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: to the arguments at the hearing on the motion to set aside the judgment. As a result, Fidel’s arguments on appeal were properly preserved. See DeFillippo v. Neil, 2002-NMCA-085, ¶ 12, 132 N.M. 529, 51 P.3d 1183 (stating that the primary purposes of the preservation rule are to alert the trial court to the potential error so the court has an opportunity to avoid mistakes and to give opposing parties a fair opportunity to meet the objection); Gracia v. Bittner, 120 N.M. 191, 195, 900 P.2d 351, 355 (Ct.App.1995) (stating that “the preservation requirement should be applied with its purposes in mind, and not in an unduly technical manner to avoid reaching issues that would otherwise result in reversal”); cf. In re Estate of Keeney, 121 N.M. 58, 60-61, 908 P.2d 751, 753-54 (Ct.App.1995) (<HOLDING>). Standard of Review {14} Ordinarily, when a Options: A. holding that information contained in affidavits and depositions submitted as attachments to a memorandum were properly before the trial court and appellate court for purposes of a motion for summary judgment B. holding that when the trial court proceeded to consider affidavits submitted with motion to reconsider summary judgment the affidavits were properly before the appellate court for purposes of reviewing the propriety of the trial courts grant of summary judgment C. holding that trial court may not grant summary judgment by default when the movants summary judgment proof is legally insufficient D. holding that the trial court may not grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the motion E. holding that an appellate court reviews a trial courts grant of a summary judgment motion de novo because it is a question of law

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that when the trial court proceeded to consider affidavits submitted with motion to reconsider summary judgment the affidavits were properly before the appellate court for purposes of reviewing the propriety of the trial courts grant of summary judgment
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: colloquy are sufficient to support his guilty plea, despite the changed interpretation of § 875(c). Based on the foregoing, and all the flies, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw his Guilty Plea (Doc. No. 82) is DENIED. 1 . The Supreme Court explicitly left unanswered the question whether a defendant need act with purpose, knowledge, or reckless disregard.. Elonis, 135 S.Ct. at 2013-14. 2 . .Additionally, Defendant argues that his statements are not "true threats” and thus fall within protected First Amendment speech. However, in Watts v. United States, the Supreme Court drew a distinction between statements regarding public and political issues and statements about private matters. 394 U.S. 705, 708, 89 S.Ct. 1399, 22 L.Ed.2d 664 (1969) (<HOLDING>). Thus, this Court will only , analyze Options: A. holding a political rally for instance B. holding that attempted conscription by a guatemalan guerrilla group did not constitute persecution on account of a political opinion where petitioner failed to show that the group was motivated by his political opinion C. holding that the following statement conditional in nature and made at a political rally was not a true threat if they ever make me carry a rifle the first man i want to get in my sights is lbj D. holding that with the commands of the first amendment clearly in mind a comment that the first man i want to get in my sights is lbj was political hyperbole which did not constitute a willful threat against the president E. holding that the kind of political hyperbole indulged in by petitioner at a public rally in washington dc did not constitute a true threat

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the kind of political hyperbole indulged in by petitioner at a public rally in washington dc did not constitute a true threat
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 to hold Kay ’s pro se litigant exception inapplicable in cases of corporate self-representation. To incorporate NSC as a Virginia “nonstock corporation,” its founders were required to expend time and resources drafting articles of incorporation, filing those articles with the Office of the Clerk and paying the filing fee, obtaining a certificate of incorporation, delineating a process for the selection of directors, and appointing a registered agent, among other requirements. See, e.g., Va.Code Ann. § 13.1-804 (enumerating the filing requirements for Virginia nonstock corporations); id. § 13.1-819 (listing requirements for articles of incorporation); id. § 13.1-829 (setting forth restrictions on names); cf. Wagner v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 793 F.3d 1, 30 (D.C.Cir.2015) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). In addition, NSC’s section 501(c)(3) status Options: A. recognizing the not insignificant costs involved in both establishing and operating as an llc B. recognizing the debtorinpossessions duty to file records and operating reports C. holding that the costs of computerized research should be characterized not as taxable costs but as attorneys fees D. holding that the bankruptcy court properly disallowed fees when the bank could not demonstrate actual costs and expenses beyond its normal operating costs attributable to the debtors loan E. recognizing that an award of temporary attorneys fees and costs is based on an assessment of need and ability to pay as well as the reasonableness of the fees and costs

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing the not insignificant costs involved in both establishing and operating as an llc
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No provision of this Agreement may be modified or waived unless such modification or waiver is agreed to in writing and signed by Executive and by a duly authorized officer of the Company. No waiver by either party hereto at any time of any breach by the other party hereto of, or compliance with, any condition or provision of this Agreement to be performed by such other party shall be deemed a waiver of similar or dissimilar provisions or conditions at the same or at any prior or subsequent time.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: accordingly , to the extent permitted by applicable law , we exclude all express or implied warranties , terms and conditions including , but not limited to , implied warranties of merchantability , fitness for a particular purpose , and non-infringement .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each party acknowledges that this Agreement is the complete and exclusive statement of the agreement between the parties regarding the subject matter herein and supersedes any other oral or written agreements between the parties or any other Company policy with respect to the subject matter hereof or any other matters related to the Executive’s termination of employment with the Company or its affiliates; provided, however , that the Change of Control Agreement shall remain in full force and effect through the Separation Date (and if there is a Qualifying Termination of Employment under the Change of Control Agreement, then the Change of Control Agreement shall apply in lieu of this Agreement (and this Agreement shall be of no further force and effect)). This Agreement may not be modified or altered except by a written instrument duly executed by both parties.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: mortgage and note are valid only as to Mr. Sagi, Brae is effectively and permanently restrained from enforcing any defi ciency judgment against him. That is, by the terms of the permanent restraint, any funds collected by Brae from Mr. Sagi or paid on his behalf would have to be funneled to Mrs. Sagi, who in turn by the court’s order would not be obliged to use the monies to pay the mortgage debt or the real estate taxes while remaining in the residence. Furthermore, the imposition of the restraints against Brae’s collection of its mortgage obligation is contrary to laws of this State governing lien priority. The basic rule of lien priority in New Jersey is “first in time, first in right.” Fidelity Union Title & Mtg. Guar. Co. v. Magnifico, 106 N.J. Eq. 559, 562, 151 A. 499 (Ch.1930) (<HOLDING>); United Jersey Bank/South v. Camera, 271 Options: A. holding that the admissibility of expert testimony was governed by state law B. holding that determination of whether prior conviction was punishable by term of imprisonment exceeding one year is governed by law in effect on date of conviction C. recognizing that it is an open question whether drpa is a federal agency governed by the apa or a state agency governed by state administrative law D. holding that admissibility of a confession is governed by determining from the totality of the circumstances whether or not it was made voluntarily E. holding that priority of liens whether by mortgage or judgment is governed by the date of acquisition

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that priority of liens whether by mortgage or judgment is governed by the date of acquisition
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 a reasonable person when he looks at it. Dresser, 853 S.W.2d at 508. However, that require ment is not necessary when the indemnitor — here, Sydlik — possessed actual notice or knowledge of the indemnity agreement. Id. at 508 n. 2. Stated differently, actual notice may serve as a substitute for the conspicuousness prong of the fair notice doctrine. In this case, both conspicuousness and actual notice are present. The document is only one page with only three paragraphs. It states in large, bolded, underlined letters at the top of the page that it is an agreement and a release. Additionally, Sydlik initialed each paragraph. It was conspicuous. See generally Coastal Transp. Co. v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp., 20 S.W.3d 119, 126 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, Sydlik admitted in her Options: A. recognizing that an indemnity provision and an agreement to provide insurance are separate and distinct obligations B. holding that an indemnity agreement less than two and onehalf pages containing eight paragraphs referenced in two other paragraphs which the party read was conspicuous C. holding that the county was an indispensable party to an action between two private parties in which the public status of a roadway was in question D. holding that strickland was violated when the defendants counsel among many other deficiencies met with his client in a capital case for less than two hours E. holding that an eight and onehalf month delay was enough to warrant further inquiry

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an indemnity agreement less than two and onehalf pages containing eight paragraphs referenced in two other paragraphs which the party read was conspicuous
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 will not buy , sell , rent , or lease access to your snapchat account , live , snaps , a snapchat username , or a friend link without our written permission .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: public or private trust characterized by professional or managerial discretion.” Id., comment, (n.l). The enhancement applies to “a case in which the defendant provides sufficient indicia to the victim that the defendant legitimately holds a position of private or public trust when, in fact, the defendant does not.” Id., comment, (n.3). The defendant must, himself, hold a position of trust. United States v. Morris, 286 F.3d 1291, 1297 (11th Cir.2002). “The relationship between the defendant and the victim must be more significant than that of an arm’s-length business transaction.” United States v. Harness, 180 F.3d 1232, 1236 (11th Cir.1999). The evidence must show that the defendant had a special, close, or personal attachment, or fiduciary relationship with the victim. 1th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). C. Rogers argues that the court erred in Options: A. holding that sentencing under the mandatory guidelines regime creates a presumption of prejudice that the government must rebut with clear and specific evidence that the district court would not have sentenced the defendant to a lower sentence if it had treated the guidelines as advisory B. holding that the fact that the defendant was sentenced to the bottom of the mandatory guidelines range without more was insufficient to satisfy the third prongs requirement that the defendant show a reasonable probability of a lesser sentence under an advisory guideline system C. holding that the fact that the defendant was sentenced at the bottom of the mandatory guideline range without more is insufficient to satisfy the third prongs requirement that the defendant show a reasonable probability of a lesser sentence under an advisory guideline system accord united states v cartwright 413 f3d 1295 1301 11th cir2005 D. holding a sentence within the advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable E. holding that the fact that a sentence imposed under the prebooker mandatory guideline regime was at the bottom of the mandatory range is not enough to create a reasonable probability that the defendant would have received a different sentence upon resentencing under an advisory guidelines system

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the fact that the defendant was sentenced to the bottom of the mandatory guidelines range without more was insufficient to satisfy the third prongs requirement that the defendant show a reasonable probability of a lesser sentence under an advisory guideline system
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 New York is $200 per hour. (Sprout Memo. at 4). Here, the doctrine of “law of the case” controls the issue. See Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618, 103 S.Ct. 1382, 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983) (“When a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the issues in subsequent stages in the same case.”). While the doctrine is not binding, and a court has the power to revisit its previous decisions, it “should be loathe to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, such as where the initial decision was ‘clearly erroneous and wou .N.Y.2008) (collecting cases finding hourly rates of $350 to $430 reasonable for experienced attorneys); Food Authority, Inc. v. Sweet & Savory Fine Foods, Inc., No. 10 Civ. 1738, 2011 WL 477714, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2011) (<HOLDING>). C. Compensable Hours In determining the Options: A. holding 325 per hour reasonable for partner litigating paca case B. holding 350 per hour reasonable for civil rights federal court litigation C. holding that evidence was insufficient to support conviction for vehicular homicide where the defendant was driving 60 miles per hour in a 30 mile per hour zone before the collision and a minimum of 50 miles per hour at the time of impact D. recognizing that 90 per hour is a reasonable rate for a paralegal E. holding that speed alone will not support a conviction but that other factors supported the vehicular homicide conviction where defendant was speeding at 50 to 60 miles per hour in a 30 mile per hour residential area with slowchildren playing sign

assistant: The best answer is A. holding 325 per hour reasonable for partner litigating paca case
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: limits the punishment that a court may impose for a finding of criminal contempt. See id. Section 29-9-103 states: (a) The punishment for contempt may be by fine or by imprisonment, or both. (b) Where not otherwise specially provided, the circuit, chancery, and appellate courts are limited to a fine of fifty dollars ($50.00), and imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) days, and, except as provided in § 29-9-108, all other courts are limited to a fine of ten dollars ($10.00). Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-9-103. Under this provision, we have found that an award of attorney’s fees in the context of criminal contempt is generally not authorized by Tennessee law. See Clarkson, 2007 WL 3072772, at *8 n.2; Butler v. Butler, No. 02A01-9409-CH-00218, 1995 WL 695123, at *1 (Tenn.Ct.App. Nov. 21, 1995) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, the trial court in this case Options: A. holding that an award of attorneys fees in a criminal contempt proceeding was improper because it was simply not within the limits established by tenncode ann 299103b B. holding that an award of attorneys fees under supreme court rule 38 precursor to rule 222 did not preempt an award of attorneys fees to which one is otherwise entitled and thus appellant could seek an award of attorneys fees pursuant to section 1577300 which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency C. holding merely that the evidence was sufficient to support the award of attorneys fees D. holding that the mere determination that removal was improper does not require a district court to award attorneys fees E. holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny an award of attorneys fees to the wife

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that an award of attorneys fees in a criminal contempt proceeding was improper because it was simply not within the limits established by tenncode ann 299103b
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 will, and will cause each of its Material Subsidiaries to, (i) maintain all of its property useful and necessary in the business conducted by the Company and its Material Subsidiaries in good working order and condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted, except where failure to do so would not result in a Material Adverse Effect, and (ii) maintain insurance with creditworthy insurance companies, or self-insure, against such risks and in such amounts as are usually maintained or insured against by other companies of established repute engaged in the same or a similar business or consistent with the Company's past practice.

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: The Subscriber agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, reimburse and defend the Company and each of the Company’s officers, directors, agents, attorneys, affiliates, and control persons against any claim, cost, expense, liability, obligation, loss or damage (including reasonable legal fees) of any nature, incurred by or imposed upon the Company or its successor or any such person which results, arises out of or is based upon any material misrepresentation by such Subscriber in this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Seller’s use and ownership of the Assets, and the conduct of its Business, wherever located, has been in material compliance with all applicable federal, state, local or other governmental laws or ordinances, the non-compliance with which, or the violation of which, might have a material adverse effect on the Assets, the Business, any Assumed Liabilities or Assigned Contracts or the financial condition, results of operations or anticipated business prospects of the Purchaser, and the Seller has received no claim or notice of violation with respect thereto. The Seller has obtained all material permits, licenses, franchises and other authorizations necessary for the conduct of its Business and ownership of the Assets.

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: Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, from the Effective Date through the Retirement Date, Executive will continue to receive the salary and benefits, including Annual Bonus, as set forth in and subject to the Employment Agreement as modified by this Agreement as follows: notwithstanding any provision in the Employment Agreement or the LTIP to the contrary, the Company shall not grant or issue to Executive during, or with respect to, the 2019 calendar year or any subsequent calendar year any incentive awards under the LTIP, and Executive confirms and agrees that he shall not be granted or otherwise receive any such incentive awards in 2019 or at any other time with respect to the 2019 calendar year or any subsequent calendar year, as referenced in Section 5 of the Employment Agreement. Regarding the Annual Bonus, Executive understands and agrees that his eligibility for any Annual Bonus is limited to only the 2018 and 2019 Annual Bonuses, subject to the terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement, including, but not limited to, the Annual Bonuses being paid on a pro rata basis.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Ore Tenus Motion to preclude Plaintiff from tak ing observers, including her attorney, to the Rule 35 examinations is hereby GRANTED. A. Procedures That May Be Conducted During the Rule 35 Examinations In this case, the United States seeks for Dr. Grossman, an orthopedic surgeon, and Dr. Pasarin, a neurological surgeon, to be able to administer x-rays and MRI’s, and to take a medical history, to assess the extent of Plaintiffs damages. The Court first notes that this matter does not arise in the context of a Plaintiff-contested motion by Defendant for Rule 35 examinations. Plaintiff has already voluntarily consented to Rule 35 examinations by an orthopedic surgeon and a neurological surgeon, implicitly conceding that good cause under Rule 35, Fed.R.Civ 189 F.R.D. 620, 626 (D.Kan.1999) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, courts refrain from “limit[ing] Options: A. holding physicianpatient privilege does not apply to nurses or other medical staff working under physicians supervision or acting as physicians agent B. holding that review of medical history during an examination assisted doctors medical conclusions C. holding restriction of questions during examination unduly restricts physicians ability to reach medical conclusions D. holding that emtala does not provide a private cause of action against individual physicians or against physicians medical corporations E. holding strict control test inapplicable in determining the scope of immunity for physicians under federal law because medical ethics require physicians to exercise independent judgment in the best interest of their patients

assistant: The best answer is C. holding restriction of questions during examination unduly restricts physicians ability to reach medical conclusions
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: exercised our equitable power to hold that, even though the claimant was not a "child" or "issue" under the statute, justice required awarding her the same inheritance she would have received if she had been adopted. See In re Williams' Estates, 10 Utah 2d 83, 348 P.2d 683, 684 (1960). Nothing in the Uniform Probate Code definitions changes our ability to do that. Equitable adoption has always operated in parallel with the probate code, providing a non-statutory, equitable right to inherit as if the claimant were the child of the decedent. See id. {40 The majority further holds that equitable adoption .Dist.Ct.App.1984) (estopping the first wife of decedent from asserting her inheritance rights as against the decedent's second wife); In re Estate of Peter C., 488 A2d 468, 470 (Me.1985) (<HOLDING>); In re Estate of Foster, 102 N.M. 707, 699 Options: A. holding that a claim of quantum meruit was appropriate in a probate case because under section 103 principles of law and equity supplement the provisions of the utah uniform probate code unless displaced by particular provisions of the code B. holding that the common law rule that a guardian is in a fiduciary relationship to his ward was not abrogated by the adoption of the uniform probate code even though the code does not shoulder guardians with fiduciary responsibilities C. holding that a sellers superior knowledge of a product does not justify imposition of a fiduciary relationship in the absence of a conscious assumption of fiduciary duties D. holding that a statutorilyimposed fiduciary obligation created an express trust fiduciary relationship for purposes of 523a4 E. holding that the statutes abrogated the common law

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the common law rule that a guardian is in a fiduciary relationship to his ward was not abrogated by the adoption of the uniform probate code even though the code does not shoulder guardians with fiduciary responsibilities
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 Restricted Stock Units shall vest on December 31, 2021, provided that, upon termination of employment with the Employer for any reason prior to December 31, 2021, the unvested portion of the Restricted Stock Units shall be forfeited without any consideration.

assistant: Vesting
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: Neither Holdings nor any Restricted Subsidiary of Holdings is in default under or with respect to, or a party to, any Contractual Obligation that would, either individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: No Defaults
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This note is performable in Travis County, Texas, which shall be a proper place of venue for suit on or in respect of this note. Maker hereby irrevocably agrees that any legal proceeding in respect of this note shall be brought in the district courts of Travis County, Texas, or in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division (collectively, the "Specified Courts"). Maker hereby irrevocably submits to the nonexclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal courts of the State of Texas. Maker hereby irrevocably waives, to the fullest extent permitted by law, any objection which it may now or hereafter have to the laying of venue of any suit, action or proceeding arising out of or relating to this note or any of the Credit Documents brought in any Specified Court, and hereby further irrevocably waives any claims that any such suit, action or proceeding brought in any such court has been brought in an inconvenient forum. Maker further irrevocably consents to the service of process out of any of the Specified Courts in any such suit, action or proceeding by the mailing of copies thereof by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to Maker. Nothing herein shall affect the right of Payee to commence legal proceedings or otherwise proceed against Maker in any jurisdiction or to serve process in any manner permitted by applicable law. Maker agrees that a final judgment in any such action or proceeding shall be conclusive and may be enforced in other jurisdictions by suit on the judgment or in any other manner provided by law. THIS NOTE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM TIME TO TIME IN EFFECT.

assistant: Venues
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 Plan is intended to be an unfunded “top hat” pension plan within the meaning of U.S. Department of Labor Regulation Section 2520.104-23 and shall be interpreted, administered, and enforced as such in accordance with ERISA. To the extent that state law is applicable, the statutes and common law of the State of California, excluding any that mandate the use of another jurisdiction’s laws, will apply.

assistant: Applicable 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 Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: for billing support , call our billing support team at 1-800-762-2530 ( north america ) or your country code + 80011551398 ( all other countries ) .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: excluded from article. This article does not apply * * * to the creation or transfer of an interest in or lien on real estate, including a lease or rents thereunder. Essentially, the Alsups maintain that while the interest is personalty, it also represents an interest in real estate and should be considered a “transfer” within the meaning of Section 55 — 9—104(j). According to the Alsups’ argument, this Section should be interpreted broadly to exclude any transfer of an int table Dev. Corp.), 617 F.2d 1152 (5th Cir.1980) (applying Florida law, held Article 9 applied to a security interest in contract rights and contract proceeds regardless of the fact that real property was also assigned); Southwest Nat’l Bank v. Southworth (In re Southworth), 22 B.R. 376 (Bankr.D.Kan.1982) (<HOLDING>); Erikson v. Seattle Trust & Sav. Bank (In re Options: A. holding that a broadcasting license was property of the estate but not subject to a security interest B. holding vendors right to receive payment under a land sale contract was personal property and a security interest representing that personal property right constituted realty paper and was subject to article 9 C. holding that a judgment lien attaches to a vendors interest in an executory land contract D. recognizing that the government may seek a personal judgment specific property or substitute property E. holding that the land contract vendors were entitled to insurance benefits when before the fire that damaged the subject property the vendors obtained a judgment of forfeiture based on the vendees default on the land contract

assistant: The best answer is B. holding vendors right to receive payment under a land sale contract was personal property and a security interest representing that personal property right constituted realty paper and was subject to article 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: panel of the Superior Court, two years later, found a prima facie showing sufficient to undergird recovery when a plaintiff merely established (1) an asbestos-related condition; (2) shortness of breath; and (3) a causal connection between the two. McCauley v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 715 A.2d 1125 (Pa.Super.1998). As noted above, an integral part of the analysis of this case is whether Appellants, in the first instance, even suffer from a compensable injury under Simmons and its progeny. To that end, we agree with the OISR below that, under either the Taylor/While standard, or the McCauley three-part structure, Appellants instantly have clearly demonstrated a compensable injury. See Summers, 886 A.2d at 248 (OISR) (“I express no opinion on wh .Cmwlth. 445, 583 A.2d 512 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Dep’t of Pub. Welfare v. Hickey, 136 Options: A. holding that a physicians negligence need only be a proximate cause not the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury B. holding that questions of proximate cause are within the exclusive domain for the jury and may only be removed when reasonable minds cannot differ C. holding proximate cause almost always a question solely for the jury D. holding that negligence must be the proximate cause of injury E. holding where reasonable difference of opinion as to whether the defendants act was the or a proximate cause of the injury the matter is for the jury to decide

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that questions of proximate cause are within the exclusive domain for the jury and may only be removed when reasonable minds cannot differ
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 Guaranty shall be binding on, and shall inure to the benefit of Guarantor, Lender and their respective successors and assigns; provided that Guarantor may not assign or transfer its rights or obligations under this Guaranty. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Lender may assign, sell participations in or otherwise transfer its rights under the Loan Documents pursuant to the terms thereof to any other person or entity, and the other person or entity shall then become vested with all the rights granted to Lender in this Guaranty or otherwise.

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: finds that these potential legal and ethical concerns respecting both college faculties are causally related. Therefore, the Court finds that there is not sufficient evidence upon which a trier of fact could reasonably find for the plaintiffs’ EPA claim. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (1986). Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the EPA claim is granted. C. Title VII Disparate Impact & MHRA While plaintiffs have brought claims under both Title VII and the MHRA, the Court analyzes both under the Title VII rubric. See Mems v. City of St. Paul, 224 F.3d 735, 738 (8th Cir.2000) (citing Hanenburg v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 118 F.3d 570, 574 (8th Cir.1997); Turner v. IDS Financial Servs., Inc., 471 N.W.2d 105, 107 (Minn.1991) (<HOLDING>)). Additionally, the basic analysis of an EPA Options: A. holding that where there are no cases on point we must predict how the supreme court of minnesota would rule B. holding that relief granted under title vii is against the employer not individual employees whose actions constituted a violation of title vii emphasis in original C. holding that while not bound to follow the federal rule the minnesota supreme court relies on the principles of title vii when construing the mhra D. holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii E. holding claims based on title vii subject to arbitration

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that while not bound to follow the federal rule the minnesota supreme court relies on the principles of title vii when construing the mhra
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: for guidance in our interpretation of Ohio law.”). Gayer argues that she falls under the protection of the Ohio handicap discrimination statute because Continental regarded her as being disabled. She points out that Continental’s refusal to employ her as an ASA was based upon her inability to lift over 40 pounds. According to Gayer, this action constitutes evidence that Continental regarded her as being disabled. We disagree. For “a covered entity [to] entertain misperceptions about the individual-it must either believe that one has a substantially limiting impairment that one does not have or that one has a substantially limiting impairment when, in fact, the impairment is not so limiting.” Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 489, 119 S.Ct. 2139, 144 L.Ed.2d 450 (1999) (<HOLDING>). But Gayer has not demonstrated that Options: A. holding that regarded as disabled plaintiffs are not entitled to reasonable accommodation B. holding that the plaintiffs who were nearsighted job applicants with fully correctable vision failed to state a claim that the airline regarded them as disabled in violation of the ada C. holding that plaintiffs complaint of back pains and request for simple stands to assist with lifting made to his employer were insuffi cient to establish that the employer regarded him as disabled because he at no point indicated to the employer that he was disabled within the meaning of the ada D. holding that an employers awareness of plaintiffs past medical problems does not establish that it regarded her as disabled E. holding that no ada violation was shown because the disabled were not denied benefits that were otherwise available

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the plaintiffs who were nearsighted job applicants with fully correctable vision failed to state a claim that the airline regarded them as disabled in violation of the ada
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: During the period that Executive is employed with the Company hereunder, the Company shall pay Executive an annual base salary of $1,000,000 (the “Base Salary”), payable in equal biweekly installments (or, if different, in accordance with the Company’s payroll practice as in effect from time to time). For all purposes under this Agreement, the term “Base Salary” shall refer to the Base Salary as in effect from time to time.

assistant: Base Salary
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 Guarantor shall pay on demand all out-of-pocket expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses) in any way relating to the enforcement, or protection of the Guarantee Beneficiaries’ rights, under this Guaranty or in respect of the Guaranteed Obligations, including any incurred during any “workout” or restructuring in respect of the Guaranteed Obligations and any incurred in the preservation, protection or enforcement of any rights of the Guaranteed Beneficiaries in any proceeding pursuant to or in connection with any Debtor Relief Laws, in each case in accordance with the terms of the Credit Agreement. The obligations of the Guarantor under this paragraph shall survive the payment in full of the Guaranteed Obligations and termination of this Guaranty.

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: The Parties enter into this Agreement with the intent of conducting their relationship in full compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, including, but not limited to, the Medicare/Medicaid anti-fraud and abuse statutes and regulations, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended, the Texas Medical Practice Act, and the Texas Health and Safety Code. Notwithstanding any unanticipated effect of any of the provisions in this Agreement, neither Party shall intentionally conduct itself (and shall take particular care to assure that no employee or agent of the respective Party conducts itself) under the terms and conditions of this Agreement in a manner that constitutes a violation of any law or in a manner that would jeopardize either Party’s participation in any federal or state healthcare program, including, without limitation, Medicare or Medicaid. In the event any state or federal laws or regulations, now existing or enacted or promulgated after the effective date of this Agreement, are interpreted by judicial decision, a regulatory agency, or legal counsel of Nobilis or Physician in such a manner as to indicate that the structure of this Agreement may be in violation of such laws or regulations, Nobilis and Physician shall engage in commercially reasonable negotiations to amend this Agreement as necessary. To the maximum extent possible, any such amendment shall preserve the underlying economic and financial arrangements between Nobilis and Physician.

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: Except to the extent that another time period is expressly herein set forth, Tenant shall respond to any request from Landlord, Landlord’s architect, Landlord’s contractor and/or Landlord’s Construction Representative for approvals or information in connection with Landlord’s Work, within two (2) business days of Tenant’s receipt of such request.

assistant: Approvals
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 previously disclosed to REIT II pursuant to the REIT I Disclosure Letter or to REIT I pursuant to the REIT II Disclosure Letter, no broker, finder or investment banker is entitled to any brokerage, finder’s or other fee or commission in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby based upon arrangements made by or on behalf of Advisor or its Affiliates.

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: The corporate capital and ownership structure of the Consolidated Parties is as described in Schedule 5.13(a) (as of the most recent update of such schedule in accordance with Section 6.02(h) hereof). Set forth on Schedule 5.13(b) is a complete and accurate list (as of the most recent update of such schedule in accordance with Section 6.02(h) hereof) with respect to each Consolidated Party of (i) jurisdiction of organization, (ii) number of ownership interests (if expressed in units or shares) of each class of Equity Interests outstanding, (iii) number and percentage of outstanding ownership interests (if expressed in units or shares) of each class owned (directly or indirectly) by the Parent REIT, the Borrower and their Subsidiaries, (iv) all outstanding options, warrants, rights of conversion or purchase and all other similar rights with respect thereto and (v) an identification of which such Consolidated Parties are Guarantors hereunder and which Unencumbered Borrowing Base Properties are owned by each such Loan Party. The outstanding Equity Interests of the Consolidated Parties are, to the extent applicable depending on the organizational nature of such Person, validly issued, fully paid and non‑assessable and are owned by the Parent REIT, the Borrower or a Subsidiary thereof (as applicable), directly or indirectly, in the manner set forth on Schedule 5.13(b) , free and clear of all Liens (other than Permitted Liens or, in the case of the Equity Interests of the Loan Parties, statutory Liens or Liens arising under or contemplated in connection with the Loan Documents). Other than as set forth in Schedule 5.13(b) (as of the most recent update of such schedule in accordance with Section 6.02(h) hereof), no Consolidated Party (other than the Parent REIT) has outstanding any securities convertible into or exchangeable for its Equity Interests nor does any such Consolidated Party have outstanding any rights to subscribe for or to purchase or any options for the purchase of, or any agreements providing for the issuance (contingent or otherwise) of, or any calls, commitments or claims of any character relating to its Equity Interests. The copy of the Organization Documents of each Loan Party provided pursuant to Section 4.01(a)(iv) is a true and correct copy of each such document as of the Closing Date, each of which is valid and in full force and effect.

assistant: Subsidiaries