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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Phillips’s sentence. As an initial matter, we review the procedural reasonableness of Phillips’s sentence for plain error. In United States v. Bostic, 371 F.3d 865 (6th Cir.2004), we instructed district courts, after announcing a proposed sentence, to “ask the parties whether they have any objections to the sentence ... that have not previously been raised.” Id. at 872. If a party failed to raise an objection after being asked this question, we held that plain-error review applies on appeal to any arguments not preserved. Id. Our recent en banc opinion in United States v. Vonner, No. 05-5295, 516 F.3d 382, 2008 WL 320773 (6th Cir. Feb.7, 2008) (en banc), makes clear that the Bostic rule applies to post -Booker procedural reasonableness challenges. See Vonner, 2008 WL 320773 at *3 (<HOLDING>). Here, after the district court announced a Options: A. holding that an express waiver of the right to appeal the sentence was invalid because the trial court had failed properly to advise the defendant and that the defendant therefore did not waive his right to appeal the legality of his sentence B. holding that plainerror review applied to appellants procedural reasonableness argument where defendant answered no to district courts bostic question at sentencing and explaining that although this answer did not undermine vonners right to appeal issues he had previously raised it did undermine his right to challenge the adequacy of the courts explanation for the sentence an issue that became apparent as soon as the court finished announcing its proposed sentence and that counsel nonetheless declined the courts invitation to address C. holding that when a sentencing issue centers upon a courts statutory authority to impose a sentence rather than the courts exercise of discretion in fashioning the sentence the issue raised implicates the legality of the sentence imposed D. holding that under subsection al as then written the defendant had no right to appeal whether his sentence was supported by evidence presented because he entered into a plea agreement as to the sentence E. holding that the defendant waived the right to appeal his sentence including the terms and conditions of his supervised release when he agreed to a plea agreement that said he expressly waives his right to appeal the conviction and sentence imposed on any ground emphasis added

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that plainerror review applied to appellants procedural reasonableness argument where defendant answered no to district courts bostic question at sentencing and explaining that although this answer did not undermine vonners right to appeal issues he had previously raised it did undermine his right to challenge the adequacy of the courts explanation for the sentence an issue that became apparent as soon as the court finished announcing its proposed sentence and that counsel nonetheless declined the courts invitation to address
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as provided in this Section 3, subject to Participant’s continuous employment with the Company during the period beginning on the Grant Date and ending on February 18, 2019 (the “Performance Period”) and subject to the terms of this Agreement, the Participant shall vest at the end of the Performance Period in the number of Performance Units, if any, earned upon, and certified following, the attainment of the Performance Goal as of the end of the Performance Period. Any Performance Units that do not vest as of the end of the Performance Period shall be forfeited. Performance Units that vest pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, including Sections 3.2 and 3.3 below, are hereinafter referred to as “Vested Units” and the date upon which the Performance Units vest is hereinafter referred to as a “Vesting Date.” Unless and until the Performance Units have vested, Participant will have no right to receive any Shares subject thereto. Prior to the actual delivery of any Shares, the Award will represent an unsecured obligation of the Company, payable only from the Company’s general assets.

assistant: General
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: described the videotape as depicting an aggravated sexual assault. The videotape, which clearly depicts all three defendants penetrating the unconscious victim with various objects during the course of the assault, speaks for itself. (Doc. # 9). In that respect, the videotape constitutes dispositive evidence that an aggravated sexual assault occurred. Any effort to characterize the videotape as something other than “aggravated” in nature is simply unsupported and would likely have offended the jury further. Schultze fails to persuade that Thibodeaux’s strategic decision was unsound or to show that he had a meritorious objection to make. It follows that Schultze fails to demonstrate deficient performance or actual prejudice. See Parr v. Quarterman, 472 F.3d 245, 256 (5th Cir. 2006) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted); Smith v. Puckett, 907 F.2d Options: A. holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim B. holding that counsel was not deficient in failing to present a meritless argument C. holding counsel was not deficient for declining to make a meritless argument D. holding trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless issue E. holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless claim

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that counsel was not deficient in failing to present a meritless argument
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: U.S.C.App. § 762; Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham, 436 U.S. 618, 622-26, 98 S.Ct. 2010, 2013-15, 56 L.Ed.2d 581 (1978). We disagree. In Lockerbie I, we adopted the federal common law to govern causes of action under the Warsaw Convention. 928 F.2d at 1278. In Lockerbie II, we held that damages under the Warsaw Convention should be determined “by an examination of maritime’law, which is probably the oldest body of federal common law.” 37 F.3d at 828. While two maritime statutes — DOHSA and the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. app. § 688 (1988) — preclude recovery for non-pecuniary loss, general maritime cases not brought under such statutory restrictions allow recovery. Lockerbie II, 37 F.3d at 829; Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. 573, 585-88, 94 S.Ct. 806, 814-16, 39 L.Ed.2d 9 (1974) (<HOLDING>). Looking at the language and underlying Options: A. holding that although congress has never enacted a comprehensive maritime code federal courts may not award loss of society damages under general maritime law because the death on the high seas act expressly prohibits recovery of such damages B. holding punitive damages unavailable for survival claims under general maritime law C. recognizing loss of society damages as remedy available under general maritime law D. holding that general maritime law preempts state law E. holding punitive damages not recoverable for retaliatory discharge claim under general maritime law

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing loss of society damages as remedy available under general maritime law
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 she fit the definition of an “eligible employee.” See 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1) (2004). Second, the worker must establish that she worked for an employer covered by the Act. See 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1) (2004); 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1). Third, the worker has to show that she qualified for FMLA benefits for one of four statutory reasons. See 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1) (2004). Fourth, the worker has to prove that she gave her employer appropriate notice. See 29 U.S.C. § 2612(e) (2004); 29 C.F.R. 825.302. See also 29 C.F.R. 825.303 (notice requirements for unforeseeable leave). Finally, the worker has to establish that the employer denied her benefits to which the FMLA entitled her. See 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1) (2004). See also Cavin v. Honda of America Mfg. Inc., 346 F.3d 713, 716 (6th Cir.2003)(<HOLDING>). B. “Eligible employee” and employer. A worker Options: A. recognizing that decisions of other courts that have examined these questions are relevant B. recognizing these five factors C. holding that nonmonetary claims are not subject to these requirements D. holding that ajbsent conclusive evidence of congressional intent as to the penal nature of a statute these factors must be considered in relation to the statute on its face E. holding that claims under 1983 1985 and 1986 are barred for the further reason that these statutes create rights solely against persons and a state is not considered a person under these statutes

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing these five factors
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: Payments . If a limitation on Prohibited Payments under (b) above applied to the plan as of an Applicable Measurement Date, but that limit no longer applies as of a later Applicable Measurement Date, the limitation on Prohibited Payments does not apply to benefits with Annuity Starting Dates that are on or after that later Applicable Measurement Date. Notwithstanding any other provision of this plan to the contrary, the Administrator may determine, on a uniform and nondiscriminatory basis, to provide a Participant who had an Annuity Starting Date within a period during which a limitation under (b) above applied to the plan with the opportunity to have a new Annuity Starting Date (which would constitute a new Annuity Starting Date under Code Sections 415 and 417) under which the form of benefit payment previously elected may be modified once the limitations cease to apply.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Upon the issuance or Modification by an LC Issuer of a Facility LC in accordance with this ‎Section 2.19, such LC Issuer shall be deemed, without further action by any party hereto, to have unconditionally and irrevocably sold to each Lender, and each Lender shall be deemed, without further action by any party hereto, to have unconditionally and irrevocably purchased from such LC Issuer, a participation in such Facility LC (and each Modification thereof) and the related LC Obligations in proportion to its Pro Rata Share.

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: 28, 2002 filed claim. Persofsky attached the following to his replacement claim: (1) itemized statement; (2) employment agreement; (3) arbitration demand. 3 . Persofsky's motion to lift the automatic stay is embedded in the "CONCLUSION” of "DEFENDANT BARRY PERSOFSKY'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AN orp. (In re Meyertech Corp.), 831 F.2d 410, 418 (3d Cir.1987)(Court reasoned that creditor’s filing a proof of claim on a pre-petition breach of contract action created an action in bankruptcy court that "[b]y its very nature [] fits directly under the more specific definition of a core proceeding under § 157(b)(2)(B) ...."); Wood v. Wood (In re Wood), 825 F.2d 90, 97-98 (5th Cir.1987)(<HOLDING>); Atassi v. McLaren (In re McLaren), 990 F.2d Options: A. holding that the operative fact is whether or not the creditor has notice of the debtors bankruptcy proceeding in time to file a timely proof of claim B. holding that creditor did not have actual knowledge of the bankruptcy filing where the debtor informed creditor of the possibility that a bankruptcy case would be filed C. holding that when a creditor files a proof of claim the bankruptcy court has core jurisdiction to determine that claim even if it was a prepetition contract claim arising under state law D. holding that because creditor did not file a proof of claim on a prepetition contract matter the peculiar powers of the bankruptcy court had not been invoked E. holding that the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over counterclaims asserted by the bankruptcy estate against a creditor where the claim is a state law action independent of the federal bankruptcy law and not necessarily resolvable by a ruling on the creditors proof of claim in the bankruptcy emphasis added

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that because creditor did not file a proof of claim on a prepetition contract matter the peculiar powers of the bankruptcy court had not been invoked
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: 566 S.W.2d 354, 357 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1978, writ ref'd n.r.e)("If a mobile home is attached in such a manner [indicating an intention that it be a permanent part of the real estate] to a homestead, it is entitled to homestead protection.”) (citations omitted); Capitol Aggregates, Inc. v. Walker, 448 S.W.2d 830, 835 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e)("All homesteads, excluding the land, consist of an aggregation of chattels. It is their attachment to realty which gives them homestead character.”); Clark v. Vitz, 190 S.W.2d 736, 738 (Tex.Civ.App.Dallas 1945, writ ref'd) (approving use of homestead exemption for mobile trailer affixed to debtor’s "homestead lot” and used as an extension of family’s brick house). 12 . Gann, 210 S.W.2d at 260. See Cullers, 1 S.W. at 315 (<HOLDING>). 13 . In re Ross, 210 B.R. 320, 323 Options: A. holding that homestead exemption was unavailable even though claimants were living on the land and claiming it as homestead with the permission or acquiescence of the owner for they could have no homestead right or interest in land to which they had no title B. holding that a challenge to part b determinations in an order involving both part a and part b must begin in district court C. holding that a mill and gin could be considered part of an exempt homestead if they were part of the exempt realty D. holding that because nondischargeable debt based on fraud was not one of the four enumerated exceptions to exempt property the exempt property was not liable for the creditors surviving claim E. holding that assistant managers were exempt under the executive exemption because inter alia even taking their longer hours into account the exempt employees were paid substantially higher wages

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a mill and gin could be considered part of an exempt homestead if they were part of the exempt realty
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 employment discrimination cases,” citing Haglof v. Northwest Rehabilitation, Inc., 910 F.2d 492, 495 (8th Cir.1990); Hillebrand, 827 F.2d at 364). Summary judgment is appropriate in employment discrimination cases only in “those rare instances where there is no dispute of fact and where there exists only one conclusion.” Johnson, 931 F.2d at 1244; see also Webb v. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 51 F.3d 147, 148 (8th Cir.1995) (quoting Johnson, 931 F.2d at 1244); Crawford, 37 F.3d at 1341 (quoting Johnson, 931 F.2d at 1244). To put it another way, “[bjeeause discrimination cases often depend on inferences rather than on direct evidence, summary judgment should not be granted unless the evidence could not support any reasonable inference for the nonmovant.” Crawford, 37 F.3d at 1341 (<HOLDING>); accord Snow, 128 F.3d at 1205 (“Because Options: A. holding that an eeoc reasonable cause determination letter did not constitute evidence precluding summary judgment when the other evidence was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact B. holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment C. holding that unsupported allegations or denials are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for purposes of summary judgment D. holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if there is a genuine dispute about a material fact E. holding that when there are no genuine issues of material fact summary judgment is appropriate

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Company shall indemnify against Losses and advance Expenses to Indemnitee to the fullest extent permitted by the laws of the State of Delaware as such laws may from time to time be amended. Indemnitee shall be entitled to the indemnification or advancement provided in this Section if, by reason of his or her Official Capacity, Indemnitee is a party or is threatened to be made a party to any Proceeding or by reason of, or arising out of, anything done or not done by Indemnitee in his or her Official Capacity. The Company shall (i) advance to Indemnitee any and all Expenses actually and reasonably paid or incurred by Indemnitee prior to the final disposition of any Proceeding by final adjudication and (ii) indemnify Indemnitee against any and all Losses; provided, that, in the case of either clause (i) or (ii), Indemnitee is determined to have met the standard of conduct set forth in Section 6(a). With respect to the advance of Expenses to Indemnitee in connection with enforcing rights to indemnification under this Agreement pursuant to Section 7(a), in the event that Indemnitee is determined not to be entitled to such indemnification, then all Expenses advanced shall be repaid by Indemnitee to the Company.

assistant: General
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 proceeds of Revolver Loans shall be used by Borrower solely (a) to satisfy existing Debt; (b) to pay fees and transaction expenses associated with the closing of this credit facility; (c) to pay Obligations in accordance with this Agreement; (d) to issue Letters of Credit; and (e) for working capital and other lawful corporate purposes of Borrower. Borrower shall not, directly or indirectly, use any Letter of Credit or the proceeds of any Loan, nor use, lend, contribute or otherwise make available any Letter of Credit or proceeds of any Loan to any Subsidiary, (x) to fund, finance or facilitate, in violation of any Sanctions, any activities of or business or transaction with (i) any Person, or in any Designated Jurisdiction, that, at the time of issuance of the Letter of Credit or funding of the Loan, is the subject of Sanctions or (ii) any Sanctioned Person; (y) in any manner that will result in a violation of Sanctions by any Person (including any Secured Party or other individual or entity participating in the transaction); or (z) in furtherance of an offer, payment, promise to pay, or authorization of the payment or giving of money, or anything else of value, to any Person in violation of any Anti-Corruption Laws.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: FHPI has complied with all laws and regulations of any applicable jurisdiction with which it is or was required to comply in connection with its ownership of the Principal Assets and its conduct of the Business, the enforcement of which would have a material and adverse effect on the ownership of the Principal Assets or the conduct of the Business. FHPI has all permits and permissions of governments, governmental authorities and quasi-governmental authorities necessary to own the Principal Assets and to conduct the Business as now conducted, except where failure to have such permits and permissions would have no material and adverse effect on the ownership of the Principal Assets or the conduct of the Business.

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: If any provision of this Agreement is deemed invalid or unenforceable, the validity of the other provisions of this Agreement will not be impaired. If any provision of this Agreement will be deemed invalid as to its scope, then notwithstanding such invalidity, that provision will be deemed valid to the fullest extent permitted by law, and the parties agree that, if any court makes such a determination, it will have the power to reduce the duration, scope and/or area of such provision and/or to delete specific words and phrases by “blue penciling” and, in its reduced or blue penciled form, such provision will then be enforceable as permitted by law.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: “[T]he sentencing court must consider the relevant factors and provide a reasoned and renewable basis for its decision to impose a fine.” Id. at 968. In this case, the record makes clear that the district court spent considerable time properly considering the relevant factors. The court followed the PSR’s factual findings, questioned Mr. Gellene concerning his current financial situation, and then asked Mr. Gellene and his attorney to meet over lunch with the probation officer who prepared the presentence report in order to provide to the court “a little detail about where all this money went in the last six years.” Sent. Tr. 69. The probation officer’s notes from that discussion became a supplement to the PSR — a supplement created by both parties. See Bauer, 129 F.3d at 969 (<HOLDING>). The court reviewed the material and Options: A. recognizing the right of a defendant to comment upon the failure of the state to produce evidence B. holding the trial courts subsequently corrected instruction that the jury must find the defendant personally committed the offenses in order to convict the defendant on those charges did not prejudice the defendant C. holding that jurys verdict for the defendant in a breach of contract action did not establish the absence of breach because the jury was instructed that it could find for the defendant if it concluded that the defendant had not breached the contract or if the defendant proved an affirmative defense D. holding that even though defendant stated he did not read and discuss psr with his counsel he could not show any error that affected his substantial rights E. recognizing that the defendant approved the supplement to the psr

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that the defendant approved the supplement to the psr
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 representations and warranties contained in Article VII shall be true and correct in all material respects on and as of such borrowing, continuation, conversion, issuance or extension date with the same effect as if made on and as of such date, except for any representation and warranty expressly made only as of an earlier date, which representation and warranty shall remain true and correct in all material respects as of such earlier date, provided that any representation or warranty that is qualified as to “materiality”, “Material Adverse Effect” or similar language shall be true and correct in all respects on and as of such respective dates.

assistant: Warranties
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 the Executive’s death during the Term, the Executive’s employment shall immediately and automatically terminate. In such event, the Company shall pay any Final Compensation (as defined below) to the Executive’s designated beneficiary or, if no beneficiary has been designated by the Executive in writing, to his estate.

assistant: Death
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: conclusively for all parties all questions arising in the administration of the [AMPP]...." R.17 at 61. 8 . Relying on cases in which we found the plans under review to confer upon administrators sufficient discretionary authority to warrant deferential review, the magistrate judge concluded that the AMPP grants the Ameritech administrators significant discretion and that a deferential standard should apply. The district court accepted this finding because Mrs. Swaback did not object specifically to it. 9 . See Filipowicz v. American Stores Benefit Plans Comm., 56 F.3d 807, 814 (7th Cir.1995) (concluding that ignoring the plain language of the plan and denying benefits was arbitrary and capricious); see also Egert v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 900 F.2d 1032, 1037-38 (7th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Kochendorfer v. Rockdale Sash & Trim Co., 653 Options: A. holding that a heightened arbitrary and capricious standard of review applied to the decision to deny benefits under the erisa plan B. holding that the defendants sentence was based on the career offender guidelines despite the fact that the district court calculated an offense level pursuant to the crack guidelines C. holding that the mere mandatory application of the guidelines the district courts belief that it was required to impose a guidelines sentence constitutes error D. holding court must review de novo companys denial of benefits unless benefit plan gives administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to construe terms of plan in which case courts review a benefits denial under an arbitrary and capricious standard E. holding that when guidelines contradict the plans requirements denial of benefits pursuant to guidelines was arbitrary and capricious

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that when guidelines contradict the plans requirements denial of benefits pursuant to guidelines was arbitrary and capricious
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: As a substantial portion of the duties and obligations of the parties created by the Plan will be performed in Peoria, Illinois, it shall be the sole and exclusive venue for any arbitration, litigation, special proceedings, or other proceedings between the parties in connection with the Plan.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if applicable law does not allow all or any part of the above limitation of liability to apply to you , the limitations will apply to you only to the extent permitted by applicable law .

assistant: Limitation of liability
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: summary judgment. The above analysis does not affect the Idaho racketeering claims, because Idaho’s statute has a broader definition of predicate acts, which specifically includes securities fraud. See, I.C. § 18-7803(a)(13) & (16). For all the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends that the federal RICO causes of action not be dismissed on the basis of the securities fraud exception at this time. 3. RICO Proximate Cause Ellison also argues that RICO proximate cause is not pled with particularity. The Court disagrees. The Complaint establishes a very direct theory of causation: that the claimants were induced to invest in DBSI based upon false representations, and, as a result, lost money. Cf. Hemi Group LLC v. City of New York, NY., 559 U.S. 1, 130 S.Ct. 983, 175 L.Ed.2d 943 (2010) (<HOLDING>). The Complaint also alleges numerous Options: A. holding that whether proximate cause exists is to be decided in a common sense fashion in the light of the attending facts and circumstances and unless the facts are undisputed and admit of but one inference the question is for the jury B. holding proximate cause required for claim of breach of special duty C. holding that a physicians negligence need only be a proximate cause not the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury D. holding that rico proximate cause should be evaluated in light of its common law foundations E. holding that negligence must be the proximate cause of injury

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that rico proximate cause should be evaluated in light of its common law foundations
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 tax returns and tax reports of the Loan Parties required by law to have been filed have been duly filed or extensions in respect thereof have been obtained, and all taxes, assessments and other governmental charges or levies (other than those presently payable without penalty and those currently being contested in good faith for which adequate reserves have been established) upon any Loan Party (or any of its properties) which are due and payable and for which the failure to pay could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect have been paid. The charges, accruals and reserves on the books of the Loan Parties in respect of U.S. Federal income tax for all periods are adequate in the opinion of Borrower.

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: the time permitted by law subjects a plaintiff to a statute of limitations defense. Interposing a statute of limitations generally is an affirmative defense, which can be waived if not asserted promptly, or can be vitiated by equitable tolling. See Solomon v. United States, 467 F.3d 928, 932 (6th Cir.2006); Scott v. Collins, 286 F.3d 923 (6th Cir.2002). The failure to abide by a statute of limitations does not affect the court’s power to adjudicate a matter. However, in some cases, time limits are jurisdictional, and the failure of a claimant to present his papers to a court in a timely manner deprives the court of the power to proceed. See, e.g., Marshall v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 444 F.3d 837, 842 n. 3 (6th Cir.2006) (citing Buck v. Sec’y of HHS, 923 F.2d 1200, 1202 (6th Cir.1991)) (<HOLDING>); Wikol ex rel. Wikol v. Birmingham Public Options: A. holding that equitable claims are exempt from the filing requirements and time limits imposed by the immunity act B. holding that the time limits in the equal access to justice act are jurisdictional C. holding that time limits in title vii are not jurisdictional but are instead like statutes of limitations D. holding that counterclaim is within jurisdictional limits of 1367a E. holding that to establish a prima facie equal pay act claim the plaintiff must show that the jobs being compared are substantially equal

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the time limits in the equal access to justice act are jurisdictional
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: for purposes of this eula `` software '' means all software programs distributed , published or otherwise made available by rovio or its affiliates including , but not limited to mobile games , downloadable/installable games for personal computer , and games accessed by means of a browser or other online communication method .

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: we now adopt an additional test, the natural and probable cause test ... which has today evolved into what is called the inherently or foreseeably dangerous to human life test. Of the lesser-degree felonies only those known to have a high probability of death may be utilized for a conviction of first-degree murder. Assuming the actus reus condition is met, the mens rea of one who is committing a felony which is inherently or foreseeably dangerous to human life is sufficient to justify convicting a defendant of felony murder and sentencing him to death or life imprisonment. State v. Harrison, 90 N.M. 439, 442, 564 P.2d 1321, 1324 (1977), rev’d by rule on other grounds, Tafoya v. Baca, 103 N.M. 56, 57, 60, 702 P.2d 1001, 1002, 1005 (1985). We look beyond the literal word of , 281 (1995) (<HOLDING>); State v. Hancock, 248 N.C. 432, 103 S.E.2d Options: A. holding criminal conspiracy is sustained where the commonwealth establishes the defendant entered into an agreement to commit or aid in an unlawful act with another person with a shared criminal intent and an overt act was done in furtherance of the conspiracy a coconspirator may commit the overt act and conspirators are liable for acts of the coconspirators committed in furtherance of the conspiracy B. holding that a plaintiff who charged the defendants with conspiring to perpetrate an unlawful purpose could not recover because the defendants committed no unlawful act C. holding in actions arising from a contact sport accident plaintiff must show defendant acted in reckless disregard of the safety of others or intentionally D. holding prison official must have acted with reckless disregard for the inmates safety E. holding that an unlawful act committed with the intent to injure or in a grossly negligent manner that proximately causes death is involuntary manslaughter and that criminal liability is imposed in the latter instance because although the defendants acts are not inherently wrong the defendant has acted or failed to act with awareness of the risk to safety and in wilful disregard of the safety of others

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an unlawful act committed with the intent to injure or in a grossly negligent manner that proximately causes death is involuntary manslaughter and that criminal liability is imposed in the latter instance because although the defendants acts are not inherently wrong the defendant has acted or failed to act with awareness of the risk to safety and in wilful disregard of the safety of others
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 will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York applicable to agreements made within such State, without regard to the conflicts of law principles that would require the application of any other law.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Holder hereby waives, with the intention that upon the satisfaction of the requirements of Section 10 of the Registration Rights Agreement such waiver will be binding for all Other Holders: (i) any breach of the Registration Rights Agreement prior to the date hereof under Section 2(a) of the Registration Rights Agreement for the Company’s failure to have the Initial Registration Statement brought effective by the Initial Effectiveness Deadline, prior to this Fourth Amendment Agreement and (ii) the Holder’s right to Registration Delay Payments (as defined under the Registration Rights Agreement) prior to the date hereof for the Company’s failure to have the Initial Registration Statement brought effective by the Initial Effectiveness Deadline.

assistant: Waivers
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: While this legal principle may not apply to the state-controlled electoral process in precisely the same way that it applies to the citizen-led initiative process, it retains its essential character even in areas in which broad state authority exists. League of Women Voters v. Cobb, 447 F.Supp.2d 1314, 1334-1339 (S.D.Fla.2006) (relying on Meyer to invalidate a Florida statute imposing burdens on third parties participating in the voter-registration process without imposing similar burdens on political parties participating in the same process). Pennsylvania’s extensive authority to regulate the voter-registration process does not remove the Plaintiffs’ canvassing activities from the ambit of First Amendment protection. Project Vote v. Blackwell, 455 F.Supp.2d 694, 700 (N.D.Ohio 2006) (<HOLDING>). The regulatory authority of Pennsylvania “is Options: A. holding that the video games at issue are expressive and qualify as speech for purposes of the first amendment B. holding that owners of bar with nude dancers did not state a 1983 claim based on first amendment rights where they failed to allege interruption of business or expressive activities despite monetary losses C. holding that raising chickens is not an expressive act for the purposes of the first amendment D. holding that the first amendment protects the right to criticize a grand jury investigation E. recognizing that the first amendment protects the expressive activities associated with the voterregistration process

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that the first amendment protects the expressive activities associated with the voterregistration process
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: Subject to the limitations or other provisions of this Agreement, (a) each Party shall use commercially reasonable efforts (subject to, and in accordance with applicable law) to take promptly, or cause to be taken promptly, all actions, and to do promptly, or cause to be done promptly, and to assist and cooperate with the other Party in doing, all things reasonably necessary, proper or advisable to consummate and make effective the transactions contemplated by this Agreement and to carry out the intent and purposes of this Agreement, including using commercially reasonable efforts to perform all covenants and agreements herein applicable to such Party and (b) neither Party will take any action which would reasonably be expected to prevent or materially impede, interfere with or delay any of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.

assistant: Further Assurances
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: Ins. Co. (Mo. Ct. App.), 724 S.W.2d 307; Britt v. Phoenix Indem. Ins. Co. (N.M. 1995), 907 P.2d 994; Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Roberts (N.C. 1964), 134 S.E.2d 654; Celina Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Saylor (Ohio Misc. 1973), 301 N.E.2d 721; Stucky v. Long (Okla. Ct. App. 1989), 783 P.2d 500; Davis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Or. 1973), 507 P.2d 9; Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am. v. Olivier (R.I. 1990), 574 A.2d 1240; Stepp v. Hill (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993), 1993 WL 181984; Whitehead v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Tex. Ct. App. 1997), 952 S.W.2d 79. But see McIntosh v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Minn. 1992), 488 N.W.2d 476, 479 (under UM coverage, “accident” is to be viewed from the perspective of the tortfeasor); Lindstrom v. Hanover Ins. Co. (N. J. 1994), 649 A.2d 1272, 1276 (<HOLDING>); McCarthy v. Motor Vehicle Accident Options: A. holding named driver exclusion eliminating liability coverage as well as um coverage did not contravene um statute because statute required um coverage only if the claimant otherwise qualifies for liability coverage under the policy B. holding that sciascia v american ins co nj super 1982 443 a2d 1118 which held that for purposes of um coverage accident must be viewed from the insured victims perspective was no longer respectable authority C. holding that in order for insured to qualify for uim benefits there must have been a liability policy in effect um coverage does not satisfy this requirement D. holding that waiver of um coverage was ineffective under south carolina law because insurer did not adequately advise insured party about um coverage E. holding public policy of um statute not violated by exclusion of um coverage for passenger of vehicle driven by excluded driver

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that sciascia v american ins co nj super 1982 443 a2d 1118 which held that for purposes of um coverage accident must be viewed from the insured victims perspective was no longer respectable authority
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: can file another Motion to Modify. The trial court has broad discretion in finding what is in the best interest of the child and has the authority to monitor the situation and modify the visitation order if necessary. Under these circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion, and we overrule issue two. ⅛. The Constitutional Right of a Mother to Raise her Son In issue three, Mother suggests the trial court’s order violates the constitutional right of a mother to raise her son. Mother relies on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution to argue that a mother has the right to raise her child. But, Mother was not denied due process of law or the equal protection of the laws. See In re H.D.O., 580 S.W.2d 421, 424 (Tex.Civ.App.—Eastland 1979, no writ) (<HOLDING>). Mother also relies on Troxel v. Granville, Options: A. holding the best interest of the child standard does not violate federal constitutional principles B. holding that when information which potentially undermines the best interest of the child as well as the interest sought to be protected by the legitimation statutes and the policy of this state it must first be tested in light of the best interest of the child standard C. holding that best interest of the child standard should be used in deciding whether to grant a paternity petition D. holding that the best interest of the child standard should be used in deciding whether to grant a paternity petition 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 A. holding the best interest of the child standard does not violate federal constitutional principles
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) As promptly as possible but in any event within thirty (30) days (or such later date as may be agreed upon by the Administrative Agent) after any Person becomes a Material Subsidiary, the Borrower shall provide the Administrative Agent with written notice thereof setting forth information in reasonable detail describing the material assets of such Person and shall cause each such Material Subsidiary to deliver to the Administrative Agent the Subsidiary Guaranty and the Security Agreement pursuant to which such Material Subsidiary agrees to be bound by the terms and provisions thereof, such Subsidiary Guaranty and Security Agreement to be accompanied by appropriate corporate resolutions, other corporate documentation and, if requested by the Administrative Agent in its reasonable discretion, legal opinions in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to the Administrative Agent and its counsel.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No Consent of any court or arbitrator or governmental or regulatory authority is required for the execution, delivery and performance by the Purchaser in connection with (i) the execution, delivery or performance of this Agreement and the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby or (ii) the issuance of the Subject Shares in accordance with this Agreement, except for such consents, approvals, authorizations, orders and registrations or qualifications as may have been obtained under the Securities Act and such as may be required under applicable state securities laws in connection with the issuance of the Subject Shares and such Consents the failure of which to make or obtain would not, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to have a Purchaser Adverse Effect.

assistant: Consents