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: All questions concerning the construction, validity, enforcement and interpretation of this Note shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Minnesota, without regard to the principles of conflict of laws thereof. Each party agrees that all legal proceedings concerning the interpretation, enforcement and defense of the transactions contemplated by any of the Transaction Documents (whether brought against a party hereto or its respective Affiliates, directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents) shall be commenced in the state and federal courts sitting in Hennepin County, Minnesota (the “ Minnesota Courts ”). Each party hereto hereby irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Minnesota Courts 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 suit, action or proceeding, any claim that it is not personally subject to the jurisdiction of such Minnesota Courts, or such Minnesota Courts are improper or inconvenient venue for such proceeding. Each party hereby irrevocably waives personal service of process and consents to process being served in any such suit, 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 Note 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 applicable law. Each party hereto hereby irrevocably waives, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, any and all right to trial by jury in any legal proceeding arising out of or relating to this Note or the transactions contemplated hereby. If any party shall commence an action or proceeding to enforce any provisions of this Note, then the prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall be reimbursed by the other party for its attorneys’ fees and other costs and expenses incurred in 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 Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: f. does not contain any unsolicited or unauthorised advertising , promotional material , `` junk mail '' , `` spam '' , `` chain letters '' , `` pyramid schemes '' or any other form of solicitation ; and

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: expertise than the average comparable case. We find this alternative formulation unpersuasive as well. These cases might, arguably, have been resolved more readily than the average federal civil rights suit. The DOE itself contends, however, the relevant point of comparison is other state administrative proceedings. We see nothing in the record to show that these two cases were simpler than the average impartial hearing. Nor did the District Court abuse its discretion in crediting the plaintiffs’ evidence over the evidence offered by the DOE. As the DOE admits, its own affiant declared that “attorneys who represent parents and students in administrative impartial hearings ... charge approximately $200 per hour.” This is the same lodestar rate the magistrate re 3 & n. 14 (D.C.Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). We therefore reject the DOE’s argument. See Options: A. holding that physician was an independent contractor and thus could not sue hospital under title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 B. holding that surgeon with surgical privileges was not an employee of hospital and thus could not bring suit under either the age discrimination in employment act or title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 C. holding that congress intended for idea to be interpreted consistent with fee provisions of statutes such as title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 D. holding that physician with staff privileges is not an employee and thus cannot bring claim under title vii of 1964 civil rights act E. holding that title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 provides the exclusive remedy for claims of employment discrimination by federal agencies

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that congress intended for idea to be interpreted consistent with fee provisions of statutes such as title vii of the civil rights act of 1964
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that “[i]f these two elements were deemed sufficient to constitute the enumerated offense of kidnapping, then dissimilar state kidnapping offenses would be treated identically for purposes of the [crime of violence] enhancement,” which “would be inconsistent with the Sentencing Guideline’s goals of uniformity and predictability.” Id.' “A two-element definition of kidnapping would sweep more broadly than the generic, contemporary meaning of the crime.” Id. In order -to qualify as an enumerated offense of kidnapping, the statute must contain “[additional aggravating elements, such as the second and fourth elements identified in Gonzalez-Ramirez, or the specified purpose requirements of the MPC definition.” Id.; accord United States v. Najera-Mendoza, 683 F.3d 627, 630 (5th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). As previously set forth, the Florida statute Options: A. holding on plainerror review an oklahoma statute for assault and battery was equivalent to the enumerated offense B. holding that various versions of the statute qualify as an exemption 3 statute C. holding that the oklahoma wiretap statute like the federal statute authorizes wiretaps within the territorial jurisdiction where the contents were first heard D. holding that attempted burglary is a violent felony under the armed career criminal act because like the enumerated crimes it creates significant risks of bodily injury or confrontation that might result in bodily injury emphasis added E. holding that the oklahoma statute like the california statute did not qualify as an enumerated offense because it lacked the elements of substantial interference with the victims liberty and risk of bodily injury

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the oklahoma statute like the california statute did not qualify as an enumerated offense because it lacked the elements of substantial interference with the victims liberty and risk of bodily injury
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 shall reasonably cooperate with and assist the other Party in connection with the activities of such Party under this Section 8.2 upon the reasonable request of the other Party, including by making scientists and scientific records reasonably available and the execution of all such documents and instruments and the performance of such acts as may be reasonably necessary in order to permit the other Party to continue any filing, prosecution, maintenance or extension of such patents and patent applications.

assistant: Cooperation
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 that he once agreed to store some cocaine. Because Landrau was charged with conspiracy to knowingly possess cocaine with the intent to distribute it, and because he defended by claiming ignorance of the cocaine, Landrau’s reading of the Rule 404(b) exceptions is too restrictive. See United, States v. Flores Perez, 849 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1988) (“[W]here ... the other bad act evidence is introduced to show knowledge, motive, or intent, the Rule 404(b) exceptions to the prohibition against character evidence have been construed broadly.”). The other bad act need not be identical to the crime charged so long as it is sufficiently similar to allow a juror to draw a reasonable inference probative of knowledge or intent. See United States v. Spinosa, 982 F.2d 620, 628 (1st Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Nickens, 955 F.2d 112, Options: A. holding that evidence of prior drug sales was sufficiently similar to the crimes charged to be probative of the fact that the defendant was not merely an innocent driver who was involved in the drug transaction by accident B. holding that evidence of violent crimes and other illegal activities of defendants gang was not unduly prejudicial because defendant was not directly implicated and the evidence was probative of elements of the crimes that the defendant was charged with C. holding that where defendant was charged with drug conspiracy it was unnecessary for the government to prove defendants presence at the sales and hence the alibi defense was not supported by the law and no instruction was required D. holding a fiveyear old drug conviction is probative of a defendants state of mind in a drug conspiracy case E. holding prior drug deals admissible to prove knowledge of the drug trade

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that evidence of prior drug sales was sufficiently similar to the crimes charged to be probative of the fact that the defendant was not merely an innocent driver who was involved in the drug transaction by accident
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: along with that of his sons and wife, frequently emphasized the severity, proximity and frequency of the violence in Indonesia. Even minor inconsistencies going to the heart of an asylum claim may, considered collectively, deprive a claim of the “requisite ring of truth.” Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the Board’s adverse credibility finding. Substantial evidence supported the denial of the claims for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention. Because of the adverse credibility finding, Mailoa presented no credible evidence of an individualized risk of future persecution, nor sufficient evidence of past persecution. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1065-66 (9th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED Options: A. holding that to establish asylum eligibility based on future persecution an applicant must show that he or she subjectively fears persecution and that this fear is objectively reasonable B. holding that absent a pattern of persecution linked to the applicant persecution of family members is insufficient to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of persecution C. holding that a showing of past persecution creates a rebuttable presumption of future persecution D. holding that some evidence of individualized risk is necessary to establish the sufficient likelihood of future persecution E. holding that to show an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution an applicant must establish that he would be singled out for persecution or that there was a pattern or practice of persecution of similarlysituated individuals

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that some evidence of individualized risk is necessary to establish the sufficient likelihood of future persecution
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: 1983”). Plaintiff states, “Certainly it is violation of my constitutional and human rights and they forced me to leave USAF by destroying my OERs and making false and malicious statements.” (Doc. No. 8 ¶ 46.) He does not, however, specify which of his constitutional rights were violated. Plaintiffs employment discrimination claim fails under Rule 12(h)(1) because the Feres Doctrine bars claims brought by military personnel under Title VII. As a preliminary matter, a federal employee asserting a claim of employment discrimination must name as the defendant the head of the appropriate agency. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c) (“...the head of the department, agency, or unit, as appropriate, shall be the defendant.”); Wadhwa v. Sec’y, Dep’t of ans Affairs, 216 F.Supp.2d 446, 452 (E.D.Pa.2002) (<HOLDING>); Urie v. Roche, 209 F.Supp.2d 412, 417 Options: A. holding individual employees may be liable under title vii B. holding that title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 provides the exclusive remedy for claims of employment discrimination by federal agencies C. holding that title vii provides the exclusive judicial remedy for claims of discrimination in federal employment D. holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii E. holding that title vii provides a remedy for civilian employees of military departments but not members of the armed forces

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that title vii provides a remedy for civilian employees of military departments but not members of the armed forces
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: 547 U.S. 516 (2006) MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC. v. WILLIAMS et al. No. 05-465. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 26, 2006. Decided June 5, 2006. Carter G. Phillips argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Richard D. Bernstein, Juan P. Morillo, and Steven T. Cottreau. Howard W. Foster argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were John E. Floyd, Joshua F. Thorpe, Ronan P. Doherty, Bobby Lee Cook, and Matthew Thames. Malcolm L. Stewart argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney General Fisher, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, and Sangita K. Rao.[*] PER CURIAM. The writ of certiorari limited to Question 1 presented by the petition, granted at 546 U.S. 1075 (2005), is dismissed as improvidently granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh *517 Circuit for further consideration in light of Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., ante, p. 451. It is so ordered. NOTES [*] Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al. by Beth S. Brinkmann, Seth M. Galanter, Alison Tucher, Robin S. Conrad, and Amar D. Sarwal; and for the National Association of Manufacturers et al. by Michael J. Mueller, Jan S. Amundson, and Quentin Riegel. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Immigration Political Action Committee et al. by Barnaby W. Zall; and for the National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys by Kevin P. Roddy and G. Robert Blakey.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: causing preemption by state law can occur in three different ways: the local ordinance (1) duplicates state law; (2) contradicts state law; or (3) enters an area or field fully occupied by state law.” Conejo Wellness Cntr., Inc. v. City of Agoura Hills, 214 Cal.App.4th 1534, 1552, 154 Cal.Rptr.3d 850 (2013). Under California law, “[l]ocal legislation is ‘duplicative’ of general law when it is coextensive herewith.” Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 4 Cal.4th 893, 898, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 215, 844 P.2d 534 (1993) (citing In re Portnoy, 21 Cal.2d 237, 240, 131 P.2d 1 (1942)). A local ordinance is coextensive with a state law when it criminalizes “precisely the same acts.” Great W. Shows, Inc. v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.4th 853, 865, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 746, 44 P.3d 120 (2002) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotations, ellipses and citation Options: A. holding that 1324 preempted a local ordinance prohibiting renting housing to illegal aliens B. holding that a local gun ordinance making the sale of firearms on county property a misdemeanor was not preempted by a state law prohibiting the sale of assault weapons and unsafe handgunsfinding that the ordinance does not criminalize precisely the same acts which are prohibited by statute C. holding that a local ordinance prohibiting rental housing for illegal aliens was not field preempted and did not conflict with the federal removal process and where the ordinance specified it did not prohibit conduct expressly permitted by federal law did not conflict with federal antiharboring law D. holding that local ordinance prohibiting the sale of beer or wine to persons less than 21 years of age was not preempted by state statute prohibiting the furnishing of any alcoholic beverages to persons under 21 E. holding city ordinance preempted by state law because ordinance prohibited act specifically allowed under state law

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a local gun ordinance making the sale of firearms on county property a misdemeanor was not preempted by a state law prohibiting the sale of assault weapons and unsafe handgunsfinding that the ordinance does not criminalize precisely the same acts which are prohibited by statute
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.; State v. Johnson, 425 N.W.2d 903, 906 (N.D.1988) (indicating “[i]n a criminal trial to the court without a jury, our standard of review is the same as if the case had been tried to a jury”). [¶ 6] In a DUS case, the proseeution must prove the driver had notice his license was suspended. State v. Egan, 1999 ND 59, ¶ 8, 591 N.W.2d 150; State v. Tininenko, 371 N.W.2d 762, 764 (N.D.1985). Here, the trial court did not expressly indicate it found Neumiller received notice of the suspension. However, by acknowledging the issue was whether Neumiller received notice and finding Neu-miller guilty of DUS, the trial court validly found Neumiller received notice. See State v. Smokey’s Steakhouse, Inc., 478 N.W.2d 361, 362 (N.D.1991) (<HOLDING>); see also City of Fargo v. Brennan, 543 N.W.2d Options: A. recognizing the trial court in reaching its general verdict necessarily resolved disputes of fact against the defendant B. recognizing this court will uphold a general verdict if evidence on any one count issue or theory sustains the verdict citations omitted C. holding that the trial court erred in granting the school boards posttrial motion for directed verdict because although the school board timely moved for a directed verdict during trial it did not serve its motion for directed verdict until the eleventh day after the verdict D. recognizing that a trial court can set aside verdict E. recognizing general rule

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing the trial court in reaching its general verdict necessarily resolved disputes of fact against the defendant
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The execution and delivery of this Agreement and the consummation of the issuance of the shares of Common Stock and the transactions contemplated by this Agreement do not and will not conflict with or result in a breach by the Company of any of the terms or provisions of, or constitute a default under, the certificate of incorporation or bylaws of the Company, or any indenture, credit agreement, mortgage, deed of trust or other agreement or instrument to which the Company is a party or by which it or any of its properties or assets are bound, or any existing applicable decree, judgment or order of any court, Federal or state regulatory body, administrative agency or other governmental body having jurisdiction over the Company or any of its properties or assets.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except to the extent the failure to do so would not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, the Borrower will, and will cause each Subsidiary to, (i) comply with all laws, rules, regulations, orders, writs, judgments, injunctions, decrees or awards to which it may be subject (including, without limitation, all Environmental Laws, but excluding Anti-Corruption Laws, Anti-Money Laundering Laws and applicable Sanctions) and (ii) perform its obligations under material agreements to which it is a party. The Borrower, will, and will cause each Subsidiary to, comply in all material respects with Anti-Money Laundering Laws, and in all respects with, Anti-Corruption Laws and applicable Sanctions. The Borrower will maintain in effect and enforce policies and procedures designed to promote and achieve compliance by the Borrower, its Subsidiaries and their respective directors, officers, employees and agents with Anti-Corruption Laws, Anti-Money Laundering Laws and applicable Sanctions.

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: This Agreement shall not be assignable by either party without the written consent of the other party except that the Company may assign this Agreement to a subsidiary or affiliate of the Company. Any failure by the Company to assign this Agreement to an unaffiliated third party successor upon the Company’s sale or transfer of all or substantially all of its business will be considered the termination of Executive’s employment in the context of a Change in Control effective upon the closing of the applicable transaction without an assignment to the successor, which closing constitutes a Change in Control. Any failure by Executive to consent to the assignment of this Agreement to such unaffiliated third party successor will be considered the termination of his employment for a Good Reason other than in the context of a Change in Control effective upon the closing of the applicable Change in Control transaction without any assignment to the successor. For the avoidance of doubt, the parties acknowledge that the payment of any benefits under this Section 13 shall be made in accordance with the applicable provision of Section 10 or 11 of this Agreement within 30 days of the closing date of the Change in Control transaction, and no payments will be made pursuant to this Section 13 if a Change in Control transaction does not occur.

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: Co. v. District Council of Painters No. 16, 803 F.2d 1050, 1051 (9th Cir.1986), and of note 5 of John S. Griffith Construction v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, 785 F.2d 706, 712 (9th Cir.1986), they are not to the contrary. Jon and Mesa Verde note a narrow exception to the rule we describe in the text. They permit a district court to decide in the first instance whether an employer has effectively repudiated a section 8(f) prehire agreement. The employer's right to repudiate is created by, and set forth specifically in, a federal statute rather than, as here, in the collective bargaining agreement itself or in a body of common or other law applicable generally to contract matters. See Jim McNeff, Inc. v. Todd, 461 U.S. 260, 269, 103 S.Ct. 1753, 1758, 75 L.Ed.2d 830 (1983) (<HOLDING>) (quoting NLRB v. Local Union No. 103, Options: A. holding that agreements other than fullfledged collective bargaining agreements may be contracts within the meaning of 301 B. holding such agreements to be per se illegal C. recognizing employers right to repudiate as means of promotfing congress intention that prehire agreements were to be arrived at voluntarily D. holding that one must voluntarily and intelligently waive the right to counsel E. holding that for an act to be inconsistent with the right to arbitrate and thus constitute a waiver of that right it must repudiate the right of the party who does the act

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing employers right to repudiate as means of promotfing congress intention that prehire agreements were to be arrived at voluntarily
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 shall be binding upon the Company and Purchaser and its successors and assigns. Neither the Company nor Purchaser shall make any assignment of its rights under this Note or other Company Agreements or subject this Note or other Company Agreements or its rights hereunder to any lien or security interest of any kind whatsoever; and any such assignment, lien or security interest shall be absolutely void and unenforceable as against Purchaser; provided, however, Purchaser shall be entitled to assign this Note or other Company Agreements to an Affiliate.

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: the requirement that the defendant had ‘knowledge’ of the alleged falsity”). Here, the complaint alleges that Honeywell cherry-picked the data it disclosed to Armor Holdings and to the public so that it could continue to sell Z Shields. (Compl. ¶¶ 4-5.) Thus, the complaint alleges not merely objective scientific disagreement as to the findings of the various tests Honeywell conducted, but Honeywell’s bad faith in selectively disclosing those findings. See supra 1(C). Moreover, the complaint alleges that Honeywell did so “knowingly.” (Compl. ¶ 91.) Pleading that a defendant “knowingly misrepresented and concealed facts” satisfies the falsity requirement under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(2). United States ex rel. Westrick v. Second Chance Body Armor, Inc., 709 F.Supp.2d 52, 56 (D.D.C. 2010) (<HOLDING>); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) (providing that Options: A. holding that there was no jurisdictional defect when the language of the charging document tracked the statutory language even though the facts proffered at the plea hearing were insufficient to establish that the defendant committed the crime B. holding that the court may consider an article not attached to the complaint in determining whether to dismiss the complaint because the article was integral to and explicitly relied on in the complaint and because the plaintiffs did not challenge its authenticity C. holding that the complaint pled a claim under the unamended 3729a2 in part because it tracked the language of the statute D. holding that an indictment under 922g1 was not required to allege a substantial effect on interstate commerce an indictment which tracked the statutory language was sufficient E. holding that once a plaintiff has pled facts in the complaint indicating that the statute of limitations is a complete or partial bar to an action it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to plead either in the complaint or in amendments to it facts establishing an exception to the affirmative defense

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the complaint pled a claim under the unamended 3729a2 in part because it tracked the language of the statute
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 2253227, at *2 (Tex.App.-Beaumont July 30, 2009, no pet.) (memo. op.). Defective service may be raised for the first time on appeal. See Wilson v. Dunn, 800 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.1990); see also Houston Precast, Inc. v. McAllen Constr., Inc., No. 13-07-135-CV, 2008 WL 4352636, at *1 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi Sept. 25, 2008, no pet.) (memo. op.). Appellants rely on Uvalde Country Club to complain that service was invalid. See Uvalde Country Club, 690 S.W.2d at 884-85. However, their reliance is misplaced. In Uvalde Country Club, the citation was served on Henry Bunting, but the petition identified “Henry Bunting, Jr.” as the registered agent for service of process. Id. at 885. The supreme court found that this was ineffective service. Id.; see Hendon v. Pugh, 46 Tex. 211, 212 (Tex.1876) (<HOLDING>). The present case is distinguishable. It is Options: A. holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service B. holding that an attempted service on the partys counsel was insufficient without proof of the counsels actual authority to receive service C. holding that service was ineffective when service was made on jn hendon but the petition named jw hendon as the defendant D. holding that a defendant was estopped from asserting improper service where the defendants conduct caused the allegedly improper service E. holding that service of subpoena on plaintiffs counsel as opposed to the plaintiff himself renders such service a nullity

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that service was ineffective when service was made on jn hendon but the petition named jw hendon as the defendant
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 payments made by the U.S. Borrower in its capacity as Guarantor pursuant to this Article XII shall be made in the respective Permitted Currency in which the U.S. Borrower Guaranteed Obligations are then due and payable. All payments made by the U.S. Borrower in its capacity as Guarantor pursuant to this Article XII will be made without setoff, counterclaim or other defense, and shall be subject to the provisions of Sections 4.4 , 4.12 , and 11.19 .

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: Promptly (and in any event, within three (3) Business Days) upon becoming aware of (a) any actual or potential Conflict of Interest or (b) any lawsuit, claim or arbitration filed against or involving Employee or any trust or vehicle owned or controlled by Employee that (with respect to such lawsuit, claim or arbitration) could reasonably be expected to affect Employee’s ability to perform his duties hereunder or, if determined adversely, could reasonably be expected to have an adverse effect on any member of the Company Group, in each case, Employee shall disclose such actual or potential Conflict of Interest or such lawsuit, claim or arbitration to the Board. A “ Conflict of Interest ” shall exist when Employee engages in, or plans to engage in, any activities, associations, or interests that conflict with, or create an appearance of a conflict with, Employee’s duties, responsibilities, authorities, or obligations for and to any member of the Company Group.

assistant: Disclosures
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 the defendant. Fowler, _N.C. App. at _, _S.E.2d at _. As should be obvious, the search at issue in Fowler was upheld on the basis that the record showed the existence of exigent circumstances justifying an immediate examination of the defendant’s underwear and his anal and genital areas. In Battle, on the other hand, a similar search of the area beneath the defendant’s underwear was invalidated given the absence of exigent circumstances of the type present in Fowler. Smith, on the other hand, upheld a search underneath the defendant’s underwear despite the absence of any exigent circumstances of the sort found in Fowler. According to well-established principles of North Carolina law, we are bound by each of these decisions. Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324, 327 S.E.2d 888 (1985) (<HOLDING>); In re Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384, 379 Options: A. holding that the court of appeals lacks the authority to overrule decisions of the supreme court of north carolina and has a responsibility to follow those decisions until otherwise ordered by the supreme court B. holding that the supreme court has final appellate review of agency decisions C. recognizing that our supreme court does not overrule binding precedent sub silentio and noting that because an appellate court opinion did not mention a contradicting supreme court decision the conflict between the two decisions was not called to the attention of the court which denied review of the appellate decision D. holding that directly applicable supreme court decisions require this court to overrule its prior holdings E. holding court of appeals lacks jurisdiction over the governments prosecutorial discretion decisions

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the court of appeals lacks the authority to overrule decisions of the supreme court of north carolina and has a responsibility to follow those decisions until otherwise ordered by the supreme court
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: Borrower forever releases and discharges Lender and its affiliates, officers, directors, shareholders, agents, representatives, attorneys and employees (collectively, the “Released Parties”), and each of them, past and present, from any and all actions, obligations, costs, damages, losses, claims, liabilities and demands of whatever kind and nature which Borrower has had, now has or hereafter may have, arising from or by reason of or in any way connected with any transaction, matter, event or circumstances which occurred or existed prior to the date hereof. It is understood and agreed that this release is not to be construed as an admission of liability on the part of Lender or the Released Parties.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any disputes arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be subject to arbitration pursuant to the American Arbitration Association’s Employment Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures, as in effect when the dispute arose. The situs of any arbitration between the parties shall be Virginia, and the arbitrators shall have the authority to decide the issue of arbitrability. Any such arbitration will be conducted in the Commonwealth of Virginia and will be decided in accordance with and determined by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, without regard to conflicts of laws or choice of laws.

assistant: Arbitration
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: by agreeing to these terms and electing to purchase a subscription , you acknowledge that your subscription has recurring payment features and you accept responsibility for all recurring payment obligations prior to cancellation of your subscription by you or academia.edu .

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: 5.10 changes to products : skype is constantly improving the software and products and may also need to change technical features from time to time in order to comply with applicable regulations .

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: in a foreign nation where only quasi-sovereign interests are at stake.” DeCoster, 229 F.3d at 336. Notwithstanding this Circuit’s precedent, the provincial plaintiffs argue that they may bring their claims in a parens patriae capacity because they are provinces, not foreign nations. This distinction is of little consequence, however. The federalism concerns implicated by the relationship between the U.S. States and the U.S. federal government do not exist between foreign provinces and the U.S. federal government. The provinces, as political subdivisions of Ecuador, do not claim and have not shown that they have conceded any of their sovereignty to the U.S. government. See, e.g., State of Sao Paulo of the Federative Republic of Brazil v. Am. Tobacco Co., 919 A.2d 1116, 1122 (Del. 2007) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, “the theoretical underpinning of Options: A. holding that the united states was a statutory employer under puerto rico law B. holding that injured consumers for whom the state sought restitution were not real parties in the states parens patriae suit C. holding that the fourteenth amendment which makes persons bom in the united states and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the united states and requires that representatives be apportioned among the states based on population excluding indians not taxed did not make an indian a citizen of the united states D. holding that the republic of panama and state of sao paulo brazil did not have parens patriae standing to bring suit on behalf of their citizens in part because they had retained the full array of sovereign rights that the american states and puerto rico had ceded to the united states government E. holding united states government is immune from rico suit

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the republic of panama and state of sao paulo brazil did not have parens patriae standing to bring suit on behalf of their citizens in part because they had retained the full array of sovereign rights that the american states and puerto rico had ceded to the united states government
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Tenant and Landlord each represent and warrant to the other that neither has had any dealings or entered into any agreements with any person, entity, broker or finder in connection with the negotiation of this Third Amendment except CBRE, Inc., and no other broker, person, or entity is entitled to any commission or finder’s fee in connection with the negotiation of this Third Amendment, and Tenant and Landlord each agree to indemnify, defend and hold the other harmless from and against any claims, damages, costs, expenses, attorneys’ fees or liability for compensation or charges which may be claimed by any such unnamed broker, finder or other similar party by reason of any dealings, actions or agreements of the indemnifying party.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: can be no doubt that all the issues presented in the parties’ procedural motions have been aired and fully considered. 1 . Judge Randolph also implies the panel ignored the provisions of the DoD Regulations that define the “Record of Proceedings” before the CSRT, namely, E-2 § C(8) & (10). In fact, the panel not only epitomized both E-2 § C(8) and E-2 § C(10), see Bismullah I, 501 F.3d at 182; see also Bismullah II, 503 F.3d at 139 (citing E-2 § C(8)), it expressly rejected the Government’s contention that the Record of Proceedings constitutes the record on review for reasons stated in the panel’s two opinions. See Bismullah I, 501 F.3d at 184-86; Bismullah II, 503 F.3d at 139-41. 2 . See W. Va. Univ. Hosps. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83, 88-92, 100-01, 111 S.Ct. 1138, 113 L.Ed.2d 68 (1991) (<HOLDING>). 3 . Judge Randolph says 5 U.S.C. § 551 also Options: A. holding attorneys fees and expert fees distinct for purposes of 42 usc 1988 because if the one includes the other dozens of statutes referring to the two separately become an inexplicable exercise in redundancy B. holding defendant may receive only the portion of his fees under 42 usc 1988 that he would not have paid but for the frivolous claim C. holding that the district court abused its discretion by telling the jury about the right of a prevailing plaintiff to attorney fees under 42 usc 1988 D. holding that 42 usc 1988 authorizes the grant of attorneys fees for services on appeal though statute does not specifically so provide E. holding that a case awarding fees under 42 usc 1988 has no application in a private claim for attorneys fees sounding in mississippi contract law

assistant: The best answer is A. holding attorneys fees and expert fees distinct for purposes of 42 usc 1988 because if the one includes the other dozens of statutes referring to the two separately become an inexplicable exercise in redundancy
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: may not appeal the district court’s denial of qualified immunity because the district court determined that there were genuine issues of material fact in dispute. See Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995). However, this appeal does not turn on disputed facts, but, rather, presents a question of law — whether the facts taken in the light most favorable to Brown allege a constitutional violation at all. It is clear "that summary judgment determinations are ap-pealable when they resolve a dispute concerning an 'abstract issu[e] of law' relating to qualified immunity,” Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 313, 116 S.Ct. 834, 133 L.Ed.2d 773 (1996) (quoting Johnson, 515 U.S. at 317, 115 S.Ct. 2151); see also Gould v. Davis, 165 F.3d 265, 269 (4th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). And the Supreme Court only recently made Options: A. holding that an interlocutory appeal lies from a denial of summary judgment on a qualified immunity claim B. holding that reasonableness of the officers decision in applying for and executing the warrant is a legal question and therefore the court had jurisdiction to hear appeal from the district courts order denying summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity C. holding that the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal on a restraining order and the district court retained jurisdiction to proceed with the trial D. holding that the fourth circuit had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a south carolina district courts order denying a motion to compel arbitration even though the district court also transferred the case to a georgia district court E. holding the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal where the circuit court had the power to remand the agency decision for further proceedings

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that reasonableness of the officers decision in applying for and executing the warrant is a legal question and therefore the court had jurisdiction to hear appeal from the district courts order denying summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity
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: Cynthia Smith appeals the district cour her physician’s recommended treatment as a legitimate specific reason. See Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Third, the ALJ’s finding — that Smith’s daily Options: A. holding that a claimants failure to lose weight does not constitute a refusal to follow the treatment B. holding that an unexplained failure to follow a prescribed treatment is a specific reason to discount credibility C. holding it is appropriate to apply a discount to a closely held corporation D. holding that the failure to follow rule 252b3a was jurisdictional E. holding that failure to follow mandatory provision of statute renders the act void whereas failure to follow directory provision does not

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an unexplained failure to follow a prescribed treatment is a specific reason to discount credibility
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: Debtor will, at its expense and at any time and from time to time, promptly execute and deliver all further instruments and documents and take all further action that may be necessary or desirable or that Lender may reasonably request in order (i) to perfect and protect the security interest created or purported to be created hereby and the current or a more favorable priority of such security interest; (ii) to enable Lender to exercise and enforce its rights and remedies hereunder in respect of the Collateral; or (iii) to otherwise effect the purposes of this Agreement and the other Loan Documents.

assistant: Further Assurances