on a mandatory statutory minimum sentence even though it was lowered under another statute D. holding where the statutory minimum sentence exceeds the guidelines sentence a substantialassistance downward departure begins at the mandatory minimum sentence E. holding that a sentence below a statutory minimum based on the filing of a substantial assistance motion did not eliminate the otherwise applicable mandatory minimum for purposes of sentence modification under 3582c2

assistant: The best answer is D. holding where the statutory minimum sentence exceeds the guidelines sentence a substantialassistance downward departure begins at the mandatory minimum sentence
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to “nudge [its RICO continuity] claim[] across the line from conceivable to plausible.” As did Twombly, this case involves a federal statute under which there is significant risk, absent careful review at the motion-to-dismiss stage of proceedings, of plaintiffs transforming garden-variety commercial disputes into something significantly more burdensome to the opposing party simply by invoking certain labels in a complaint. Despite Plaintiffs general allegations that there was a continuous and ongoing pattern of rack raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the “ ‘long-term criminal conduct’ that RICO is intended to redress.” Disandro-Smith & Assocs., P.C. v. Edron Copier Serv., Inc., 722 F.Supp. 912, 916 (D.R.I.1989) (<HOLDING>). The allegations in the complaint do not Options: A. holding that the fact that defendants sales in forum were less than 5 percent of its total sales volume was irrelevant so long as its sales were part of a regular course of dealing and were not isolated or exceptional events B. holding in addition that offense of obstructing a law enforcement officer did not meet therein element of burglary C. holding that exercising general jurisdiction over defendant was improper where its actual sales in florida were a small percentage of the total sales and therefore these sales were de minimis D. holding that three sales of used copy machines as new within approximately two years did not meet the continuity element E. holding that failure to deliver a copy of search warrant and itemized copy of the warrant return to defendant in absence of showing of injury reveals no error

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that three sales of used copy machines as new within approximately two years did not meet the continuity element
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: heard testimony that Carlock struck Reid ten to eleven times with his fists from the “collar bone up” while Reid lay on the ground. (J.A. 59.) Additionally, Decatur testified that when he and three other bystanders pulled Carlock from Reid, Carlock persisted in attack voked, pinched Carlock’s nipple and slapped his buttocks. Carlock testified that he struck Reid to defend himself against Reid’s advances. (J.A. 264-270.) Carlock also claimed that he believed that he was in imminent danger of serious bodily harm because he had heard that Reid was recently released from prison for stabbing someone. {Id. at 276, 288.) Carlock further testified that he attacked Reid with such intensity because he reasonably feared that Reid would stab him. Carlock properly raised self-defense. Id. at 1179 (<HOLDING>); see also Gov’t of the Virgin Islands v. Options: A. holding that defendant properly raised selfdefense but passing on the applicable burden of proof for establishing selfdefense in a voluntary manslaughter prosecution in the virgin islands B. recognizing that a defendant may commit involuntary manslaughter if he acts in selfdefense but is criminally negligent in doing so C. holding the defendant sufficiently raised a selfdefense justification in a murder prosecution while thoroughly evaluating selfdefense burden of proof jurisprudence but declining to address applicable burden of proof for raising selfdefense in the virgin islands D. holding that when selfdefense is carried out with excessive force a defendant would be guilty of manslaughter E. holding that the defendant was entitled to a pretrial evidentiary hearing on his claim of immunity based on selfdefense

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that defendant properly raised selfdefense but passing on the applicable burden of proof for establishing selfdefense in a voluntary manslaughter prosecution in the virgin islands
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: disability. See Conward v. Cambridge School, 171 F.3d 12, 20 (1st Cir.1999). Medina simply fails to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact on this question. Even taken in the light most favorable to Medina, Medina’s items of evidence of discriminatory intent range from unconvincing at best to irrelevant at worst. Medina points to several comments made by his superiors as evidence of their intent to discriminate against him on the basis of his disability. First, Medina contends that Regional Manager Jesús Toledo asked Medina to consider a non-managerial position on “two or three” occasions because of Medina’s difficulty in performing the physical tasks that Store Managers perform. Plaintiffs Statement of Contested Facts at 1. Seco 309, 314 (6th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). As further evidence of discriminatory intent, Options: A. recognizing that the seventh circuit consistently has held that isolated comments that are no more than stray remarks in the work place are insufficient to establish that a particular decision was motivated by discriminatory animus B. holding causal link between alleged discriminatory remarks and adverse employment action insufficient C. holding that isolated remarks are insufficient to prove discriminatory intent D. holding failure to promote was an isolated incident of discrimination which is insufficient to prove a continuing violation E. holding that ambiguous remarks tending to suggest animus based on age are insufficient standing alone to prove an employers discriminatory intent

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that isolated remarks are insufficient to prove discriminatory intent
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 otherwise specifically provided herein, this Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties respecting the subject matter hereof and supersedes any prior agreements respecting severance benefits upon a Change of Control . No amendment to this Agreement shall be deemed valid unless in writing and signed by the parties. A waiver of any term, covenant, agreement or condition contained in this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any other term, covenant, agreement or condition, and any waiver of any default in any such term, covenant, agreement or condition shall not be deemed a waiver of any later default thereof or of any other term, covenant, agreement or condition .

assistant: Entire Agreements