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: Each capitalized term which is defined in the Credit Agreement, but which is not defined in this Second Amendment, shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in the Credit Agreement, as amended hereby. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references in this Second Amendment refer to the Credit Agreement, as amended hereby.

assistant: Defined Terms
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: first since that is the most straightforward. “Virtually every court to consider the issue has concluded that pension and retirement plans are perquisites of seniority. Accordingly, employers must make contributions and grant vesting on the returning employee’s behalf.” 132 Mil. L.Rev. 175, 190. For example, the court in Alabama Power held that “pension payments are predominantly rewards for continuous employment with the same employer” and required that the employer pay the veteran employee “the pension to which he would have been entitled by virtue of his lengthy service if he had not” entered the military, 431 U.S. at 594, 97 S.Ct. 2002; see also Bunnell v. New England Teamsters and Trucking Industry Pension Fund, 486 F.Supp. 714 (D.Mass., 1980), aff'd 655 F.2d 451 (1 Cir., 1981)(<HOLDING>). Thus, I find that the Town must make Options: A. recognizing that pension plan administrators have the ability to fashion their own plan formulas B. holding that the defendant withheld pension benefits in breach of the plan C. holding that discriminatory act occurred when employer amended its plan in response to pda but did not amend service credit for pension purposes D. holding that appropriate remedy was to compute service credit for veterans in accordance with vrra rather than pursuant to employers pension plan and requiring retroactive pension plan payments to be made E. holding that the family courts award to exwife of interest in 387 of debtors military pension payable directly from the plan was not subject to discharge because interest in pension plan was not a debt rather it was considered exwifes separate ownership interest

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that appropriate remedy was to compute service credit for veterans in accordance with vrra rather than pursuant to employers pension plan and requiring retroactive pension plan payments to be made
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: right to communicate with potential class members” and “there is nothing improper about [an employer] gathering facts to support its defense.” Id. at 1366. Without question, then, there is no mandatory, across-the-board prohibition against employer contact with prospective class members in an FLSA collective action at the pre-certification stage. As a general matter, employers are free to communicate with unrepresented prospective class members about the lawsuit and even to solicit affidavits from them concerning the subject matter of the suit. Notwithstanding the foregoing, district courts are empowered with relatively broad discretion to limit communications between parties and putative class members. See Kleiner v. First Nat’l Bank of Atlanta, 751 F.2d 1193, 1201-03 (11th Cir. 1985) (<HOLDING>); Jones v. Casey’s General Stores, 517 Options: A. holding that a class plaintiff who seeks to assert statutory rights to protect a class of which he is a member is not asserting rights antagonistic to any members of that class B. recognizing a narrow class of cases in which the termination of the class representatives claim for relief does not moot the claims of the class members C. holding that a class could not be certified because the definition made class members impossible to identify prior to individualized factfinding and litigation and thereby failed to satisfy one of the basic requirements for a class action under rule 23 D. recognizing cause of action by class member against class counsel for negligence in providing notice E. recognizing district courts authority to police class member contacts and to prohibit defendant from engaging in unsupervised unilateral communications with plaintiff class members to solicit exclusion requests from rule 23 class

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing district courts authority to police class member contacts and to prohibit defendant from engaging in unsupervised unilateral communications with plaintiff class members to solicit exclusion requests from rule 23 class
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: characterized as property”); Hendler, 952 F.2d at 1374 (stating that “[i]n the bundle of rights we call property, one of the most valued is the right to sole and exclusive possession — the right to exclude strangers, or for that matter friends, but especially the Government”). When the government permanently and physically occupies property, it effectively destroys the owner’s right to exclude, as well as the owner’s right to make non-possessory use of the property. Loretto, 458 U.S. at 435-36, 102 S.Ct. 3164. Due to the importance of a property owner’s right to exclude, we have held that “[t]he Government does not have the right to declare itself a co-tenant-in-possession with a property owner.” Hendler, 952 F.2d at 1374; see also Kaiser Aetna, 444 U.S. at 179-80, 100 S.Ct. 383 (<HOLDING>). Thus, a permanent physical occupation by the Options: A. holding that the right to drive is not a fundamental right B. holding right to be fundamental C. holding that a termination of a government contract does not constitute a taking of the plaintiffs property without just compensation or without due process of law D. holding that the right to vote is fundamental E. holding that the right to exclude so universally held to be a fundamental element of the property right falls within this category of interests that the government cannot take without compensation

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the right to exclude so universally held to be a fundamental element of the property right falls within this category of interests that the government cannot take without compensation
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: damage to its property is covered by an insurance policy. Fiess v. State Farm Lloyds, 392 F.3d 802, 807 (5th Cir.2004). If the insured bears this burden, the insurer has the burden of establishing that the cause of the damage is excluded under the policy. Id. If an insurer establishes that an exclusion applies, the insured has the burden of proving the application of an exception to the exclusion. Id. If covered and non-covered perils combine to create a loss, the insured may recover the amount caused by the covered peril. Id. See also Travelers Indemnity Co. v. McKillip, 469 S.W.2d 160, 162-63 (Tex.1971) (discussing shifting burdens of proof and insured’s need to segregate loss between covered and non-covered perils); Paulson v. Fire Insurance Exchange, 393 S.W.2d 316, 319 (Tex.1965) (<HOLDING>). Without disputing that plaintiffs have met Options: A. holding that insured must produce evidence affording a reasonable basis for estimating proportionate part of damage caused by a covered peril B. holding that insurer owed homeowners full amount of policy when they suffered a total loss in not insignificant part as the result of windstorm damage although an excluded peril water contributed to the damage C. holding that particular part exclusion barred coverage for damage to entire apartment insured was renovating even though insured was working only on one part of apartment at time of damage D. holding that an opposer must have a reasonable basis for his belief of damage E. holding that the vpl requires an insurer to pay the full value of the policy only when a covered peril causes a total loss

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that insured must produce evidence affording a reasonable basis for estimating proportionate part of damage caused by a covered peril
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 Associate acknowledges and agrees that the Associate is responsible for paying all taxes and related penalties, and interest on the Associate’s income. Walmart will withhold taxes, including from amounts or benefits payable under this Agreement, and report them to tax authorities, as it determines it is required to do. Although the payments under this Agreement are intended to comply with the requirements of Section 409A and Walmart intends to administer this Agreement so that it will comply with Section 409A, Walmart has not warranted to the Associate that taxes and penalties will not be imposed on the Associate under Section 409A or any other provision of federal, state, local, or non-United States law. The Associate will indemnify Walmart and hold it harmless with respect to all such taxes, penalties, and interest (other than FICA taxes imposed on Walmart with respect to the Associate’s income).

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 detainee appears before a magistrate). Rather, the Fourth Amendment claim appears to be simply a repackaged claim for malicious prosecution. Our circuit doesn’t permit, this maneuver; we’ve held that a federal claim for malicious prosecution implicates (or at most may implicate) the right to due process, not the Fourth Amendment, and that no federal malicious-prosecution claim is available if state law provides a similar cause of action. Newsome v. McCabe, 256 F.3d 747, 750-51 (7th Cir. 2001). Indiana does provide a remedy for malicious prosecution, but the Indiana Tort Claims Act confers on public employees a broad immunity' from suit for acts committed within the scope of their employment. Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(6); see also Serino v. Hensley, 735 F.3d 588, 593-95 (7th Cir. 2013) (<HOLDING>). We’ve held that this statutory immunity Options: A. recognizing the tort of intentional infliction of emotion distress for the first time in indiana B. holding that act did not bar intentional infliction of emotional distress claim C. recognizing the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress D. holding that intentional infliction of emotional distress is a personal injury tort E. recognizing that the indiana tort claims act grants broad immunity to governmental employees from suit for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that the indiana tort claims act grants broad immunity to governmental employees from suit for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress
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 corporate action on the part of the Company, its officers, directors and stockholders necessary for the authorization, execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement, the authorization, sale, issuance and delivery of the Warrant Shares and the performance of all of the Company’s obligations hereunder have been taken or will be taken prior to the applicable Closing. This Agreement has been duly executed by the Company and constitutes valid and legally binding obligations of the Company, enforceable against the Company in accordance with their respective terms, subject to the laws of general application relating to bankruptcy, insolvency and the relief of debtors and rules of law governing specific performance, injunctive relief or other equitable remedies.

assistant: Authorizations
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: 541 A.2d 1029 (1988); Kolitch v. Lindedahl, 100 N.J. 485, 492, 497 A.2d 183 (1985). Although the majority acknowledges that liability provisions cannot take precedence over specifically-granted immunities, ante at 57-60, 648 A 2d at 708-09, it departs from that well-established principle by ignoring the immunity granted public entities under N.J.SA 59:4-5. II The plain language of N.J.SA 59:4-5 discloses that the immunity set forth in that statute clearly and unambiguously applies to a public entity’s failure to replace a missing stop sign. That statute provides: “Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable under this chapter for an injury caused by the failure to provide ordinary traffic signals ; Johnson v. Township of Southampton, 157 N.J.Super. 518, 525, 385 A.2d 260 (<HOLDING>), certif. denied, 77 N.J. 485, 391 A.2d 499 Options: A. holding that a municipality is immune from punitive damages under 42 usc 1983 B. holding that a railroad operated and owned by the federal government was immune from antitrust liability C. recognizing that a judge is not absolutely immune from criminal liability D. holding municipality immune from liability under njsa 5945 for failure to mark intersection partially obstructed by trees and other vegetation E. holding that department of transportation was immune from liability under njsa 5945 for failing to replace missing sign warning motorists of low overpass

assistant: The best answer is D. holding municipality immune from liability under njsa 5945 for failure to mark intersection partially obstructed by trees and other vegetation
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EACH PARTY TO THIS AGREEMENT WAIVES TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY ACTION, PROCEEDING OR COUNTERCLAIM BROUGHT BY ANY OF THEM AGAINST THE OTHER ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THIS AGREEMENT, OR ANY OTHER AGREEMENTS EXECUTED IN CONNECTION HEREWITH OR THE ADMINISTRATION THEREOF OR THE TRANSACTION OR ANY OF THE OTHER TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREIN OR THEREIN. NO PARTY TO THIS AGREEMENT SHALL SEEK A JURY TRIAL IN ANY LAWSUIT, PROCEEDING, COUNTERCLAIM OR ANY OTHER LITIGATION PROCEDURE BASED UPON, OR ARISING OUT OF, THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY RELATED INSTRUMENTS. NO PARTY WILL SEEK TO CONSOLIDATE ANY SUCH ACTION IN WHICH A JURY TRIAL HAS BEEN WAIVED WITH ANY OTHER ACTION IN WHICH A JURY TRIAL CANNOT BE OR HAS NOT BEEN WAIVED. EACH PARTY TO THIS AGREEMENT CERTIFIES THAT IT HAS BEEN INDUCED TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT OR INSTRUMENT BY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE MUTUAL WAIVERS AND CERTIFICATIONS SET FORTH ABOVE IN THIS SECTION 10.8 . NO PARTY HAS IN ANY WAY AGREED WITH OR REPRESENTED TO ANY OTHER PARTY THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION 10.8 WILL NOT BE FULLY ENFORCED IN ALL INSTANCES.

assistant: Waiver Of Jury Trials
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: complained that the prosecutor remarked upon the lack of certain mitigating factors. The trial court overruled the objection. The record reflects that in light of Cona-han’s presentation of mitigating evidence, the prosecutor commented in his closing argument that there was no evidence presented regarding other possible mitigators. He pointed out that Conahan did not show that he suffered from prior child abuse or drug abuse, or had a history of mental difficulties and mistreatment. In making such a remark, the prosecutor was commenting upon the lack of certain mitigating evidence. His comment did not implicate the defendant’s right to remain silent; rather, it concerned the dearth of mitigating evidence. See People v. Lewis, 25 Cal.4th 610, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 629, 22 P.3d 392, 433 (2001) (<HOLDING>). We find that the assistant state attorney’s Options: A. holding that comment by prosecutor in closing argument that defense counsel did not produce evidence of the defendants innocence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify B. holding that the prosecutors reference to the nonexistence of mitigating evidence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify C. holding the prosecutors statements were not an inappropriate comment on the defendants failure to testify but rather a comment on the defendants failure to present convincing evidence to support his defense D. holding that failure to object to prosecutors comment on defendants failure to testify preserved nothing for appellate review E. holding that prosecutors comment on defendants failure to testify constituted plain error affecting the defendants substantial rights

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the prosecutors reference to the nonexistence of mitigating evidence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify
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: 361 Pa.Super. 491, 495 n. 3, 522 A.2d 1138, 1140 n. 3 (Pa.Super.Ct.1987) (listing state statues and statues that recognize a medical review privilege); IIA Hospital Law Manual (Medical Books) 78-106 (1996) (listing state statues dealing with discovery and admissibility of medical records, and giving a summary of each)); D.C.Code Ann. § 32-505 (1981). Thus, as in Jaffee, the nearly unanimous state legislative recognition of the self-critical analysis privilege in the medical peer review context confirms the appropriateness of recognizing the privilege in this forum. See 518 U.S. at 13,116 S.Ct. 1923. Recognizing the self-critical analysis privilege in this case is also supported by New Mexico’s own statutory privilege. See Memorial Hosp. for McHenry County v. Shadur, 664 N.Y.1976) (<HOLDING>). It is true that unlike the psychotherapist Options: A. holding that federal courts should apply state substantive law B. holding that in diversity cases federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law C. holding that federal courts presiding over causes of action created by state law should apply state substantive law but federal procedural law D. recognizing a strong policy of comity between state and federal sovereigns impels federal courts to recognize state privileges where this can be accomplished at no substantial cost to federal substantive and procedural policy E. holding that a federal court may resort to state law analogies for the development of a federal common law of privileges in instances where the federal rule is unsettled

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing a strong policy of comity between state and federal sovereigns impels federal courts to recognize state privileges where this can be accomplished at no substantial cost to federal substantive and procedural policy
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 executed in one or more counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same agreement, and shall become effective when one or more such counterparts have been signed by each of the parties hereto and delivered to the other parties hereto. Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page of this Agreement by facsimile, email or other electronic imaging means shall be as effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this Agreement. Minor variations in the form of the signature page to this Agreement, including footers from earlier versions of this Agreement or any such other document, will be disregarded in determining the effectiveness of such signature. At the request of any party hereto or to any such agreement or instrument, each other party hereto or thereto will re-execute original forms thereof and deliver them to all other parties hereto. No party hereto or to any such agreement or instrument will raise the fact that any signature or agreement or instrument was transmitted or communicated through the use of an electronic transmission in PDF as a defense to the formation or enforceability of a contract and each such party forever waives any such defense.

assistant: Counterparts
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: could have allowed one to two more spectators to sit with Mrs. Bucci, Mrs. Keefe, and Mrs. Jordan. It is, however, of no constitutional moment that the court did not do so. 9 . Indeed, Mrs. Keefe — whose testimony showed her to be a devoted mother who carefully followed every moment of the trial, talked to her son every day during his incarceration, and even led the effort to collect affidavits for Bucci’s habeas petition — was likely the most important member of the public to be present from Bucci’s perspective. Hr’g Tr. vol. 2 at 30, 33. 10 . Other jurisdictions that have considered this issue have also held that prohibiting public ingress and egress during a jury charge does not constitute "closure” under the Sixth Amendment. E.g., Herring v. Meachum, 11 F.3d 374, 380 (2d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Bell v. Evatt, 72 F.3d 421, 433 (4th Options: A. holding that trial court did not err in refusing to give charge because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his requested charge was tailored to the evidence B. holding that counsel was deficient when he failed to object to error in jury charge referring to aggravated assault when the charge was assault on a public servant C. holding trial courts error in overruling objection to prosecutors misstatement of law of intoxication that differed from definition in charge was harmless when there was evidence supporting the jurys verdict and it was presumed the jury followed the instructions in the charge D. holding that trial was never closed when court locked doors during jury charge because all members of the public who wanted to observe the charge were permitted to do so if there was enough space and they arrived in time E. holding that because trial court actually gave part of a jury charge that appellant claimed was improperly omitted and because remainder of courts charge adequately defined one of the legal terms at issue the courts jury charge taken as a whole was not misleading and did not constitute reversible error

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that trial was never closed when court locked doors during jury charge because all members of the public who wanted to observe the charge were permitted to do so if there was enough space and they arrived in time
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and fifty-three years before Mennonite was decided, and thus, Respondents' argument fails. 7 . The parties contend there can be no claim of acquisitive prescription, as Lot 4 is covered by several feet of water, and thus, corporeal possession is not possible. Without ruling on this issue, we note what constitutes possession for the purpose of acquisitive prescription depends primarily on the nature of the property. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Landry, 558 So.2d 242, 244 (La.1990) (noting "a greater quality of possession is required in the case of woodland than in the case of swamp or marsh land”). The parties fail to cite to any case law holding acquisitive prescription is not possible for underwater property. See, e.g., Leake v. Richardson, 199 Va. 967, 976, 103 S.E.2d 227, 234 (1958) (<HOLDING>); 3 Am.Jur.2d Adverse Possession § 265, at 302 Options: A. holding for underwater property there must be acts of ownership indicating a change of condition showing a notorious claim of title B. holding court cannot change custody without showing that change is in best interests of child C. recognizing that before a special condition of probation may be imposed there must be an oral pronouncement of the condition at sentencing D. holding that a subsequent petition may be filed upon a showing of a change in circumstances E. holding that a showing of a change in circumstances that is or is likely to be beneficial to the child may also warrant a change in custody

assistant: The best answer is A. holding for underwater property there must be acts of ownership indicating a change of condition showing a notorious claim of title
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: Executive acknowledges and agrees that the terms and provisions of this Agreement shall not be divulged or disclosed by Executive except as set forth herein. Executive further acknowledges and agrees that the Company may disclose the existence and terms of this Agreement, as well as the circumstances to which it relates, as required by applicable laws and regulations, including without limitation, rules and regulations of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the Company shall use its best efforts to provide Executive with advance copies of such disclosure, to the extent practicable). Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this paragraph or its subparts shall prevent the following disclosures of this Agreement by Executive: (i) Executive may disclose the terms of this Agreement to his attorneys, immediate family members, and tax advisors, and (ii) Executive shall be permitted to disclose the terms of this Agreement as required by any court of competent jurisdiction or government agency. Other than the exceptions set forth in this Section, Executive agrees this Agreement shall not be voluntarily introduced as evidence in any proceeding or in any lawsuit unless required by law or court order or to enforce the terms of this Agreement. Executive covenants and agrees that this confidentiality agreement is contractual and its terms are material to this Agreement.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you agree that linden lab will have no liability for , and you agree to defend , indemnify , and hold linden lab harmless for , any claims , losses or damages arising out of or in connection with your use , reproduction , distribution , modification , display , or performance of any 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: defective condition of the range. It is undisputed that Maytag’s range was manufactured with a defect. We believe that the district court correctly determined that “adequate warnings will not render a product with a manufacturing defect non-defective,” regardless of whether compliance with the warnings would have rendered the product safe. Although Maytag provided numerous warnings with which Mr. Chapman failed to comply, “warnings cannot make a dangerous product safe.” Marshall v. Clark Equip. Co., 680 N.E.2d 1102, 1105 (Ind.App.1997). Accordingly, it was well within the discretion of the district court to hold that warnings will save a product from being defective only when a product is without manufacturing defects. See, e.g., Glover v. BIC Corp., 6 F.3d 1318, 1323 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Second, the district court did not err when Options: A. recognizing failure to test is a viable theory of recovery under missouri law in a manufacturing defect case B. holding that notice of a defect could not be imputed to a defendant inasmuch as it created the defect C. holding that although an adequate warning will prevent the reliance on a theory of strict liability in a failure to warn defect ease such a warning will not make safe a product with a manufacturing defect D. holding jurisdictional defect voids judgment when defect exposes such personal jurisdictional deficiencies as to violate due process E. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit a design defect products liability expert to submit an untimely addendum stating a new claim of failure to warn after defense expert refuted the basis of original design defect opinion

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that although an adequate warning will prevent the reliance on a theory of strict liability in a failure to warn defect ease such a warning will not make safe a product with a manufacturing defect
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: If a motion for substitution of judge is improperly denied, all subsequent action by the trial judge is void. [Citation.]” (Brim, 241 Ill. App. 3d at 249.) We now hold that the rationale heretofore applied only to motions for automatic substitution of judge (725 ILCS 5/114 — 5(a) (West 1992)), that once a motion for substitution of judge is properly brought a judge loses all power and authority over the cause, applies to motions for substitution of judge for cause (725 ILCS 5/114 — 5(d) (West 1992)). (See Brim, 241 Ill. App. 3d at 249.) We note, however, that there are instances, which are not applicable to the present case, where a trial court need not transfer a motion for substitution of judges for cause to another judge. E.g., People v. Damnitz (1994), 269 Ill. App. 3d 51, 55 (<HOLDING>); People v. Marshall (1988), 165 Ill. App. 3d Options: A. holding motion for substitution of judge properly denied where movant failed to attach affidavit B. holding that trial judge did not err in refusing to transfer to another judge defendants motion for substitution of judge for cause where defendant failed to establish even a threshold basis for his substitution motion C. holding that where appellant moved to recuse trial judge from deciding the motion for new trial the judge of the administrative district was required to designate a judge to hear the recusal motion D. holding that the fact that a judge had ruled against the defendant is not a basis for finding the judge prejudiced E. holding that it was not error for successor trial judge to direct a judgment for defendant based on the statute of limitations where initial judge had denied a motion for summary judgment on the same issue

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that trial judge did not err in refusing to transfer to another judge defendants motion for substitution of judge for cause where defendant failed to establish even a threshold basis for his substitution motion
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 described in the SEC Reports or on Schedule 3.1(h) , Except as described in the SEC Reports, a The Form 8-K described in Section 4.4, upon its filing, will comply in all material respects with the requirements of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act, as applicable, and will not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary in order to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. Except as described in the SEC Reports, the latest audited financial statements of the Company included in the SEC Reports comply in all material respects with applicable accounting requirements and the rules and regulations of the Commission with respect thereto as in effect at the time of filing. Such financial statements have been prepared in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles applied on a consistent basis during the periods involved (“ GAAP ”), except as may be otherwise specified in such financial statements or the notes thereto and except that unaudited financial statements may not contain all footnotes required by GAAP and are subject to normal, immaterial, year end audit adjustments, and fairly present in all material respects the financial position of the Company and its consolidated Subsidiaries as of and for the dates thereof and the results of operations and cash flows for the periods then ended, subject, in the case of unaudited statements, to normal, immaterial, year-end audit adjustments.

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

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 377 U.S. 161 84 S.Ct. 1155 12 L.Ed.2d 213 UNITED STATESv.CONTINENTAL OIL CO. No. 834. May 4, 1964. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick and Robert B. Hummel, for the United States. David T. Searls and A. T. Seymour, for appellee. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico for a trial on the merits of the case. Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 82 S.Ct. 486, 7 L.Ed.2d 458. 2 Separate Memorandum of Mr. Justice HARLAN. 3 This is an appeal by the Government in an antitrust case wherein the District Court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant-appellee without opinion, findings of fact, or conclusions of law of any kind. The case is here on a typewritten record of some 2,000 pages, consisting of pleadings, briefs, depositions, exhibits, and the transcript of a pretrial conference. The district judge is now deceased. 4 The Court vacates the judgment below and remands the case for trial. Short of its being the law that the summary judgment procedure is wholly unavailable in a government antitrust case—a holding not before nor, as I understand matters, now made—I am unable to say that summary judgment was improvidently granted in this instance without making an examination of the entire record; certainly this disposition should not be made simply on the basis of the Government's statements that triable issues of fact exist. To examine this large record without any illumination by the court below would place an intolerable burden on this Court. 5 In these circumstances I believe that the proper course is to vacate the judgment below and remand the case to the District ourt, with leave to the defendant to renew its motion for summary judgment before another distrct judge. The Court's action, which deprives the defendant of that opportunity, seems to me unwarranted. If summary judgment were again granted, the District Court would be expected to furnish a statement of its reasons, including such findings of fact and conclusions of law as might be appropriate. Cf. United States v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 376 U.S. 651, 84 S.Ct. 1044, 12 L.Ed.2d 12 (concurring-dissenting opinion of HARLAN, J.).

assistant: 8
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of this Guaranty and the other Transaction Documents to which the Guarantor is a party has been duly executed and delivered and constitutes its legal, valid and binding obligation, enforceable against it in accordance with its terms, subject to applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, moratorium or other similar laws affecting the rights of creditors generally (whether at law or equity).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to third parties. Therefore, the documents do not meet the definition of “confidential” communications and are not subject to the attorney-client privilege. Accordingly, the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of the law in ordering their production. As to the item covered by item (5) of the trial court’s order, there is no violation of the attorney-client privilege because no production is required. The order does not require the disclosure of privileged communications. Rather, the order requires only that the law firm’s file be available to Jenney’s former attorney at the continuation of his deposition. Because the order does not require disclosure of privileged communications, the trial court did not depart from the essentia .2d 1194, 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (<HOLDING>). Rather, we address only the issue of whether Options: A. holding an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court in order to be preserved for review B. holding an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved for appellate review C. holding that this court may address an issue not ruled on by the trial court if it presents a question of law and all the facts necessary for its resolution have been presented D. holding issues not raised to and ruled upon by the trial court are not preserved for appellate review E. holding that an appellate court cannot address on appeal an issue never ruled upon by the trial court

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an appellate court cannot address on appeal an issue never ruled upon by the trial court
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: tell the [j]udge what he had done when he assaulted you approximately [five years] before this happened? A. He had thrown me up against, as I remember, the pantry door, and strangled me, started choking me. He stopped because his sister and mother[,] crying[,] pulled him off. Q. What had provoked that attack? A. I ... said, [G] * * d * * *. Q. And when you said that, what did he do? A. He snapped. (emphases added). Therefore, the fact that Smith had a history of violent behavior was well-established — without objection from the State — prior to the admission of Sergeant Drake’s and Officer Stair’s testimony. Any error in admitting details of the 2007 and 2010 incidents beyond what Respondent already knew was harmless. See State v. Williams, 321 S.C. 455, 463, 469 S.E.2d 49, 54 (1996) (<HOLDING>). III. Assessment of Intoxication Evidence The Options: A. holding improperly admitted evidence was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt B. holding improperly admitted evidence may be harmless if cumulative C. holding that error in admission of videotape was harmless because it was cumulative of childs properly admitted live testimony D. holding that when evidence was erroneously admitted such error was harmless when the evidence was insignificant and cumulative E. holding improperly admitted testimony was cumulative to the other properly admitted evidence and was therefore harmless

assistant: The best answer is E. holding improperly admitted testimony was cumulative to the other properly admitted evidence and was therefore harmless
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 Warrant shall terminate on the first to occur of (i) 5:00 p.m. California time on the Termination Date, and (ii) the consummation of a Change of Control provided the Company has complied with the notice provisions in Section 7 above.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as set forth in Section 9.1, any controversy or claim arising out of or related to (i) this Agreement, (ii) the breach thereof, (iii) Executive's employment with the Company or the termination of such employment, or (iv) Employment Discrimination, shall be settled by arbitration in Chicago, Illinois before a single arbitrator administered by the American Arbitration Association (" AAA ") under its National Rules for the Resolution of Employment Disputes, amended and restated effective as of January 1, 2004 (the " Employment Rules "), and judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Rule R-34 of the AAA's Commercial Arbitration Rules amended and restated effective as of September 1, 2007 (instead of Rule 27 of the Employment Rules) shall apply to interim measures. References herein to any arbitration rule(s) shall be construed as referring to such rule(s) as amended or renumbered from time to time and to any successor rules. References to the AAA include any successor organization. "Employment Discrimination" means any discrimination against or harassment of Executive in connection with Executive's employment with the Company or the termination of such employment, including any discrimination or harassment prohibited under federal, state or local statute or other applicable law, including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disability Act or any similar federal, state or local statute.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: not justified in using force in resisting an arrest by a police officer). We affirmed without a written opinion. At the time of the appeal, the question of whether section 776.05 v. State, 590 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), and Harris v. State, 801 So.2d 321, 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), decisions applying section 776.051(1) and holding that the illegality of a detention was not a defense to charges of battery on a law enforcement officer. The supreme court’s decision in Tillman overruled Dominique and Harris. See also Perry v. State, 953 So.2d 459 (Fla.2007) (quashing a decision of this court which had relied on these cases and section 776.051(1)). The supreme court’s decision in Tillman is controlling and applies to petitioner. See Rodriguez v. State, 964 So.2d 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>). Based on the undisputed facts in this case, Options: A. holding that a new rule for conducting criminal prosecutions should be applied to all cases pending on direct review or not yet final B. holding that tillman applied to cases then pending on direct appeal ie in the pipeline C. holding that batson does apply retroactively to cases pending on direct review D. recognizing that the pipeline theory allows a defendant to seek application of a new rule of law if the case is pending on direct review or not yet final and the defendant timely objected at trial E. holding that the clayton acts provisions on injunctive relief applied to pending cases

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that tillman applied to cases then pending on direct appeal ie in the pipeline
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each party represents and warrants to the other that (a) it has the full right and authority to enter into this Agreement, (b) it is in good standing in its jurisdiction of organization and all jurisdictions in which it operates, (c) the execution and delivery of this Agreement and the performance of such its obligations hereunder do not conflict with, or constitute a default or require any consent under, any contractual obligation of such party, and (d) it will comply with all Applicable Laws in performing its obligations under this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: she notes that inclusion of this purported asset would largely cancel out inclusion of the purported debts to Robert that Jeff claims were erroneously excluded. We decline to address the trial court’s exclusion of this purported asset on the merits, given that Jeff has failed to explain how he was prejudiced by this ruling. As for loans Robert purportedly made to Jeff, the essence of Jeffs argument is that because the loans were evidenced by promissory notes, the trial court was required to include them in the marital estate as liabilities. Prior cases have clearly held, however, that courts are not required to accept one party’s characterization of funds received from a third party as a debt as opposed to an outright gift. See Macher v. Macher, 746 N.E.2d 120, 124 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (<HOLDING>). When deciding whether the exchange of money Options: A. holding that the lower court failed to account for payments made in connection with the marital home including mortgage payments B. holding that where the policy includes indemnification coverage to the corporation proceeds are not property of the estate where there is no proof of payments by corporation of payments C. holding that funds advanced by husbands parents as down payment for purchase of marital residence was a gift and not a loan where there was no promissory note or other documentation no payments were made to parents for several years and no payments were requested D. holding that the court did not err in denying husbands parents motion to intervene where they allegedly loaned money for improvements to sons marital home and sought to assert interest in son and daughterinlaws marital home because the decree of dissolution would not determine the title of marital property in rem and parents failed to make a prima facie showing supporting their claim on the property E. holding that home purchased with separate funds and titled in one spouses name was transmuted into marital property because home was used as marital residence and the other spouse contributed to payments and repairs on home

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that funds advanced by husbands parents as down payment for purchase of marital residence was a gift and not a loan where there was no promissory note or other documentation no payments were made to parents for several years and no payments were requested