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: If any provision of this Agreement or the other Loan Documents is held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable, (a) the legality, validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions of this Agreement and the other Loan Documents shall not be affected or impaired thereby and (b) the parties shall endeavor in good faith negotiations to replace the illegal, invalid or unenforceable provisions with valid provisions the economic effect of which comes as close as possible to that of the illegal, invalid or unenforceable provisions. The invalidity of a provision in a particular jurisdiction shall not invalidate or render unenforceable such provision in any other jurisdiction. Without limiting the foregoing provisions of this Section 10.14 , if and to the extent that the enforceability of any provisions in this Agreement relating to Defaulting Lenders shall be limited by Debtor Relief Laws, as determined in good faith by the Administrative Agent or the applicable L/C Issuer, then such provisions shall be deemed to be in effect only to the extent not so limited.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: 15.6 if we take any of the measures described above ( i ) we may refund your guests in full for any and all confirmed bookings that have been cancelled , irrespective of preexisting cancellation policies , and ( ii ) you will not be entitled to any compensation for pending or confirmed bookings that were cancelled .

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: Pay and discharge all Taxes prior to the date on which they become delinquent or penalties attach, unless (i) such Taxes are being Properly Contested or (ii) the failure to pay such Taxes could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Taxes
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: assumed by the bondsman from the beginning. Id. at 215. Because the new charges were in the same class (all felonies) and originated from the same transaction, the court held the surety’s obligation was not discharged. Id. Similarly, in State v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America, 672 P.2d 251 (Kan. Ct. App. 1983), the defendant was originally charged with aggravated assault, released on bail and later charged with rape, kidnapping, and unlawful restraint. Even with the addition of three serious new felonies, the court concluded that “[t]he fact that the State proposed to try [defendant] for additional crimes ... did not alter the surety’s obligation to produce him on the original charge.” Id. at 253; see also People v. Soto-Gallegos, 953 P.2d 946, 947-48 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997) (<HOLDING>); State v. Pashall, 174 A. 175, 176-77 (Conn. Options: A. holding that where the writings on file were insufficient to constitute an effective charge a charge had not been effectively filed despite the fact that the eeoc had assigned the case a charge number B. holding that because the amendment added a new substantive theory which is fundamentally distinct from the original race discrimination charge it did not relate to or grow out of the plaintiffs original eeoc charge C. holding that failure to charge jury that state had burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in the heat of passion was harmless because the evidence did not support a charge on passionprovocation manslaughter D. holding that addition of charge for crime committed while the defendant was released on bail did not discharge suretys obligation to produce the defendant on original charge E. holding that because a mutual combat charge authorizes a jury to find the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter in lieu of murder it is a charge that benefits a defendant and as such a convicted defendants complaint that it was improper to give the charge is without merit

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that addition of charge for crime committed while the defendant was released on bail did not discharge suretys obligation to produce the defendant on original charge
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Nazarene University v. Sebelius, No. 13-cv-1015-F, 2013 WL 6804265 (W.D.Okla. Dec. 23, 2013); Geneva College v. Sebelius, No. 12-cv-00207(JCF), 988 F.Supp.2d 5 3 WL 6922024 (W.D.Pa. Nov. 21, 2013); Zubik v. Sebelius, No. 13-cv-01459 (AJS), 983 F.Supp.2d 576, 2013 WL 6118696 (W.D.Pa. Nov. 21, 2013). For cases finding for the government on RFRA claims, see, e.g., Catholic Diocese of Nashville v. Sebelius, No. 3:13-cv-1303, 2013 WL 6834375 (M.D.Tenn. Dec. 26, 2013); University of Notre Dame v. Sebelius, No. 13-cv-01276, 988 F.Supp.2d 912, 2013 WL 6804773 (N.D.Ind. Dec. 20, 2013), emergency motion for injunction filed Dec. 23, 2013, No 13-3853 (7th Cir.); Priests for Life v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-cv1261 (EGS), 2013 WL 6672400, — F.Supp.2d — (D.D.C. Dec. 19, 2013) (<HOLDING>), emergency motion for injunction filed Dec. Options: A. holding that an employer is not liable where it takes reasonable steps to provide an accommodation and the employee is responsible for a breakdown in the process of identifying a reasonable accommodation B. holding that such factors may constitute a substantial burden C. holding that the disabled individual bears the initial burden of proposing an accommodation and showing that that accommodation is objectively reasonable and that the defendant was entitled to prevail because the plaintiffs proposed accommodation of remaining on unpaid medical leave until another customer service or receptionist position opened up was not a reasonable accommodation under the ada D. holding that the accommodation does not create a rfra substantial burden E. recognizing burden

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the accommodation does not create a rfra substantial burden
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 classification as a Tier II or III sex offender. Because the only determination to be made is whether the offender committed an offense requiring classification as a Tier II or III offender, further procedures would serve no purpose. See People v. Logan, 235 Ill.Dec. 539, 705 N.E.2d at 161. Helman’s attack on the statutory scheme’s lack of procedural protections is really a substantive challenge to the statute itself. In Lanni v. Engler, E.D.Mich., 994 F.Supp. 849, 855 (1998), the Court held that because the sex offender act at issue required all offenders to register and subjected all offenders to limited public disclosure, “a hearing would serve no purpose.” Lanni, 994 F.Supp. at 855; see also People v. Logan, 302 Ill.App.3d 319, 235 Ill.Dec. 539, 705 N.E.2d 152, 161 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, as the Supreme Court has stated: Options: A. recognizing the extraordinary value of the vehicle title and registration records for law enforcement B. holding that the alaska sex offender registration act did not violate the ex post facto clause C. holding that the public disclosure provision of connecticuts sex offender registration law did not violate the due process clause D. holding that the postmark on the registration application was the determining factor when a registration is subsequently approved E. holding that a hearing would serve no purpose because the registration act and notification law subject all sex offenders as defined by the registration act to the registration and notification provisions and law enforcement authorities have no discretion to determine which offenders would be exposed to public dissemination

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a hearing would serve no purpose because the registration act and notification law subject all sex offenders as defined by the registration act to the registration and notification provisions and law enforcement authorities have no discretion to determine which offenders would be exposed to public dissemination
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 § 1328(a)(3)); Richardson v. Hidy Honda, Inc. (In re Richardson), 221 B.R. 956, 962 (D.Wyo.1998) (concluding that a chapter 7 debtor’s execution of a promissory note evidencing his restitutionary obligation to the victim of his criminal embezzlement did not transform the nature of the debtor’s obligation from a nondischargeable debt for the debtor’s embezzlement under § 523(a)(4) into a dischargeable contractual obligation; rather, in ruling on the dischargeability of the debtor’s obligation on the promissory note, the bankruptcy court could inquire into the circumstances surrounding the debtor’s execution of the note to ascertain whether the debt was derived from the debtor’s alleged embezzlement); McIntyre v. White (In re McIntyre), 328 B.R. 356, 361-62 (Bankr.D.Mass.2005) (<HOLDING>); Ramey v. Barton (In re Barton), 321 B.R. 869, Options: A. holding that effect of discharge of debt under bankruptcy code is the same as it was under the 1898 bankruptcy act it is not an extinguishment of the debt but only a bar to enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation of the debt or B. holding that reporting of historically accurate debt may violate the fcra when the reporting did not include that the debt was discharged in bankruptcy or that the debt was in dispute C. holding that the untimely death of a nondebtor spouse does not transform past due alimony into a dischargeable debt through an assignment by operation of law which would result in excepting the debt from nondischargeability under 523a5 as such an absurd result would be at odds with the intent of the drafters of the bankruptcy code D. holding that 525 applies only where the debt in question is dischargeable E. holding that effect of bankruptcy discharge under arizona law is not an extinguishment of the debt but only a bar to enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation of the debtor

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the untimely death of a nondebtor spouse does not transform past due alimony into a dischargeable debt through an assignment by operation of law which would result in excepting the debt from nondischargeability under 523a5 as such an absurd result would be at odds with the intent of the drafters of the bankruptcy code
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be terminated by any Purchaser, as to such Purchaser’s obligations hereunder only and without any effect whatsoever on the obligations between the Company and the other Purchasers, by written notice to the other parties, if the Closing has not been consummated on or before September 26, 2017; provided , however , that no such termination will affect the right of any party to sue for any breach by any other party (or parties).

assistant: Terminations
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 particularized injury in fact that standing requires. Baird, 266 F.3d at 411. And \ve held that the legislators could not show a Coleman-like vote-nullification injury because their votes “would not have been sufficient to defeat either the concurrent resolution ... or legislation to similar effect.” Id. at 412. In such circumstances, legislators’ remedy lies not with the courts but with the legislative process, for, as the Supreme Court noted in Raines, the legislature could simply “vote to repeal” offending legislation. 521 U.S. at 824, 117 S.Ct. 2312. Actual or imminent. Standing can derive from an imminent, rather than an actual, injury, but only when “the threatened injury is real, immediate, and direct.” Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724, 734, 128 S.Ct. 2759, 171 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008) (<HOLDING>). In a pre-enforcement challenge to a federal Options: A. holding that a candidate for a planned unit development associations board was a limited purpose public figure because as a candidate for election to the associations board of directors plaintiff thrust himself into a spotlight which justified viewing him as a public figure for the limited purpose of his candidacy B. holding candidate for house of representatives had standing to challenge election regulation exempting opponents of selffinancing candidates from certain campaigncontribution limits where plaintiff candidate had declared his candidacy and was demonstrably a selffinancing candidate whose opponents would imminently receive expanded access to campaign funding C. recognizing that electoral restrictions that affect a political partys ability to perform its primary functions organizing and developing recruiting supporters choosing a candidate and voting for that candidate in a general election can constitute severe first amendment burdens D. holding that limits on contributions to political committees which advocate the views and candidacies of a number of candidates induce no greater first amendment scrutiny than limits on contributions to an individual candidate E. holding that the governor did not have to obtain the consent of the senate for the appointment of a candidate when the first candidate had been rejected by the senate the senate was not in session at the time that the second candidate was appointed and because the legislature which created and therefore controlled the office did not require by statute that the governor seek the senates approval in those circumstances

assistant: The best answer is B. holding candidate for house of representatives had standing to challenge election regulation exempting opponents of selffinancing candidates from certain campaigncontribution limits where plaintiff candidate had declared his candidacy and was demonstrably a selffinancing candidate whose opponents would imminently receive expanded access to campaign funding
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event of any equity restructuring (within the meaning of Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification Topic 718, C ompensation—Stock Compensation) that causes the per share value of shares of Common Stock to change, such as a stock dividend, stock split, spinoff, rights offering or recapitalization through an extraordinary dividend, the number and class of shares of Co mmon Stock subject to the Award shall be appropriately and equitably adjusted by the Committee. In the event of any other change in corporate capitalization, including a merger, consolidation, reorganization or partial or complete liquidation of the Compa ny, such adjustment described in the foregoing sentence may be made as determined to be appropriate and equitable by the Committee to prevent dilution or enlargement of rights of participants. In either case, such adjustment shall be final, binding and co nclusive. If such adjustment would result in a fractional share being subject to the Award, the Company shall pay the holder of the Award, on the date that the shares with respect to the Award are issued, an amount in cash determined by multiplying (i) th e fraction of such share (rounded to the nearest hundredth) by (ii) the Fair Market Value of a share on the date that the Restriction Period with respect to the Award terminates.

assistant: Adjustments
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: except as described in these terms , we have no responsibility for any transactions that you enter into with a third party for third-party content or in-app purchases and assume no liability for third-party content or third-party in-app purchases that occur within third-party content .

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: Company agrees to pay promptly (a) all of each Agent’s actual and reasonable costs and expenses of negotiation, preparation, execution and administration of the Loan Documents and any consents, amendments, waivers or other modifications thereto; (b) all the reasonable fees, expenses and disbursements of counsel to Agents in connection with the negotiation, preparation, execution and administration of the Loan Documents and any consents, amendments, waivers or other modifications thereto and any other documents or matters requested by Company; (c) all the actual costs and reasonable expenses of creating and perfecting Liens in favor of Collateral Agent, for the benefit of Secured Parties, including filing and recording fees, expenses and taxes, stamp or documentary taxes, search fees, title insurance premiums and reasonable fees, expenses and disbursements of counsel to each Agent and of counsel providing any opinions that any Agent or Required Lenders may request in respect of the Collateral or the Liens created pursuant to the Collateral Documents; (d) all of each Agent’s actual costs and reasonable fees, expenses for, and disbursements of any of such Agent’s auditors, accountants, consultan ts or appraisers whether internal or external, and all reasonable attorneys’ fees (including allocated costs of internal counsel and expenses and disbursements of outside counsel) incurred by each Agent; (e) all the actual costs and reasonable expenses (including the reasonable fees, expenses and disbursements of any appraisers, consultants, advisors and agents employed or retained by Collateral Agent and its counsel) in connection with the custody or preservation of any of the Collateral; and (f) after the occurrence of a Default or an Event of Default, all costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees (including allocated costs of internal counsel) and costs of settlement, incurred by any Agent and Lenders in enforcing any Obligations of or in collecting any payments due from any Loan Party hereunder or under the other Loan Documents by reason of such Default or Event of Default (including in connection with the sale of, collection from, or other realization upon any of the Collateral or the enforcement of the Guaranty) or in connection with any refinancing or restructuring of the credit arrangements provided hereunder in the nature of a “work out” or pursuant to any insolvency or bankruptcy cases or proceedings.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: This leads to the second problem with the plurality’s construction of the statute: It assigns the word “claimant” in subsection four a meaning synonymous with “prevailing party,” without explaining why the legislature bothered to substitute the word “claimant” for “prevailing party” prior to the subsection’s passage. See H. Am. to H.B. No. 708 (1996) (deleting “prevailing party” and inserting “claimant”). The legislature may have been varying its diction. However, we decline to interpret the substitution this way, because “where an amendment is made it carries with it the presumption that the Legislature intended the statute thus amended to have a meaning different than theretofore accorded it.” State ex rel. Parsons v. Bunting Tractor Co., 58 Idaho 617, 619, 77 P.2d 464, 466 (1938) (<HOLDING>); see also In re Garrett Transfer & Storage Options: A. holding that a states use of the word shall is mandatory language B. holding that shall generally indicates a mandatory intent unless a convincing argument to the contrary is made C. holding use of word may generally indicates permissive rather than mandatory intent D. holding legislatures intent to change tax liability retroactively was permissive exercise of legislative power E. holding change of word shall to may prior to bills passage indicates legislative intent to make purchases upon bids permissive rather than mandatory

assistant: The best answer is E. holding change of word shall to may prior to bills passage indicates legislative intent to make purchases upon bids permissive rather than mandatory
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: reliance on the mediation statement fails for several reasons. To begin, there is the language of Rule 3(c)(4), which says that a party’s intent to appeal must be gleaned “from the notice.” (Emphasis added); cf. Smith, 502 U.S. at 248, 112 S.Ct. 678 (“the notice afforded by a document, not the litigant’s motivation in filing it, determines the document’s sufficiency as a notice of appeal”). Consistent with the plain language of the rule, we have looked to the “text” of a notice of appeal, not to surrounding circumstances, to gauge compliance with the rule. Thoubboron, 749 A.2d at 748; see also Paramedics Electromedicina, 369 F.3d at 656-57 (similar); Meehan, 312 F.3d at 911 (similar); United States v. Carelock, 459 F.3d 437, 442-43 (3d Cir.2006) (similar); cf. Perry, 623 A.2d at 1215 (<HOLDING>). And just as importantly, under the Supreme Options: A. holding that the appeal was properly before the court where the appellant appealed from an order amending a prior order without appealing from the prior order B. holding that failure to designate the judgment or order being appealed is a jurisdictional defect C. holding that appellant had standing to appeal because it was bound by the judgment even though it did not meet the second requirement D. holding that appellant complied with rule 3as requirement to designate the judgment or order appealed where it was clear from the face of the notice of appeal which judgment appellant sought to appeal E. holding that identification of appellant in notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement and that the failure to name a party in a notice to appeal constitutes a failure of that party to appeal

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that appellant complied with rule 3as requirement to designate the judgment or order appealed where it was clear from the face of the notice of appeal which judgment appellant sought to appeal
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If litigation shall be brought to enforce or interpret any provision contained in this Agreement, the Corporation indemnifies the Executive for his reasonable attorney fees and disbursements incurred in such litigation, and agrees to pay pre-judgment interest on any money judgment obtained by the Executive calculated at the prime interest rate in effect from time to time from the date that payment(s) to him should have been made under 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in order adequately to allege tortious interference by a party with an economic interest, Houbigant must allege that the Zohar Funds and Patriarch acted either maliciously, fraudulently, or illegally. Houbigant has failed to do so. In characterizing Defendants’ conduct as “malicious,” Houbigant alleges that the Zohar Funds and Patriarch acted “without justification.” (Countercl. ¶¶ 201, 227, 236.) Such allegations, without more, are inadequate. See Rather v. CBS Corp., 68 A.D.3d 49, 886 N.Y.S.2d 121, 128 (N.Y.App.Div., 1st Dep’t, 2009) (finding “bare allegations of malice” to be insufficient “to bring the [tortious interference] claim under an exception to the economic interest rule”); see also Ruha v. Guior, 277 A.D.2d 116, 717 N.Y.S.2d 35, 36 (N.Y.App. Div., 1st Dep’t, 2000) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, Houbigant’s claims that “IMG Options: A. holding that allegations against nondiverse defendants must be factual not conclusory because conclusory allegations do not state a claim B. holding that plaintiffs bare allegations of malice do not suffice particularly where such allegations are contradicted by plaintiffs own claims that defendants actions were financially motivated C. holding insufficient the plaintiffs generic allegations D. holding that plaintiffs allegations of abuse did not amount to the allegations of torture required by 1605a7 to survive a motion to dismiss E. holding that the district court did not err in finding that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate notice of new allegations where the plaintiffs complaint gave the defendants no notice of the specific factual allegations presented for the first time in the plaintiffs opposition to summary judgment

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that plaintiffs bare allegations of malice do not suffice particularly where such allegations are contradicted by plaintiffs own claims that defendants actions were financially motivated
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: persuasion, the party seeking summary judgment bears an initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once the moving party has met that burden, the non-moving party must come forward and demonstrate that such an issue does, in fact, exist. See Matsushita Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 415 U.S. 574, 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). A party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [his] pleadings,” but rather must “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); see Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348 (<HOLDING>); Cray Communications, Inc. v. Novatel Computer Options: A. holding that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact B. holding that once motion for summary judgment is properly made and supported opposing party bears burden of showing by means of affidavits or other verified evidence that genuine dispute of material fact exists C. holding that the moving party has tjhe burden of showing no genuine issue of material fact exists D. holding that the moving party for summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial E. holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if there is a genuine dispute about a material fact

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that once motion for summary judgment is properly made and supported opposing party bears burden of showing by means of affidavits or other verified evidence that genuine dispute of material fact exists
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: opinion, at least one juror would have given far greater weight to the opinions of Dr. Maiuro with respect to the question whether Brown’s mental disorder and the lack of lithium should be considered to constitute a mitigating factor. IV. Cumulative Error The three aspects of counsel’s deficient performance, viewed together, should undermine one’s confidence in the outcome of the penalty phase. Multiple errors, even if harmless individually, may entitle a petitioner to habeas relief if their cumulative effect prejudiced the defendant. Mak v. Blodgett, 970 F.2d 614, 622 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 951, 113 S.Ct. 1363, 122 L.Ed.2d 742 (1993); see also United States v. Tucker, 716 F.2d 576, 595 (9th Cir.1983); Cooper v. Fitzharris, 586 F.2d 1325, 1333 (9th Cir.1978) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). Defense counsel’s errors resulted in the Options: A. holding improperly admitted evidence may be harmless if cumulative B. holding that any deficiency in failure to object to hearsay did not prejudice defendant when testimony was cumulative of other evidence C. holding that an assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice D. holding that prejudice may result from the cumulative impact of multiple deficiencies E. holding that the exclusion of cumulative evidence did not materially impact defendants right to present a defense

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that prejudice may result from the cumulative impact of multiple deficiencies
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: By the issuance of a Letter of Credit (or an amendment to a Letter of Credit increasing the amount thereof) and without any further action on the part of the applicable Issuing Bank or the Lenders, such Issuing Bank hereby grants to each Lender, and each Lender hereby acquires from such Issuing Bank, a participation in such Letter of Credit equal to such Lender’s Pro Rata Share of the aggregate amount available to be drawn under such Letter of Credit. In consideration and in furtherance of the foregoing, each Lender hereby absolutely and unconditionally agrees to pay to the Agent, for the account of such Issuing Bank, such Lender’s Pro Rata Share of each LC Disbursement made by such Issuing Bank and not reimbursed by the applicable Borrower on the date due as provided in paragraph (e) of this Section, or of any reimbursement payment required to be refunded to the applicable Borrower for any reason. Each Lender acknowledges and agrees that its obligation to acquire participations pursuant to this paragraph in respect of Letters of Credit is absolute and unconditional and shall not be affected by any circumstance whatsoever, including any amendment, renewal or extension of any Letter of Credit or the occurrence and continuance of a Default or reduction or termination of the Commitments, and that each such payment shall be made without any offset, abatement, withholding or reduction whatsoever.

assistant: Participations
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 district court, a codefendant had objected to the instructions but the defendant declined to challenge them, telling the district court "I don’t have any objections to the charge.” We then held that the defendant had not preserved the issue for appeal and thus only examined the instruction for plain error. If the defendant states that he will not object to something and then, on appeal, reverses course and raises such an objection, this court should generally apply a plain error standard. Id. at 1472. There may be times, however, as recognized by this court in Love and White where the failure to join a codefendant's objection may nevertheless preserve the issue for appeal. 3 . When the district court declares a mistrial and one of the parties files a certain kind of Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 829, 114 S.Ct. 97, 126 Options: A. holding that informal methods of granting continuances are inconsistent with the requirements of the iad B. holding that the ijs or bias credibility determinations are not questioned if they are substantially reasonable C. holding that if the statutory terms are unambiguous a courts review ends and the statute is construed according to the plain meaning of its words D. holding that openended continuances to serve the ends of justice are not prohibited if they are reasonable in length E. holding that when regulations are intended to have different purposes and are not dependent on each other they are not intertwined

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that openended continuances to serve the ends of justice are not prohibited if they are reasonable in length
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: ten to fifteen years after radiation exposure. See Stevenson, 545 P.2d at 716. In the absence of a constitutionally valid version of Section 52-3-10(0), Mrs. Schirmer may proceed with her claim for compensation under the Act. We vacate the Division’s order granting summary judgment for Homestake and remand this case to the Division for proceedings consistent with this opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED. RANSOM and FROST, JJ., concur. 1 . For the purposes of this case, we consider the individual’s interest in full recovery of benefits under the Act to be equivalent to an individual's interest in full recovery of tort damages because Section 52-3-10(C) is the employee's exclusive remedy in cases such as the instant case. See Segura v. Molycorp, Inc., 97 N.M. 13, 16, 636 P.2d 284, 287 (1981) Options: A. holding that an employer who commits an intentional tort against his employee cannot claim that the act was accidental so that workers compensation is the employees exclusive remedy B. holding that if no notice was given prior to the institution of an action a condition precedent to the right to bring the action does not exist and the buyerplaintiff has lost the right of his remedy C. holding that once the workers compensation act provides a remedy it is exclusive and the employee has no right to bring an action in commonlaw negligence against his employer D. holding that when an employer intentionally engages in misconduct knowing it is substantially certain to cause serious injury or death to employees and an employee is injured or killed by that misconduct the employee may pursue a civil action against his employer and also pursue benefits under the workers compensation act E. holding that when an employee suffers an injury from an unexplained fall while the employee is on the job and performing the duties of his employment that injury is eligible for compensation under the workers compensation act

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that once the workers compensation act provides a remedy it is exclusive and the employee has no right to bring an action in commonlaw negligence against his employer
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: believe a saliva procedure involves a ‘serious intrusion upon personal security’ ") (citation omitted); Doles v. State, 994 P.2d 315, 318-19 (Wyo.1999); cf. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assoc., 489 U.S. 602, 625, 109 S.Ct. 1402, 1417, 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989) (intrusions such as blood and urine tests are "not significant”); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 771, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1836, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966) (stating that extraction of blood samples “are a commonplace in these days of periodic physical examination and experience with them teaches that the quantity of blood extracted is minimal, and that for most people the procedure involves virtually no risk, trauma, or pain”) (footnote omitted); Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753, 762, 105 S.Ct. 1611, 1617, 84 L.Ed.2d 662 (1985) (<HOLDING>). The amount of information seized pursuant to Options: A. holding that individuals have no expectation of privacy in their license registration or insurance documents and citing outofstate cases that have held that individuals do not have a privacy interest in their registration records B. holding that blood tests do not infringe significant privacy interests C. recognizing that settlement discussions do not constitute an offer of judgment D. recognizing that schmerber stated that societys judgment that blood tests do not constitute an unduly extensive imposition on an individuals privacy and bodily integrity E. holding that the best interest of the child was the proper standard to apply in determining whether blood tests should be conducted

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that schmerber stated that societys judgment that blood tests do not constitute an unduly extensive imposition on an individuals privacy and bodily integrity
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, the granting and vesting of this Award under the Plan, the issuance and delivery of the Restricted Stock, and the payment of money or other consideration allowable under the Plan or this Award are subject to compliance with all applicable federal and state laws, rules and regulations (including, but not limited to, state and federal securities laws and federal margin requirements) and to such approvals by any listing, regulatory or governmental authority as may, in the opinion of counsel for the Committee, the Board or the Company, be necessary or advisable in connection therewith. Any securities delivered under the Plan shall be subject to such restrictions, and the person acquiring such securities shall, if requested by the Company, provide such assurances and representations to the Company as the Committee, the Board or the Company may deem necessary or desirable to assure compliance with all applicable legal requirements. To the extent permitted by applicable law, the Plan and this Award shall be deemed amended to the extent necessary to conform to such laws, rules and regulations. Nothing in the Plan or in this Award shall require the Company to issue any Stock with respect to the Award if, in the opinion of counsel for the Company, that issuance could constitute a violation of any applicable laws. As a condition to the grant or exercise of the Award, the Company may require the Participant (or, in the event of the Participant’s death, the Participant’s legal representatives, heirs, legatees or distributees) to provide written representations concerning the Participant’s (or such other person’s) intentions with regard to the retention or disposition of the Restricted Stock and written covenants as to the manner of disposal of such Stock as may be necessary or useful to ensure that the grant, exercise or disposition thereof will not violate the Securities Act, any other law or any rule of any applicable securities exchange or securities association then in effect. The Company shall not be required to register any Stock under the Securities Act or register or qualify any Stock under any state or other securities laws.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Parties shall work (at their own cost and expense) together in good faith to obtain such Permits as are necessary to drill and complete each Planned Well and construct the required extensions of the System to each Planned Separator Facility (and each Planned Well, as applicable) as expeditiously as reasonably practicable, all as provided in this Agreement. The Parties shall cooperate with each other and to communicate regularly regarding their efforts to obtain such Permits. Upon request by Producer, Gatherer shall promptly provide to Producer copies of all Permits obtained by Gatherer in order to construct any Facility Segment (or portion of a Facility Segment) of the System.

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: case. Between the doctrine’s inapplicability here, coupled by the fact that neither the Bankruptcy Code nor the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure compel the fusion of both issues, this Court holds that Plaintiff did not waive its right to recover on an alleged preferential transfer. Y. Conclusion This Court concludes that § 502(d) does not preclude Plaintiff from bringing a preference action against Morris. Plaintiff was not required by the Bankruptcy Code to object to Morris’s c us. Holdings, Inc.), 2003 WL 1818177 (Bankr.D.Del. Apr. 2, 2003) (same); LaRoche Indus., Inc. v. Gen. Am. Transp. Corp. (In re LaRoche), 284 B.R. 406 (Bankr. D.Del. Sept.23, 2002) (same). But see Homeplace of Am., Inc. v. Salton, Inc. (In re Waccamaw’s Homeplace), 325 B.R. 524, 535 (Bankr.D.Del. May 31, 2005) (<HOLDING>); TWA Inc. Post Confirmation Estate v. City & Options: A. holding defendant to a preference action has a right to a jury trial pursuant to the seventh amendment of the united states constitution but that right can be waived by filing a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings B. holding that a chapter 7 trustee was the only person with authority to bring a cause of action after the appointment of a trustee C. holding that parties waived any choice of law objection by not raising an objection D. holding that party waived an objection to choice of law E. holding trustee has not waived the right to bring a preference objection

assistant: The best answer is E. holding trustee has not waived the right to bring a preference objection
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 conflict of laws question. In the present case, the Minnesota and Wisconsin physician-patient privilege rules directly conflict. Minnesota’s physician-patient privilege has its genesis in Minn.Stat. § 595.02, subd. 1(d) (2002): A licensed physician * * * shall not, without the consent of the patient, be allowed to disclose any information or any opinion based thereon which the professional acquired in attending the patient in a professional capacity, and which was necessary to enable the professional to act in that capacity. A blood sample taken for treatment purposes is information acquired by the physician that is necessary to enable him to act in a professional capacity and is included in the privilege. See State v. Stoat, 291 Minn. 394, 400, 192 N.W.2d 192, 197 (1971) (<HOLDING>). Thus, under Minnesota’s physician-patient Options: A. recognizing superior court must conduct an on the record examination to determine defendants voluntariness and knowledge B. holding that the knowledge requisite to knowing violation of a statute is factual knowledge as distinguished from knowledge of the law C. holding that a relator did not have direct knowledge of an alleged fraud when the knowledge was obtained in part by review of publiclyfiled payroll records D. holding that the statutes broad language encompasses physical articles verbal communications and any other knowledge obtained by the physician through his observation and examination E. holding that attorneys affidavit was not competent evidence of his clients agreement or communications with the defendants because it was not based on personal knowledge

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the statutes broad language encompasses physical articles verbal communications and any other knowledge obtained by the physician through his observation and examination
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: “good cause” for an extension under Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Grochowski v. Phoenix Const., 318 F.3d 80, 86 (2d Cir.2003) (“A finding of good cause depends on the diligence of the moving party.”). Jones also argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in entering a decision and order on November 1, 2006 denying her motion for a continuance to oppose defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge denied the motion on the ground that Jones had failed to demonstrate “excusable neglect” for filing it out of time under Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This was not an abuse of discretion, in light of Jones’s failure to justify the delay. See Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp. v. Esprit De Corp., 769 F.2d 919, 927 (2d Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). We have considered plaintiffs remaining Options: A. holding that the court was precluded from considering whether the district court had abused its discretion in ruling on defendants summary judgment motion before allowing plaintiff to conduct requested discovery where the plaintiff had not filed an affidavit pursuant to rule 56f and stating that when a party does not avail himself of relief under rule 56f it is generally not an abuse of discretion for the district court to rule on the motion for summary judgment citation omitted B. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a rule 56f motion for a continuance where the movant had ample time in which to pursue the discovery that it now claims is essential C. holding that the district court did not err by concluding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance motion to withdraw and motion for reconsideration and rehearing D. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion for continuance when not in proper affidavit form E. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to strike when movant failed to show prejudice

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a rule 56f motion for a continuance where the movant had ample time in which to pursue the discovery that it now claims is essential