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: teams and therefore proeompetitive because they enhance public interest in intercollegiate athletics” and suggested that rules establishing eligibility requirements of student-athletes were such controls, while rules limiting television broadcasts were not. See id. at 117, 104 S.Ct. at 2969. While the parties have not cited any opinion addressing the particular bylaw at issue here, and we have found none, other courts have held that the NCAA’s “no-draft” and “no-agent” rules, which disqualify a-student-athlete from further intercollegiate competition if the student-athlete enters a professional draft or contacts an agent, are reasonable because they are procompetitive. See McCormack, 845 F.2d at 1343; Banks v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 977 F.2d 1081, 1087-94 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Gaines, 746 F.Supp. at 746; Jones, 392 Options: A. holding professional rules do not provide basis for civil liability B. holding that ncaas nodraft and noagent rules do not have an anticompetitive impact on a discernable market C. recognizing that rates awarded in other cases do not set the prevailing market rateonly the market can do that D. recognizing implied duty to market E. holding elements of attempted monopolization claim under 2 of sherman act are intent anticompetitive conduct and dangerous probability of success in a relevant market

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that ncaas nodraft and noagent rules do not have an anticompetitive impact on a discernable market
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: Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is understood and agreed that the Company’s agreement to provide the benefits set forth in Section 3(b) are in consideration of and in exchange for Executive’s promise to execute, upon termination, a release and waiver, in form and substance acceptable to the Company, releasing the Company from any and all claims and liabilities of every nature related to Executive’s employment by the Company through Executive’s date of termination (the “ Release ”). Accordingly, if Executive refuses to sign the Release or signs the Release but exercises his right, if any, under applicable law to revoke the Release (or any portion thereof), the Company’s obligation to provide the enumerated benefits will immediately terminate without further obligation on the part of the Company.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Participant shall forfeit to the Company, without compensation, any and all unvested Restricted Stock immediately upon the Participant’s Termination for any reason, except as set forth in Section 2(a) .

assistant: Forfeitures
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: to the extent allowed by applicable laws , you waive any moral rights you may have in any user content ( like the right to be identified as the author of the user content or the right to object to a certain use of that user 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: 499 U.S. at 362, 111 S.Ct. at 1296. After reviewing the record in this case, we conclude that the selection process used to prepare Mid America’s Title Commitment No. 125266 fails to meet this minimal level of creativity. Selecting which facts to include in this compilation of data was not a matter of discretion based on Mid America’s personal judgment or taste, but instead it was a matter of convention and strict industry standards. As the affidavits introduced by Kirk suggest, all title examiners preparing a proper title commitment for the Frankfort property would have referred to the same sources of information and ultimately would have selected the same facts to include in their title commitments. See Victor Lalli Enterprises v. Big Red Apple, Inc., 936 F.2d 671, 672 (2d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). In essence, Mid America’s selection of the Options: A. holding that betting charts are not sufficiently original to merit copyright protection because ujnless a publisher were to make a mistake the information in the charts does not vary in the slightest as between publishers and is derived from commonly ascertainable sources B. holding that it was impossible for the court to say that the information met the definition of a trade secret because the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the information derived economic value from an element of secrecy that is known only to plaintiff and its employees C. holding that confidential sources need not be named provided they are described in the complaint with sufficient particularity to support the probability that a person in the position occupied by the source would possess the information alleged D. holding that the right of access to government information or sources of information within the governments control is not mandated by the first or fourteenth amendments E. holding that plaintiffs amended complaint was not barred by the applicable statute of limitations where the amendment merely expanded on plaintiffs negligence theories and stating that in a tort action an amendment may vary the statement of the original complaint as to the manner in which the plaintiff was injured or as to the manner of the defendants breach of duty

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that betting charts are not sufficiently original to merit copyright protection because ujnless a publisher were to make a mistake the information in the charts does not vary in the slightest as between publishers and is derived from commonly ascertainable sources
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: be enhanced by litigating these matters in one forum versus two, but in terms of Philadelphia versus Bucks County, the geographic factor is insignificant. In terms of coordination in general, all involved will clearly benefit by having these actions litigated together rather than having them litigated separately in two different forums. But in terms of Philadelphia versus Bucks County, neither forum appeared to be more convenient than the other: Roofing Dynamics counsel is located in Philadelphia County, while Accurso’s counsel is located in Bucks County; more parties appear to be located in Bucks County, but there is nothing particularly onerous about traveling between Philadelphia and Bucks County, see, e.g., Catagnus v. Allstate Ins. Co., 864 A.2d 1259, 1266 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004) (<HOLDING>) and Johns v. First Union Corp., 777 A.2d 489, Options: A. holding that motion to transfer also must show either that county where action is pending is improper or that venue is mandatory in another county B. recognizing county officers as those whose general authority and jurisdiction are confined within the limits of the county in which they are appointed who are appointed in and for a particular county and whose duties apply only to that county and through whom the county performs its usual political functions C. holding that both saline county and grant county had jurisdiction to try the appellant for murder where the actual killing occurred in one county but the acts requisite to the consummation of the murder and the subsequent disposal of the body occurred in the other county D. holding the decision to transfer a case from philadelphia to bucks county was error and observing travel between philadelphia and bucks county is not particularly burdensome E. holding a county and a road district had standing to sue state highway commission and county tax collector based on their interest in and control over the public roads of the county

assistant: The best answer is D. holding the decision to transfer a case from philadelphia to bucks county was error and observing travel between philadelphia and bucks county is not particularly burdensome
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: is therefore available in more than just the two circumstances described in Irwin and Bailey. See Nunnally v. MacCausland, 996 F.2d 1, 5 n. 7 (1st Cir.1993) (“A fair reading of Irwin, however, shows that the Court did not undertake an exhaustive list of factors that may be considered in the equitable weighing process.”). In addition to the guidance provided by the Supreme Court, several circuits have allowed equitable tolling based on mental illness. The First Circuit has established that mental incapacity is a suitable basis upon which to equitably toll a statute of limitations. See Meléndez-Arroyo v. Cutler-Hammer de P.R., Co., 273 F.3d 30, 39 (1st Cir.2001) (remanding for factual inquiry into whether plaintiffs mental state warranted equitable tolling); Nunnally, 996 F.2d at 5 (<HOLDING>); Oropallo v. United States, 994 F.2d 25, 28 n. Options: A. holding that mental incapacity is an extraordinary circumstance that may warrant equitable tolling B. recognizing that 2244dlds statute of limitations can be tolled C. holding that 26 usc 6511 may not be equitably tolled but that mental incapacity is a grounds for tolling when available D. holding that 42 usc 405g may be equitably tolled based on a plaintiffs mental impairment E. holding that 5 usc 7703b2 can be tolled due to mental incapacity

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that 5 usc 7703b2 can be tolled due to mental incapacity
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 you have a google account , we may display your profile name , profile photo , and actions you take on google or on third-party applications connected to your google account ( such as +1 's , reviews you write and comments you post ) in our services , including displaying in ads and other commercial contexts .

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: then the error is harmless and the writ should not issue.. Id. This court has previously held that the harmless error doctrine applies to alleged coerced confessions. Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 308, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991); United States v. Alwan, 279 F.3d 431, 438 (7th Cir.2002). When applying the harmless error doctrine on collateral review, we may only grant Hinton’s petition for a writ of habeas if we conclude that the admission of his confession “had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict,” which it did not. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946)); see also Aleman, 320 F.3d at 690 (<HOLDING>). Hinton somehow contends that without the Options: A. holding that the brecht standard applies on federal collateral review even after passage of the aedpa B. holding that a federal habeas court performing a harmless error inquiry on collateral review must employ the standard for harmless error articulated in brecht even if the state courts have never reviewed the error on direct appeal C. holding that de novo standard of review applies on federal claims never addressed by state courts D. holding that the aedpa standard of review applies even where the state court has given no indication of how it reached its decision E. holding that aedpa only applies where the state court adjudicated the constitutional issue on the merits

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the brecht standard applies on federal collateral review even after passage of the aedpa
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 any number of counterparts and by the different parties hereto on separate counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be an original, but all of which shall together constitute one and the same instrument. A set of counterparts executed by all the parties hereto shall be lodged with the Borrower and the Administrative Agent. Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page of this Agreement by telecopy or electronic transmission shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this Agreement.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: we are providing facebook as is without any express or implied warranties including , but not limited to , implied warranties of merchantability , fitness for a particular purpose , and non-infringement .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: white female). Ramon contends that Arbaney and Lakey were given preferential treatment because they were allowed to remain on the job for up to six months, thereby permitting them to become eligible for voluntary retirement. She further contends that Couch was not fired at all. Ramon, however, was not allowed to retire or remain on the job. Ramon argues that this circumstantial evidence satisfies her initial burden on summary judgment under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). To satisfy that burden, she must proffer evidence that a similarly situated employee from outside the protected class was not subjected to the adverse employment action. Abarca v. Metro. Transit Auth., 404 F.3d 938, 941 *4 (MichApp. Feb.15, 2002) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>). Ramon next contends that the conduct of Options: A. holding that employee who violated a different policy of the store than plaintiff was not similarly situated B. holding that the fact that employees mention or ask about retirement is not evidence of age discrimination and therefore not finding sufficient evidence of discriminatory animus on the part of a supervisor who frequently asked plaintiff about his retirement plans C. holding that younger employee not similarly situated to older employee who committed similar infraction and was allowed to remain on job for a few extra months and obtain retirement eligibility D. holding that plaintiff was not similarly situated to another employee who also engaged in protected activity for purposes of plaintiffs retaliation claim E. holding that plaintiff who was not of retirement age and comparator who was of retirement age were not similarly situated where comparator was allowed to voluntarily retire while plaintiff was terminated

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that plaintiff who was not of retirement age and comparator who was of retirement age were not similarly situated where comparator was allowed to voluntarily retire while plaintiff was terminated
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: felony where the murder and the accompanying felonies were part of the “same criminal episode.” Id. at 71. The court distinguished contrary holdings from other states by noting that the Illinois statute’s “ ‘in the course of’ ” language should be interpreted more broadly than “ ‘during the commission or attempted commission of’ ” language: we think that the Illinois statute recognizes that the crime of murder is not necessarily complete when the victim’s heart stops beating, but rather the crime continues throughout the time that the perpetrator conceals the crime and flees the scene. Id.; see also Ex parte Roberts, 735 So. 2d 1270, 1278 (Ala. 1999) (finding it sufficient that arson and murder were part of continuous chain of events); Way v. State, 496 So. 2d 126, 128 (Fla. 1986) (<HOLDING>). ¶26 However, the California Supreme Court Options: A. holding that in criminal case a continuous chain of custody need not be proven as long as the evidence as a whole establishes that it is more probable than not that the object introduced is the same as that seized B. holding that a contract need not have mutuality of obligation as long as it is supported by consideration C. holding that the terms arbitration or arbitrate need not be used as long as binding review by a third party is clearly the intention of the parties D. holding prosecution need not prove victims were killed by fire so long as deaths occurred during same criminal episode as arson E. holding that a defendants unlawful use of a controlled substance need not be simultaneous with the actual crime involving the firearm as long as it occurs during the time period charged as part of the indictment citation omitted

assistant: The best answer is D. holding prosecution need not prove victims were killed by fire so long as deaths occurred during same criminal episode as arson
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: appeals from the amended final judgment dissolving her marriage to Donald L. Card, the Former Husband. The only is 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (affirming the amended final judgment of dissolution of marriage but dismissing as premature the trial court’s ruling only determining entitlement to fees because the issue was “not ripe for appeal” until the trial court determined the amount of the fees to be awarded). Counsel for the Former Wife also argues that the f jurisdiction over the charging lien, the trial court is not foreclosed from considering the charging lien in this action because the issue of attorney’s fees and costs has not been finalized and the trial court reserved jurisdiction for that purpose. See Baker & Hostetler, LLP v. Swearingen, 998 So.2d 1158, 1163 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (<HOLDING>). Affirmed in part; dismissed in part. DAVIS, Options: A. holding trial court retains jurisdiction to consider motion for attorneys fees despite filing of notice of appeal of final judgment B. holding trial court had no authority to award attorneys fees when arbitrator had stated he would not award attorneys fees C. holding that the trial court had jurisdiction to consider a motion to perfect and enforce an attorneys charging lien where the trial court reserved jurisdiction to determine entitlement and amount of attorneys fees D. holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees E. holding that the husbands failure to argue his entitlement to attorneys fees under a prenuptial agreement at a hearing held on the issue of entitlement to attorneys fees constituted an abandonment of that claim

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the trial court had jurisdiction to consider a motion to perfect and enforce an attorneys charging lien where the trial court reserved jurisdiction to determine entitlement and amount of attorneys fees
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: this is a binding agreement between you , an individual , nintendo co. , ltd. , 11-1 hokotate-cho , kamitoba , minami-ku , kyoto , 601-8501 , japan ( `` ncl '' ) and nintendo of europe gmbh , herriotstrasse 4 , 60528 frankfurt am main , germany , ( `` noe ) .

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: 1. Further, Wilson does not challenge the District Court’s determination that the Terms and Conditions were not unconscionable — a determination that in no way hinged on whether the specific versión of the Terms and Conditions submitted by Kellogg in this litigation is the correct one, but merely assessed the procedural context in which Wilson signed the agreement. These two concessions are fatal to Wilson’s claims. They confirm that an express contract — the Terms and Conditions (regardless of which precise version Wilson signed) — governed Wilson’s relationship with Kellogg, and thus that, as the District Court held, Wilson’s only two claims — for breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment — are unsustainable. See Hudson v. Mathers, 283 Mich.App. 91, 770 N.W.2d 883, 887 (2009) (<HOLDING>); Belle Isle Grill Corp. v. City of Detroit, Options: A. holding that the plaintiff may proceed under a claim for breach of contract and unjust enrichment because the defendant admitted the existence of a contract solely for the purposes of summary judgment B. holding that a claim for unjust enrichment should not be dismissed because the court may find that the express contract was no longer in force C. holding that where an express contract was in place between plaintiff and defendant that governed the compensation sought by plaintiff plaintiff may not recover under a theory of unjust enrichment D. holding that defrauded party may either choose to void the contract and recover paid consideration on an unjust enrichment theory or affirm the contract and pursue a breach of contract remedy E. holding that where a prior agreement fixed the salary of the plaintiff plaintiff could not seek to recover for his services on a theory of unjust enrichment

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that where an express contract was in place between plaintiff and defendant that governed the compensation sought by plaintiff plaintiff may not recover under a theory of unjust enrichment
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: On the Closing Date, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein, substantially concurrent with the execution and delivery of this Agreement by the parties hereto, the Company agrees to sell, and the Purchasers, severally and not jointly, agree to purchase, up to an aggregate of $8.0 million of Shares and Warrants. Each Purchaser’s Subscription Amount as set forth on the signature page hereto executed by such Purchaser shall be made available for “Delivery Versus Payment” settlement with the Company. The Company shall deliver to each Purchaser its respective Shares and a Warrant as determined pursuant to Section 2.2(a), and the Company and each Purchaser shall deliver the other items set forth in Section 2.2 deliverable at the Closing. Upon satisfaction of the covenants and conditions set forth in Sections 2.2 and 2.3, the Closing shall occur at the offices of the Placement Agent or such other location as the parties shall mutually agree. Unless otherwise directed by the Placement Agent, settlement of the Shares shall occur via “Delivery Versus Payment” (“ DVP ”) (i.e., on the Closing Date, the Company shall issue the Shares registered in the Purchasers’ names and addresses and released by the Transfer Agent directly to the account(s) at the Placement Agent identified by each Purchaser; upon receipt of such Shares, the Placement Agent shall promptly electronically deliver such Shares to the applicable Purchaser, and payment therefor shall be made by the Placement Agent (or its clearing firm) by wire transfer to the Company).

assistant: Closings
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 of the Borrower’s obligations under this Article III shall survive termination of the Aggregate Commitments, repayment of all other Obligations hereunder and resignation of the Administrative Agent, the Collateral Agent, the FILO Agent, the Swing Loan Lender or any Issuer.

assistant: Survival
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: (citation omitted). That said, however, “A constructive discharge arises only when a reasonable person would find the conditions of employment intolerable. To act reasonably, an employee has an obligation not to assume the worst and not to jump to conclusions too quickly.” Id. (citations omitted). Thus, “An employee who quits without giving [his] employer a reasonable chance to work out a problem is not constructively discharged.” West v. Marion Merrell Dow, Inc., 54 F.3d 493, 498 (8th Cir.1995). Here, the plaintiff has presented enough evidence to permit a reasonable inference that a reasonable person would have found the conditions of employment so intolerable that his or her only recourse was to resign. See Delph v. Dr. Pepper Bottling Co., 130 F.3d 349, 356-57 (8th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Kimzey v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 107 F.3d Options: A. holding that a plaintiffs psychological distress was not vicarious in a hostile work environment case where she experienced her workplace as hostile by reason of the alleged harassment of other women out of her presence B. holding that the allegations of plaintiffs coemployees of sexual harassment by manager were irrelevant to plaintiffs hostile work environment claim absent evidence that plaintiff was contemporaneously aware of the alleged harassment C. recognizing that a constructive discharge claim and a hostile work environment claim are not equivalent because a constructive discharge claim imposes a higher standard D. holding that a hostile work environment was sufficient to constitute constructive discharge because the harassment was expressed by the plaintiffs supervisor and the offending language was not only used in the plaintiffs presence but was directed at him E. holding that a claim of constructive discharge requires a showing of harassment that is more severe and pervasive than that required to show a hostile work environment

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a hostile work environment was sufficient to constitute constructive discharge because the harassment was expressed by the plaintiffs supervisor and the offending language was not only used in the plaintiffs presence but was directed at him
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 the Priority Lien Agent, for itself and on behalf of the other Priority Lien Secured Party, the Second Lien Collateral Trustee, for itself and on behalf of the other Second Lien Secured Parties, the Third Lien Collateral Agent, for itself and on behalf of the other Third Lien Secured Parties, and each Grantor party hereto, for itself and on behalf of its subsidiaries, agrees that it will execute, or will cause to be executed, any and all further documents, agreements and instruments, and take all such further actions, as may be required under any applicable law, or which the Priority Lien Agent, the Second Lien Collateral Trustee or the Third Lien Collateral Agent may reasonably request, to effectuate the terms of this Agreement, including the relative Lien priorities provided for herein.

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: This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Signatures to this Agreement may be transmitted via facsimile and such signatures shall be deemed to be originals.

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: (W.D.Mo. Sept. 14, 1999) (same); Greer v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 97-1138 (W.D.Mo. Sept. 14, 1999) (same); McClain v. Shelter General Ins. Co., No. 97-1139 (W.D.Mo. Sept. 14, 1999) (same); McClain v. American Economy Ins. Co., No. 97-1019 (W.D.Mo. Sept. 14, 1999) (same); Canady v. Federal Ins. Co., No. 97-1141 (W.D.Mo. Sept. 14, 1999) (same); Canady v. Farm Bureau Town & Country Ins. Co., No. 97-1121 (W.D.Mo. Sept. 14, 1999) (same); Hammonds v. Prudential Property & Cas. Co., No. 97-1016 (W.D.Mo. Sept. 14, 1999) (same). 6 . Appellants contend that the All Writs Act does not provide an independent basis for removal to federal court, relying primarily on precedent from other circuits to support their argument. See, e.g., Pacheco de Perez v. AT & T Co., 139 F.3d 1368, 1379 (11th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). However, those cases do not deal with the Options: A. recognizing the all writs act gives federal courts authority to issue writs of coram nobis to correct fundamental errors in criminal proceedings where the person is no longer in custody B. holding that district court had jurisdiction to consider claims under the all writs act C. holding that removal to federal court was proper for claims asserted under all writs act D. holding that the all writs act does not provide an independent basis for supplemental federal jurisdiction in situations where federal jurisdiction is otherwise wholly lacking E. holding the federal tort claims act did not permit exercise of pendant jurisdiction over additional parties as to which no basis for federal jurisdiction existed

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the all writs act does not provide an independent basis for supplemental federal jurisdiction in situations where federal jurisdiction is otherwise wholly lacking
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: what costs, under Halper, were subject to the proportionality test. The court noted that the costs to society should be included with the costs to the government in determining whether a proceeds forfeiture is remedial. Tilley, 18 F.3d at 299. The court stated: The forfeiture of proceeds of illegal drug-sales serves the wholly remedial purposes of reimbursing the government for the costs of detection, investigation, and prosecution of drug traffickers and reimbursing society for the costs of combatting the allure of illegal drugs, earing for the victims of the criminal trade when preventative efforts prove unsuccessful, lost productivity, etc. Id. (citing Halper, 490 U.S. at 444, 109 S.Ct. at 1899; United States v. Ward, 448 U.S. 242, 254, 100 S.Ct. 2636, 2644, 65 L.Ed.2d 742 (1980) (<HOLDING>); One Emerald Cut Stones v. United States, 409 Options: A. recognizing loss of society damages as remedy available under general maritime law B. holding that the tcpas 500 statutory damages provision is remedial C. holding that the tcpas treble damages provision is remedial D. holding tcpa is remedial statute and that statutory damages are not punitive damages E. recognizing repayment of damages to society as remedial

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing repayment of damages to society as remedial
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any provision of this Joinder Agreement held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any jurisdiction shall, as to such jurisdiction, be ineffective to the extent of such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability without affecting the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions hereof or of the First Lien Intercreditor Agreement; and the invalidity of a particular provision in a particular jurisdiction shall not invalidate such provision in any other jurisdiction. The parties shall endeavor in good-faith negotiations to replace the invalid, illegal or unenforceable provisions with valid provisions the economic effect of which comes as close as possible to that of the invalid, illegal or unenforceable provisions.

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: an agency argument on nearly identical facts in where we held that a police officer "supplying information to the [school] principal with the intent of initiating the search and his presence on school premises during the investigation [did] not establish that the principal and [school] security officer acted as police agents." 754 P.2d at 385. Beyond motive, nothing in the record reveals that the government "encourage[d], initiate[d], or instigate[d]" Beesley's search. Smythe, 84 F.3d at 1243. Beesley's telephone call on May 24 alerting TFD of the possibility of arson and his subsequent offer to test evidence from the crime seene were entirely unsolicited. TFD merely accepted Beesley's assistance, and that is not enough to create an agency relationship. See Chastain, 733 P.2d at 1214 (<HOLDING>). In sum, we conclude that the trial court Options: A. holding that the coast guards decision not to regulate propeller guards did not impliedly preempt petitioners tort claims B. holding that the state police is a state agency C. holding a tape of a telephone call was admissible because one party to the call consented to the recording D. recognizing implied private action under the collection agency act E. holding that private security guards unsolicited call to police did not establish agency

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that private security guards unsolicited call to police did not establish agency
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: as significantly restricted in his ability to perform a class or broad range of jobs.” Hamilton v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 136 F.3d 1047, 1052 (5th Cir.1998) (citing Burch v. Coca-Cola Co., 119 F.3d 305, 322 (5th Cir.1997) and Bridges v. City of Bossier, 92 F.3d 329, 332 (5th Cir.1996)). Garrett has offered no evidence that Autozone regarded him to be so limited. Garrett’s own testimony demonstrates that he was treated in the same manner as he was before he informed Autozone that he had been diagnosed with lupus. See Garrett’s Dep. pp 170-174, 200, 202. Because Garrett did not create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he was regarded as disabled by his employer, Autozone is entitled to summary judgment. See Deas v. River West, L.P., 152 F.3d 471, 480 (5th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Southwestern Bell, 136 F.3d at 1052; Sherrod, Options: A. holding that an administrative agency or a state courts finding that an employer had just cause to terminate a plaintiff is not preclusive with regard to the plaintiffs discrimination claim against the employer B. holding that an employer did not regard the plaintiff as disabled C. holding that an employer did not regard an employee with an impaired ankle as disabled where it encouraged her to work in a position that required walking D. holding that employer did not regard plaintiff as disabled where it repeatedly attempted to return him to work E. holding that an employer did not regard the employee as disabled because it called the employee back from disability leave to work on a special project

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an employer did not regard the plaintiff as disabled
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 list of all Registered Intellectual Property (registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office or the United States Copyright Office) of each Credit Party and, to the extent material or entered into on or after January 1, 2013, all in-bound license or sublicense agreements, exclusive out-bound license or sublicense agreements, or other rights of any Credit Party to use Intellectual Property (but excluding in-bound licenses of over-the-counter software that is commercially available to the public), as of the Closing Date and, to the extent material, as updated pursuant to Section 6.14, is set forth on the Intangible Assets Schedule . Such Intangible Assets Schedule shall be prepared by Borrower in the form provided by Agent and contain all information required in such form. Except for Permitted Licenses, each Credit Party is the sole owner of its Intellectual Property free and clear of any Liens. Except as set forth in the Disclosure Schedule, each patent within the Registered Intellectual Property (registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office) is valid and enforceable and no part of the Material Intangible Assets has been judged invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, and to the best of Borrower’s knowledge, no written claim has been made that any part of the Intellectual Property violates the rights of any third party. As of the Closing Date, all Registered Intellectual Property (registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office or the United States Copyright Office) of any predecessor-in-interest of Borrower (including, without limitation, AVI Biopharma, Inc.) constituting Material Intangible Assets has been assigned to Borrower in the records of the United States Patent and Trademark Office or the United States Copyright Office, as applicable.

assistant: Intellectual Property
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: has held on more than one occasion, not inconsistent with Magnolia, that the language in section 85.321’s predecessor (section 13 of article 6049c) does, in fact, create a private cause of action. Turnbow v. Lamb, 95 F.2d 29, 31 (5th Cir.1938) (“Article 6049c, section 13, Vernon’s Civil Stat. Texas, expressly recognizes and preserves to an injured party his cause of action for damages ‘or other relief against a violator of the oil production laws.”); see Sun Oil Co. v. Martin, 330 F.2d 5, 5 (5th Cir.1964) (adopting the lower court’s reasoning in Sun Oil Co. v. Martin, 218 F.Supp. 618, 621-22 (S.D.Tex.1963) (explaining that a violation under section 13 of article 6049c “may give rise to an action for damages”)); see also Ivey v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 36 F.Supp. 811, 816 (S.D.Tex.1941) (<HOLDING>). Although section 85.321 and section 13 of Options: A. holding in accord with fifth circuit law that a plaintiff does not have standing to sue pursuant to section 13 of article 6049c if no railroad commission regulation or state law violation occurred B. recognizing that while in a diversity case a federal court may not address the plaintiffs claim unless the plaintiff has standing to sue under state law the plaintiff must also meet article iii standing requirements C. holding that employers have standing to sue D. holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue E. holding that an incidental beneficiary does not have standing to sue for breach of a contract

assistant: The best answer is A. holding in accord with fifth circuit law that a plaintiff does not have standing to sue pursuant to section 13 of article 6049c if no railroad commission regulation or state law violation occurred
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 provisions of this Agreement are determined to be invalid or unenforceable by an arbitrator or court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect without said provision. The parties shall in good faith negotiate a substitute clause for any provision declared invalid or unenforceable, which shall most nearly approximate the intent of the parties in entering this Agreement; provided, if the parties are unable to agree on such a substitute clause and the deletion of the provision held invalid or unenforceable would produce material adverse financial consequences for one party, such party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement with one hundred eighty (180) days prior notice.

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: or a legal right. The Findings also show that the Lien Claims were a “deceit, artifice, trick, or design involving direct and active operation of the mind, used to circumvent and cheat another.” Finally, the Findings show that fraudulent scheme caused damage or harm to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment that their claims arising from Defendant’s fraudulent Lien Claims are nondis-chargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A). 2. § 528(a)(6) Claim. Debts arising from “willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity” are excepted from the general discharge. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). Section 523(a)(6) requires that the debtor’s actions be both willful and malicious. Panalis v. Moore (In re Moore), 357 F.3d 1125, 1129 (10th Cir. 2004) (<HOLDING>). The “willful” element requires both an Options: A. holding that there must be proof of both a willful act and malicious injury to establish nondischargeability under section 523a6 B. holding that 523a6 requires the actor to intend the injury not just the act that leads to the injury C. holding that either objective substantial certainty or subjective motive meets the supreme courts definition of willful injury in 523a6 D. holding that a mere deliberate or intentional act that causes injury is not sufficient to establish willfulness in the context of 11 usc 523a6 E. holding that the debtors knowing act of failing to obtain workers compensation insurance so that the employer owed an employee a debt after the employee suffered a workplace injury was not the sort of willful and malicious injury required for nondischargeability under 523a6 because it cannot not be said that the employer intended for the employee to suffer a fall or that there was an unbroken chain of events leading from the employers intentional act to the employees physical injury

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that there must be proof of both a willful act and malicious injury to establish nondischargeability under section 523a6
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 AND THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES UNDER THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK WITHOUT REGARD TO CONFLICT OF LAWS PRINCIPLES THAT WOULD REQUIRE APPLICATION OF THE LAWS OF ANOTHER JURISDICTION (OTHER THAN ANY MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE RELATING TO THE LAW GOVERNING PERFECTION AND THE EFFECT OF PERFECTION OF THE SECURITY INTEREST).

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the sentencing information balancing test urged by the dissent. The ongoing confusion concerning the breach of Wisconsin plea agreements is further highlighted by this district's issuance of an unusual, three-legged opinion. ¶ 24. While I have some sympathy with the dissent's concern about the continued integrity of the plea bargaining process, I disagree that the facts in this case can result in an unwarranted sentencing "clam up" restriction. The prosecutor not only has a right but a duty to provide information to the sentencing court. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with the prosecutor providing his or her opinion of the defendant's character, even if negative, to the sentencing court so long as the opinion is used to support the recommendation. See Ferguson, 166 Wis. 2d at 324-25 (<HOLDING>). But it makes no sense to allow the prosecutor Options: A. holding that erroneous use of statutorily unqualified person to prepare posttrial recommendation requires new recommendation and action B. recognizing the importance of congressional findings in determining the appropriateness of congresss remedial measures C. recognizing prosecutors task to attempt to convince the court of the appropriateness of the recommendation D. holding that the court will review the report and recommendation for clear error E. holding that if counsel raises an issue the failure to convince the court to rule in an appellants favor is not ineffective performance

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing prosecutors task to attempt to convince the court of the appropriateness of the recommendation