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: Whenever possible, each provision of this Agreement shall be interpreted in such a manner as to be effective and valid under applicable law, but if any provision of this Agreement shall be prohibited by or be invalid under law, such provision shall be effective to the extent not affected by such prohibition or invalidity, without invalidating or rendering unenforceable the remainder of such provision or the remaining provisions of this Agreement, and if this Agreement or the Supplemental Release is found to be unenforceable, this entire Agreement shall be void and the Company shall have no further obligation to Employee.

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: factors: (1) that her criminal history category of VI purportedly over-represents the seriousness of her six prior felony convictions, see U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b); and (2) extraordinary family circumstances, see U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6. Even assuming that Reid adequately presented these grounds for sentencing consideration to the district court, we identify no procedural error. Nothing in the record either indicates that the district court misapprehended the scope of its sentencing discretion after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261-62, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), or defeats the “strong presumption” that the district court exercised its discretion based on an assessment of the totality of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 33 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). The district court stated that it took into Options: A. holding presumption not defeated by absence of explicit discussion of defendants specific arguments B. recognizing presumption C. holding without extended discussion that the presumption shifts only the burden of production D. holding that an attorneys arguments are not evidence E. recognizing this presumption

assistant: The best answer is A. holding presumption not defeated by absence of explicit discussion of defendants specific arguments
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: cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. 7 . Additionally, the Plaintiffs have failed to allege how the individual Community Defendants actions, by themselves, caused their injuries. Plaintiffs' quarrel lies with Community and Business Council's membership determinations. It is the official action following the individual Community Defendants' votes with which the Plaintiffs dispute, and it is upon these votes that the Plaintiffs have predicated their federal claims. However, the votes themselves have no legal effect. It is the official action of the Community and the Business Council, as legal entities authorized to act pursuant to these votes, that allegedly has caused the Plaintiffs' injuries. See Imperial Granite Co. v. Pala Band of Indians, 940 F.2d 1269, 1271 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Although the Plaintiffs have submitted an 87 Options: A. holding that sovereign immunity barred a suit against state officials when the relief sought required state officials to retroactively pay federal benefits B. holding suits against state officials for prospective injunctive relief are permissible because they are in effect suits against the officials in their individual capacities C. holding that plaintiffs claim was not barred by sovereign immunity because he sought specific relief against a government official D. holding that summary judgment for defendant officials on the basis of qualified immunity was improper given officials indefinite refusal to treat plaintiffs cavity E. holding that plaintiffs complaint against tribal officials was barred under doctrine of sovereign immunity because the officials votes individually had no legal effect and it was the official action of the band following the officials votes that caused plaintiffs injuries

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that plaintiffs complaint against tribal officials was barred under doctrine of sovereign immunity because the officials votes individually had no legal effect and it was the official action of the band following the officials votes that caused plaintiffs injuries
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, and will cause each Subsidiary to, comply with all laws, rules, regulations and orders of any Governmental Authority applicable to it or its property, including Environmental Laws, except where the failure to do so, individually or in the aggregate, could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Purchaser has no liability or obligation to pay any fees or commissions to any broker, finder, advisor or agent with respect to the transactions contemplated hereunder for which any of the Sellers may become liable.

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

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

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: From and after the Effective Date, the Administrative Agent shall make all payments in respect of [the][each] Assigned Interest (including payments of principal, interest, fees, commissions and other amounts) to [the][each] Assignor for amounts which have accrued to but excluding the Effective Date and to [the][each] Assignee for amounts which have accrued from and after the Effective Date.

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: The parties hereto hereby agree that there is no adequate remedy at law for breaches of this Agreement, and each party hereto shall be entitled to an injunction or injunctions to prevent breaches of this Agreement and to enforce specifically the terms and provisions of this Agreement, in addition to any other remedy to which they are entitled at law or in equity. Each of the parties hereto hereby irrevocably and unconditionally submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware or, solely if the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware does not have subject matter jurisdiction, federal courts located in, or other state courts of, the State of Delaware (each, a “Delaware Court”) for purposes of enforcing this Agreement or determining any claim arising from or related to the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. Further, each of the parties hereto (i) agrees to waive any bonding requirement under any applicable law, in the case any other party seeks to enforce the terms hereof by way of equitable relief and (ii) irrevocably consents to service of process pursuant to the notice provisions set out in Section 9 hereof or as otherwise provided by applicable law.

assistant: Miscellaneous
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 reimburse Executive for reasonable out-of-pocket business expenses incurred in connection with the performance of his or her duties hereunder, subject to (i) such policies as the Company may from time to time establish, and (ii) Executive furnishing the Company with evidence in the form of receipts satisfactory to the Company substantiating the claimed expenditures.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) Each of the Lenders and the L/C Issuers hereby irrevocably appoints Citibank to act on its behalf as the Administrative Agent and the Collateral Agent hereunder and under the other Loan Documents and authorizes the Administrative Agent to take such actions on its behalf and to exercise such powers as are delegated to the Administrative Agent by the terms hereof or thereof, together with such actions and powers as are reasonably incidental thereto. The provisions of this Article (other than Sections 9.07 and 9.09 ) are solely for the benefit of the Administrative Agent, the Collateral Agent, the Lenders and the L/C Issuers, and neither the Borrower nor any other Loan Party shall have rights as a third party beneficiary of any of such provisions.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Cir.1981). The defendants also argue that the statement was inadmissible because Whitaker did not write it or review it, but “when a statement is the party opponent’s own statement, there is no requirement that the party opponent ‘adopt’ the statement.” Bondie, 947 F.2d at 1534. The defense did not question the authenticity of Whitaker’s statement. The transcript was admissible under the business records exception because a Cincinnati Insurance representative testified that the document was “made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge,” the document was “kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity,” and “it was the regular practice of that business activity to make” the record. Fed.R.Evid. 803(6) ; Bondie, 947 F.2d at 1534 (<HOLDING>). See also Essex Ins. Co. v. Fid. Guar. Ins. Options: A. holding harmless the improper admission of a social workers hearsay testimony concerning a childs report of sexual abuse where the credibility of the childs testimony was supported by other witnesses B. holding social workers report about plaintiffs statements was admissible through the combined effect of rules 801d2a and 8036 C. holding that a plenary hearing was necessary based upon mothers certification and school social workers report of childs behavioral problems D. holding that witness statements in police report inadmissible E. holding inconsistent out of court statements otherwise admissible not admissible against government in criminal prosecution

assistant: The best answer is B. holding social workers report about plaintiffs statements was admissible through the combined effect of rules 801d2a and 8036
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: part, after confirming that Milligan wished to proceed, Koropchak immediately warned Meyers and promptly investigated the matter, completing the investigation and taking remedial action about three weeks later. See Porter, 576 F.3d at 636. The record indisputably shows that neither Kinsel nor Koropchak stalled SIU’s handling of Milligan’s charge in any way. Also, the record contains no evidence that the investigation was biased against Milligan. Cf. Vance, 646 F.3d at 472. To the contrary, SIU vindicated Milligan’s complaint by determining that Meyers had violated its sexual harassment policy, by prohibiting him from contact with students, and, when Meyers refused to comply, by banning him from campus. Cf. EEOC v. Mgmt. Hospitality of Racine, Inc., 666 F.3d 422, 434-36 (7th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). Second, Milligan contends that SIU’s response Options: A. holding that sexual harassment is a personal injury tort B. holding various incidents of sexual harassment contributing to hostile work environment form part of same cause of action C. holding that managements failure to investigate and report incidents of sexual harassment made the employers response unreasonable D. holding that unless plaintiff establishes a nexus between a prior response and later harassment by others the later harassment is irrelevant to the adequacy of the prior response E. holding an employers response to a complaint of sexual harassment was reasonable when the employer investigated the incident but the alleged harasser and supervising employee denied that the incident occurred

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that managements failure to investigate and report incidents of sexual harassment made the employers response unreasonable
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: ruling has covered that and I don't view a problem with that as far as the jury is concerned." € 41 We conclude that it was not obvious that Defendant's trial was unfair because of this one question. Our decision is supported by the jury's minimal exposure to this potentially problematic line of questioning, the immediate recess and conference between the trial court and counsel to address the objection, and the length of time between the allegedly inappropriate questioning and the reconvening of the jury. In addition, Defendant's counsel did not move for a mistrial and declined a curative instruction when prompted by the court. Thus, if there was any error it may well be invited and, accordingly, provides no grounds for reversal. See Pratt v. Nelson, 2007 UT 41, ¶ 17, 164 P.3d 366 (<HOLDING>). Defendant's claim of plain error therefore Options: A. holding where challenge was waived that appellate review is precluded B. holding that an appellant is not permitted to rely on invited error on appeal C. holding invited error doctrine bars appellant from appealing the admission of evidence where appellant invited the error by being the first to introduce the evidence thus injecting the issue into tjie case D. holding that appellate review is precluded when the error is invited E. holding that defendant may not complain of error he invited and further holding that reversal cannot be based on such error

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that appellate review is precluded when the error is invited
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in subsections (1) through (3). § 726.110 (emphasis added). The unambiguous text thus performs the exact function that distinguishes a statute of repose from a .statute of limitations; ,it extinguishes the cause of action rather than merely barring the remedy. For this reason, a number of courts in other jurisdictions interpreting various state codifications of the Uniform Act .have held that the statute is one of repose. See, e.g., MSKP Oak Grove, LLC v. Venuto, No. 10-6465(JBS/JS), 2014 WL 4385979, at *5 (D.N.J. Sept. 5, 2014) (“The use of the term ‘extinguished’ manifests legislative ■intent to eliminate a cause of action after a predetermined time period, a distinctive characteristic of a statute of repose.”); In re Jamuna Real Estate LLC, 365 B.R. 540, 567 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.2007) (<HOLDING>); Forman v. Jeffrey Matthews Fin. Grp., LLC, Options: A. holding that effect must be given if possible to every clause and word of a statute B. holding that provision has the characteristics of a statute of repose C. holding principle of statutory construction is to give effect to every clause and word of a statute D. holding that provision is a statute of repose and noting that the word extinguished is emphasized because of its substantive effect E. holding that provision is a statute of repose because by its own terms the provision does not just procedurally bar an untimely claim it substantively extinguishes the cause of action

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that provision is a statute of repose and noting that the word extinguished is emphasized because of its substantive effect
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to object constitutes waiver of Fifth Amendinent claim), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 854, 78 L.Ed.2d 154, 104 S.Ct. 171 (1983). See generally Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 444, 88 L.Ed. 834, 64 S.Ct. 660 [677] (1944) (“No procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional right may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right”). Just as the Constitution affords no protection to a defendant who waives these fundamental rights, so it gives no assistance to a defendant who fails to demand the presence of an Article III judge at the selection of his jury. 501 U.S. at 936-37, 111 S.Ct. at 2669, 115 L.Ed.2d at 822; see also Pacemaker, 725 F.2d at 543; State v. Archuleta, 850 P.2d 1232, 1238-40 (Utah) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 476, 126 Options: A. recognizing the right to waive a jury trial B. holding that juveniles may waive constitutional rights C. recognizing that defendant may waive miranda rights D. holding that a federal criminal defendant may waive jury trial without advice of counsel E. holding that a state may waive its sovereign immunity

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that defendant may waive miranda rights
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of care to third parties where there is no privity relationship. Courts in other jurisdictions do appear to impose a duty on real estate appraisers in the' absence of privity of contract. See, e.g., Perpetual Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Porter & Peck, 80 Ohio App.3d 569, 609 N.E.2d 1324, 1326 (1992) (imposing a duty on appraisers under Section 552 of the Restatement of Torts when the party suing was expected to rely on the representation of the appraiser); First State Savings Bank v. Albright & Associates of Ocala, Inc., 561 So.2d 1326, 1329 (Fla.App.1990) (“[W]e adopt section 552 as setting forth the circumstances under which an appraiser may be held liable for his negligence to third parties in the absence of privity.”); Costa v. Neimon, 123 Wis.2d 410, 366 N.W.2d 896, 899 (1985) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff articulates a viable argument that Options: A. holding that the basis of liability is negligence and not injury B. recognizing cause of action for products liability in the absence of privity of contract in light of the foreseeable risk of harm caused by defective automobiles C. recognizing an exception to the general rule that the patients conduct prior to treatment should not be considered in assessing damages holding that comparative negligence applies when the plaintiffs negligence is a legally contributing cause of his harm if but only if it is a substantial factor in bringing about his harm and there is no rule restricting his responsibility for it D. holding that a change in the law of sentencing does not constitute a new factor E. holding that the absence of privity does not constitute a policy reason for not imposing liability where negligence is a substantial factor in causing the harm alleged

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the absence of privity does not constitute a policy reason for not imposing liability where negligence is a substantial factor in causing the harm alleged
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 written notices provided for in this Agreement or the Plan shall be in writing and shall be deemed sufficiently given if either hand delivered or if sent by fax, pdf/email or overnight courier, or by postage paid first class mail. Notices sent by mail shall be deemed received three business days after mailing but in no event later than the date of actual receipt. Notices shall be directed, if to the Participant, at the Participant’s address indicated by the Company’s records, or if to the Company, to the attention of the Corporate Secretary at the Company’s principal executive office.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: is a general procedural rule, of applicability to district courts, allowing for relief from judgments. It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that the specific language controls over general language. Under this principle, Rule 4(a), and not Rule 60(b)] controls the time within which an appeal must be taken. Also, to allow a party to rely on Rule 60(b) as an alternative to the time constraints of Rule 4(a) would have the substantive effect of nullifying the provisions of Rule 4(a)(5). Competing statutes should not, if at all possible, be interpreted so that the provisions of one will abrogate the provisions of another. West v. Keve, 721 F.2d 91, 96 (3d Cir.1983) (internal citations omitted); see also Dunn v. Cockrell, 302 F.3d 491, 491-93 (5th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). If we permitted Washington to gain relief Options: A. holding only that rule 60b4 motions are not subject to the reasonable time requirement B. holding that a motion that alleged rule 60b1 grounds could not be treated as a rule 60b6 motion in the absence of allegations of aggravating circumstances C. recognizing rule D. holding that when ruling on a motion under rule 60b1 the trial court is not required to make written findings of fact unless a request is made E. holding that motions under rule 60b1 may not be used to evade the time limits of rule 4a in a case with a procedural posture similar to washingtons

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that motions under rule 60b1 may not be used to evade the time limits of rule 4a in a case with a procedural posture similar to washingtons
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: Distributor shall not make any false or misleading representations to customers or others regarding the Company or the Products. Distributor and its employees and agents shall not make any representations, warranties or guarantees with respect to the specifications, features or capabilities of the Products that are not consistent with the Company’s documentation accompanying the Products or the Company’s literature describing the Products, including the Company’s standard limited warranty and disclaimers.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All questions concerning the construction, validity, enforcement and interpretation of the Transaction Documents shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the internal laws of the State of New York, without regard to the principles of conflicts of law thereof. Each party agrees that all legal Proceedings concerning the interpretations, enforcement and defense of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement and any other Transaction Documents (whether brought against a party hereto or its respective affiliates, directors, officers, shareholders, partners, members, employees or agents) shall be commenced exclusively in the state and federal courts sitting in the City of New York. Each party hereby irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal courts sitting in the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan for the adjudication of any dispute hereunder or in connection herewith or with any transaction contemplated hereby or discussed herein (including with respect to the enforcement of any of the Transaction Documents), and hereby irrevocably waives, and agrees not to assert in any Action or Proceeding, any claim that it is not personally subject to the jurisdiction of any such court, that such Action or Proceeding is improper or is an inconvenient venue for such Proceeding. Each party hereby irrevocably waives personal service of process and consents to process being served in any such Action or Proceeding by mailing a copy thereof via registered or certified mail or overnight delivery (with evidence of delivery) to such party at the address in effect for notices to it under this Agreement and agrees that such service shall constitute good and sufficient service of process and notice thereof. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to limit in any way any right to serve process in any other manner permitted by law. If any party shall commence an Action or Proceeding to enforce any provisions of the Transaction Documents, then, in addition to the obligations of the Company under Section 4.7, the prevailing party in such Action or Proceeding shall be reimbursed by the non-prevailing party for its reasonable attorneys’ fees and other costs and expenses incurred with the investigation, preparation and prosecution of such Action or Proceeding.

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

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 404 U.S. 567 92 S.Ct. 746 30 L.Ed.2d 722 George Martin BRADLEYv.UNITED STATES. No. 71-5431. Supreme Court of the United States January 24, 1972 On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. 2 The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa with directions to dismiss the indictment. Durham v. United States, 401 U.S. 481, 91 S.Ct. 858, 28 L.Ed.2d 200 (1971). 3 THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice BLACKMUN dissent for the reasons stated in Mr. Justice BLACKMUN'S dissenting opinion in Durham v. United States, 401 U.S. 481, 483-485, 91 S.Ct. 858, 860-861 (1971).

assistant: 9
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement has been, and each other Loan Document, when delivered hereunder, will have been, duly executed and delivered by each Loan Party that is party thereto. This Agreement constitutes, and each other Loan Document when so delivered will constitute, a legal, valid and binding obligation of such Loan Party, enforceable against each Loan Party that is party thereto in accordance with its terms, except as enforceability may be limited by Debtor Relief Laws.

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: “employ[ed] a well-known mathematical equation,” the claims were directed only at “the use of that equation in conjunction with all of the other steps in their claimed process”). When applying the Alice/Mayo two-step analysis, it is appropriate to consider the specification of the patent to understand the nature of the claimed in vention. Nevertheless, to determine patent eligibility under § 101, “the important inquiry for a § 101 analysis is to look to the claim,” Accenture Global Services, GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed.Cir.2013), as it is the claims that have a preclusive effect, see Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1334 (Fed.Cir.2012); see also Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Prods. Co., 336 U.S. 271, 277, 69 S.Ct. 535, 93 L.Ed. 672 (1949) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the specification, regardless how Options: A. holding that the claims text must be sufficient to particularly point out and distinctly claim an identifiable invention or discovery because it is the claim which measures the grant to the patentee B. recognizing that a withholding of removal claim necessarily fails if the applicant is unable to show the objective likelihood of persecution needed to make out an asylum claim and the factual predicate for the claims is the same C. holding that the scope of coverage of the claims may change if a patentee has relinquished a potential claim construction in an amendment to the claim or in an argument to overcome or distinguish a reference D. holding that in the case where patentee was attempting to argue that parallel meant perpendicular with respect to a particular claim and a claim ended with an incomplete limitation the claims at issue were indefinite E. holding that defendant was entitled to summary judgment on conversion claim because the claim seeks merely to recover an allegedly unpaid debt and does not seek to recover money from a discrete identifiable fund

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the claims text must be sufficient to particularly point out and distinctly claim an identifiable invention or discovery because it is the claim which measures the grant to the patentee
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: applied to law enforcement officers.” 1992-NMCA-033, ¶ 17. We also noted that holding persons in custody is a minor incident of probation and parole officers’ jobs and that probationers and parolees are not persons “accused” of crimes because they have already been convicted. Id. {14} Plaintiff asserts that Vigil’s interpretation of the words “custody” and “accused” is unduly narrow. However, we see no legal basis for reinterpreting those terms more broadly. Indeed, we have limited the definition of law enforcement officers in this category to detention center employees whose principal duties under law are to hold in custody persons accused of a crime while awaiting trial. See, e.g., Davis v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Doña Ana Cnty., 1999-NMCA-110, ¶¶ 35, 39, 127 N.M. 785, 987 P.2d 1172 (<HOLDING>); Abalos v. Bernalillo Cnty. Dist. Atty’s Options: A. holding that the director of the new mexico m otor v ehicle department who has statutory authority to make arrests was not a law enforcement officer because the vast majority of his time and effort are involved in administrative matters internal quotation marks omitted B. holding that the director of the new mexico motor v ehicle department who has statutory authority to make arrests was not a law enforcement officer because the vast majority of his time and effort are involved in administrative matters internal quotation marks omitted C. holding that the director captain and assistant director of a detention center are law enforcement officers D. holding corrections officers are not law enforcement officers under 41412 E. holding that director of the police department is not a final policymaking official because his decisions are constrained by the county manager the board and administrative order and polices

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the director captain and assistant director of a detention center are law enforcement officers
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: Whenever any notice is required hereunder, it shall be given in writing addressed to You at the address You have on file with Scottrade, and to Scottrade at: 700 Maryville Centre Drive, St. Louis, Missouri, 63141, attention Rodger O. Riney. Notice shall be delivered by first class mail, certified, return receipt requested, by express delivery, or by hand delivery, and shall be deemed given when actually received. Either party may change the address for notice by notifying the other party of such change in accordance with this Section.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 180 F.Supp.2d 1002, 1019 (N.D.Iowa 2001)). Further, “Section 108(c)(1) does not independently toll or suspend statutes of limitations which have not expired as of a bankruptcy petition date.” In re Bigelow, at 670 (citing In re Danzig, 233 B.R. 85, 94 (B.A.P. 8th Cir.1999)). “ ‘The reference in § 108(c) to “suspension” of time limits clearly does not operate in itself to stop the running of a statute of limitations; rather, this language merely incorporates suspensions of deadlines that are expressly provided in other federal or state statutes.’ ” Bigelow, at 670 (quoting Danzig, at 94). [¶ 20] Some courts have held, however, that the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 does not prevent the filing of a renewal affidavit. See, e.g., In re Smith, 209 Ariz. 343, 101 P.3d 637, 639 (2004) (<HOLDING>); O’Lane v. Spinney, 110 Nev. 496, 874 P.2d Options: A. recognizing district courts authority to dispose of contempt action for violation of automatic stay of bankruptcy B. holding that the delivery of the deed following a foreclosure sale was a ministerial act that was not prohibited by the automatic stay C. holding that the automatic stay did not bar the filing of a proof of claim where the debtor actively litigated a separate action during the pending bankruptcy proceeding because to permit the automatic stay provision to be used as a trump card played after an unfavorable result was reached would be inconsistent with the underlying purpose of the automatic stay D. recognizing that any action taken in violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay is void and without effect E. holding ministerial action of filing renewal affidavit not prohibited by automatic bankruptcy stay

assistant: The best answer is E. holding ministerial action of filing renewal affidavit not prohibited by automatic bankruptcy stay
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: are without intrinsic merit, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of his habeas petition. I On December 11, 1994, a state trooper arrested Allen for committing an OUI offense. The State preferred charges against him. As directed by law, the Secretary of State (the Secretary) then suspended Allen’s driver’s license for ninety days. See 29 M.R.S.A. § 1311-A, reprinted in the appendix. It is said that every action produces an equal and opposite reaction. Having felt the lash of the administrative suspension, the petitioner moved to dismiss the pending criminal charge on double jeopardy grounds. The nisi prius court denied the motion, relying upon an opinion issued by Maine’s highest tribunal (the Law Court) two months earlier. See State v. Savard, 659 A.2d 1265, 1268 (Me.1995) (<HOLDING>). Instead of appealing the ruling to the Law Options: A. holding that suspension of driving privileges is not punishment and does not violate an individuals right not to be subject to double jeopardy or constitute a disproportionate penalty B. holding in materially identical circumstances that an administrative license suspension did not constitute punishment for double jeopardy purposes C. holding that the fcas fixedpenaltyplusdoubledamages provisions does not in most cases constitute punishment for the purposes of double jeopardy D. holding that civil forfeitures are neither punishment nor criminal for purposes of the double jeopardy clause E. holding that a delinquency proceeding places a juvenile in jeopardy for purposes of the double jeopardy clause

assistant: The best answer is B. holding in materially identical circumstances that an administrative license suspension did not constitute punishment for double jeopardy purposes
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: made when partial summary judgment was granted to Ford, Fisher pointed to a letter written by NHTSA General Counsel Frank Spears to the Parents for Safer Air Bags. The letter appears to be undated, but indicates that it is a response to that group’s letter of September 23, 1998. In it, Spears writes that “[t]he standard [208] did not prohibit vehicle manufacturers from placing other accurate information concerning air bags or seat belts in locations in the vehicle other than the sun visor.” The district court’s denial of a motion for new trial did not comment on this matter. Nevertheless, its denial of the motion should be upheld. First, the General Counsel’s opinion is not legally binding on the courts. See Chambers v. Ohio Dep’t of Human Servs., 145 F.3d 793, 803 (6th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Management Recruiters Int’l, Inc. v. Options: A. holding that deference is owed to an agencys interpretation of its own categorical exclusion regulations so long as that interpretation is not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation B. holding that under a due weight deference standard a more reasonable interpretation overcomes an agency interpretation C. holding that when an agency has not cemented its interpretation in the form of binding regulations its interpretation may not be entitled to de facto binding effect through judicial deference D. holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference E. holding that agency interpretation which is reasonable is entitled to deference

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that when an agency has not cemented its interpretation in the form of binding regulations its interpretation may not be entitled to de facto binding effect through judicial deference
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: We need not resolve this question. Regardless whether a presumption of correctness attached to the boards’ of equalization valuations in this case, the presumption was “ ‘.one of fact and [was] rebuttable and only served the place of evidence until [Ameren] ... came .forward with the evidence hereinbefore set out.’” State ex rel. Kahler, 393 S.W.2d at 465 (quoting Koplar v. State Tax Commission, 321 S.W.2d 686, 693-94 (Mo. 1959)). Once Ameren came forward with evidence to establish that which 'the assessors in fact admitted—that the valuation methodology the assessors used, though correct, was unlawfully and unfairly applied due to the failure to consider depreciation—the' presumption of correctness, if any, attached to the boards’ of equalization valuations was defeated. Cf. id. (<HOLDING>). Ameren’s fourth point on appeal is denied as Options: A. holding that agency decisions enjoy a presumption of correctness B. holding that a trial court has discretion to qualify experts and rely on various methods in making a valuation determination C. recognizing that the mcdonnell douglas framework is less useful in the context of an alleged discriminatory disciplinary decision than in the context of an alleged discriminatory hiring decision D. holding that presumption of correctness defeated when taxpayer alleged assessors valuation was discriminatory and presented evidence of discriminatory valuation methods E. holding evidence insufficient to overcome presumption of correctness

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that presumption of correctness defeated when taxpayer alleged assessors valuation was discriminatory and presented evidence of discriminatory valuation methods
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: law in this Commonwealth, we also note that courts in other jurisdictions have arrived at similar resolutions when faced with factually similar disputes. See Patten Securities Corp., Inc. v. Diamond Greyhound & Genetics, Inc., 819 F.2d 400, 407, n. 3 (3d Cir.1987), abrogation on other grounds recognized by Delgrosso v. Spang and Co., 903 F.2d 234, 236 n. 2 (3d Cir.1990) (concluding in an application of federal law, that an arbitration clause and a forum selection/consent to jurisdiction clause could both be given effect, because arbitration awards are not self-enforceable and thus the forum selection/consent to jurisdiction clause would appear to dictate the location of any action to enforce the award); Bank Julius Baer & Co., LTD. v. Waxfield LTD., 424 F.3d 278, 284-85 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Security Life Insurance Company of America v. Options: A. holding that a predispute agreement to arbitrate securities act of 1933 claims was enforceable B. holding in motion to compel arbitration that personal jurisdiction is not created merely by a partys agreement to arbitrate in a particular forum C. holding that court should consider issues relating to making and performance of agreement to arbitrate D. holding similar language to be an agreement to arbitrate only before the selfregulatory organizations whose rules were to be applied E. holding in a case factually similar to patten securities that a forum selectionconsent to jurisdiction clause should be understood as complementary to an agreement to arbitrate

assistant: The best answer is E. holding in a case factually similar to patten securities that a forum selectionconsent to jurisdiction clause should be understood as complementary to an agreement to arbitrate
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: appeal docketed, No. 03-2415 (1st Cir. Oct. 17, 2003). 17 . See Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 311-12 & 319, 98 S.Ct. 2733, 57 L.Ed.2d 750 (1978) (noting that a "diverse student body ... is a constitutionally permissible goal for an institution of higher education” but striking down a two-track medical school admissions system that used "explicit racial classification[s]”) (opinion of Powell, J.); Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 123 S.Ct. 2411, 156 L.Ed.2d 257 (2003) (striking down as not narrowly tailored an undergraduate admissions system that automatically awarded twenty points in admissions scoring to members of under-represented ethnic and racial minority .groups); Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 334 & 328, 123 S.Ct. 2325, 156 L.Ed.2d 304 (2003) (<HOLDING>). 18 . Walsh has a Master’s Degree in Options: A. holding that universities can consider race or ethnicity more flexibly as a plus factor in the context of individualized consideration of each and every applicant and that a diverse student body is a sufficiently compelling interest to justify such use of race B. holding that more favorable treatment of similarly situated employees outside the race classification is required to make a prima facie race discrimination case C. recognizing that certain forms of race consciousness do not lead inevitably to impermissible race discrimination D. holding that the race of the prosecutor is irrelevant E. holding that a criminal defendant can bring a third party challenge to the peremptory striking of jurors based on race whether or not he is of the same race as the jurors who are struck

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that universities can consider race or ethnicity more flexibly as a plus factor in the context of individualized consideration of each and every applicant and that a diverse student body is a sufficiently compelling interest to justify such use of race
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 agrees that it will not, at any time, make any statement, publicly or privately, to any individual or entity, including, without limitation, clients, customers, employees, financial or credit institutions or news agencies, in any case, which could reasonably be expected to disparage, defame, libel or slander the other Party.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Borrower will not, and will not permit any of its Subsidiaries to use the proceeds of any loan made hereunder for any purpose other than (a) with respect to the Existing Term Loans, to pay a portion of the consideration payable in connection with the consummation of the Merger, (b) on the Closing Date, to repay the Existing Advances, and to pay the fees, costs, and expenses incurred in connection with this Agreement, the other Loan Documents, and the transactions contemplated hereby and thereby, in each case, as set forth in the Funds Flow Agreement, and (c) thereafter, consistent with the terms and conditions hereof, for their lawful and permitted purposes (including that no part of the proceeds of the loans made to Borrowers will be used to purchase or carry any such Margin Stock or to extend credit to others for the purpose of purchasing or carrying any such Margin Stock or for any purpose that violates the provisions of Regulation T, U or X of the Board of Governors).

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you may be exposed to user-generated content from a variety of sources , and that we are not responsible for the accuracy , usefulness , safety , or intellectual property rights of or relating to such user-generated content .

assistant: None