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: The Executive becomes disabled by reason of physical or mental disability for more than 180 days in the aggregate or a period of 90 consecutive days during any 365-day period and the Board determines, in good faith based upon medical evidence, that the Executive, by reason of such physical or mental disability, is rendered unable to perform his duties and services hereunder (a “ Disability ”). The Executive agrees to provide his medical records and to submit to a medical examination so that the Board may make its determination. A Termination by the Company for Disability shall be communicated to the Executive by written notice and shall be effective on the 30th day after the Executive’s receipt of such notice (the “ Disability Effective Date ”), unless the Executive returns to full-time performance of his duties before the Disability Effective Date.

assistant: Disability
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 identical counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. A facsimile signature shall constitute and have the same force and effect as an original signature for all purposes under 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: plausibly be suggested by the facts alleged. Mylan Labs. Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir.1993). A. First, Defendants move to dismiss the claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants argue that the § 1983 claims against Defendant UNC are barred under the Eleventh Amendment. This amendment provides that “[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State” or by foreign nationals. However, the immunity is not absolute. States may waive it, and Congress may override it when legislating pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, though it has rarely done so. See, e.g., Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 342, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979) (<HOLDING>). Nonetheless, the basic rule is that “in the Options: A. holding that in enacting title vii congress abrogated eleventh amendment immunity B. holding that congress did not properly abrogate states eleventh amendment immunity from suits under the patent act C. holding that congress did not intend to disturb the states eleventh amendment protection in passing 1983 D. holding that congress did not intend to abrogate eleventh amendment immunity in enacting 42 usc 1983 E. holding that congress could abrogate the eleventh amendment pursuant to the commerce clause

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that congress did not intend to abrogate eleventh amendment immunity in enacting 42 usc 1983
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: by the [CIA].” 50 U.S.C. § 403g. The CIA Act, the declarant asserts, “establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld,” DiMaio Decl. ¶ 16 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3)(B)), and thus absolutely protects information regarding the CIA’s organization, functions, names, official titles, salaries, and numbers of personnel employed, id. “It is well established that these provisions of the [NSA] and the [CIA] Act are ‘precisely the type of statutes comprehended by exemption 3.’ ” Schoenman v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, No. 04-2202, 2009 WL 763065, at *24 (D.D.C. Mar. 19, 2009) (quoting Goland, 607 F.2d at 349) (other citations omitted); see Cent. Intelligence Agency v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159, 167, 105 S.Ct. 1881, 85 L.Ed.2d 173 (1985) (<HOLDING>); Valfells v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 717 Options: A. recognizing that the declaratory judgment act is only procedural and does not create substantive rights internal quotation marks and citations omitted B. holding that the statute qualifies as an exemption 3 statute C. holding act qualifies as exemption statute under exemption 3 D. recognizing that the nsa qualifies as a withholding statute under exemption 3 because it refers to particular types of matters that are to be withheld internal quotation marks and citations omitted E. holding that issues not argued specifically and distinctly in a partys opening brief are waived internal quotation marks and citations omitted

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that the nsa qualifies as a withholding statute under exemption 3 because it refers to particular types of matters that are to be withheld internal quotation marks and citations omitted
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: 740, 742 (1962). Estoppel “cannot have created liability where non existed under the policy.” Empire Cas. Co. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 764 P.2d 1191, 1198 (Colo. 1988). An insurer that reconsiders its decision to provide a defense under a reservation of rights is not barred from later contesting coverage and its duty to defend. See, e.g., American Economy Ins. Co. v. Schoolcraft, 551 F.Supp.2d 1235, 1241 (D.Colo.2007) (“I conclude that the fact that American Economy at some point made the strategic decision to offer a defense under a reservation of rights, and then reconsidered, does not create a legal duty to defend where there is none under the facts alleged in the complaint under the law.”); cf. Flannery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 49 F.Supp.2d 1223, 1228-29 (D.Colo. 1999) (<HOLDING>). I therefore grant Mid-Con’s motion with Options: A. holding that claims were clearly excluded from coverage under assault and battery exclusion and therefore insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify B. holding the duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend C. holding that insurer had a continuing duty to defend D. holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify E. holding that an insurer is not estopped from challenging its duty to indemnify even if it hadand breachedits duty to defend

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an insurer is not estopped from challenging its duty to indemnify even if it hadand breachedits duty to defend
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 agrees to disclose and assign to the Company any and all material of a proprietary nature, particularly including, without limitation, material subject to protection as trade secrets or as patentable ideas or copyrightable works, that Executive may conceive, invent, author or discover, either solely or jointly with another or other during Executive’s employment and that relates to or is capable of use in connection with the business of the Company or any employment or products offered, manufactured, used, sold or being developed by the Company at the time said material is developed. Executive will, upon request of the Company, either during or at any time after Executive’s employment ends, regardless of how or why Executive’s employment ends, execute and deliver all papers, including applications for patents and registrations for copyrights, and do such other legal acts (entirely at the Company’s expense) as may be necessary to obtain and maintain proprietary rights in any and all countries and to vest title thereto in the Company.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if you are a united states resident , judicial proceedings ( other than small claims actions ) that are excluded from the arbitration agreement in section 17 must be brought in state or federal court in san francisco , california , unless we both agree to some other location you and zynga both consent to venue and personal jurisdiction in san francisco , california .

assistant: Jurisdiction
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: At the Closing, the Company’s obligation with respect to the transactions contemplated by this Agreement is to reimburse Buyer’ expenses shall be $3,000.00 for Buyer’s legal fees and due diligence.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The parties hereby agree that each provision herein shall be treated as a separate and independent clause, and the unenforceability of any one clause shall in no way impair the enforceability of any of the other clauses herein. In case any provisions (or portions thereof) contained in this Agreement shall, for any reason, be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, the parties agree that such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect the other provisions of this Agreement, and this Agreement shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein. If, moreover, any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be excessively broad as to duration, geographical scope, activity or subject so as to be unenforceable at law, Omega agrees that such provision or provisions shall be construed by the appropriate judicial body by limiting and reducing it or them, so as to be enforceable to the extent compatible with the applicable law as it shall then appear.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be amended from time to time by the Board to reflect the Transfer of Units or other interests in the LLC effectuated pursuant to the terms of Article X or to reflect the admission of Unitholders effectuated pursuant to the terms of Article XI . Any provisions of this Agreement may be amended, modified, supplemented or waived with the written approval of the LLC and the Principal Investors; provided , that no amendment or modification pursuant to this Section 15.3 that would by its terms adversely affect any holders of Units in a manner materially disproportionate to the other holders of Units, in their capacities as such, shall be effective against such holders without the written consent of holders of at least a majority in interest (with respect to the applicable Units) of such disproportionately materially adversely affected holders.

assistant: Amendments
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: HCHC thus seeks to avoid reargument of these substantive issues to the district court on remand. As a result, HCHC contends that, even assuming there is no longer a case or controversy regarding HCHC’s request for preliminary relief, the court should resolve the underlying merits of HCHC’s claim before remanding the matter to the district court. “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and can only hear actual ‘cases or controversies’ as defined under Article III of the Constitution. The ‘case or controversy’ requirement applies at all stages of review.” Neighborhood Transp. Network, Inc. v. Pena, 42 F.3d 1169, 1172 (8th Cir.1994). A federal court no longer has jurisdiction to hear a case on appeal when it “no longer presents an actual, ongoing case or controversy.” Id. (<HOLDING>); see also Agrigenetics, Inc. v. Rose, 62 F.3d Options: A. holding that complaint seeking to enjoin highway construction project pending completion of environmental impact statement for larger project no longer presented any live controversy after highway project was completed and thus was moot and provided no basis for federal court jurisdiction B. holding continuing controversy not moot C. holding that a court lacks jurisdiction when the issues in a case are no longer live D. holding that the plaintiffs claim was moot because the construction project which was the subject of the dispute had been completed E. holding a demolition project to be moot where demolition was only 55 complete but had progressed to the point where units were no longer habitable

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that complaint seeking to enjoin highway construction project pending completion of environmental impact statement for larger project no longer presented any live controversy after highway project was completed and thus was moot and provided no basis for federal court jurisdiction
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: reason to believe the detained individual may be armed and dangerous may conduct a pat-down search for weapons to ensure officer safety.’ ” (quoting United States v. Davis, 457 F.3d 817, 822 (8th Cir.2006))). The officers were executing a warrant at a place of suspected drug trafficking where weapons may have been present, and the officers were outnum bered by the suspects. Detective Canas could detain Cowan, temporarily handcuff Cowan, and pat Cowan down. A police officer “lawfully pat[ting] down a suspect’s outer clothing” may seize any “object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent” as incriminating evidence. See Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993); United States v. Bustos-Torres, 396 F.3d 935, 944 (8th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court noted in Texas v. Brown Options: A. holding the buie prong 1 exception is not available where the arrest took place just outside the home B. recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception C. holding the plain legal prejudice test applies to voluntary dismissal under the code D. holding the plain feel exception of dickerson applies to any incriminating evidence not just contraband E. recognizing exception

assistant: The best answer is D. holding the plain feel exception of dickerson applies to any incriminating evidence not just contraband
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: Claim Constr. Reply 2. Thus Aspex’s own reasoning acknowledges that, if the magnetic members of claim 18 of the '545 patent are limited to horizontal orientation, as the court held that they are, Aspex IV, 2007 WL 2984673, at *23, the scope of claim 18 of the '545 patent is not the same as that of claim 2 of the '207 patent, because the former’s magnetic members are limited to horizontal orientation while the latter’s do not contain this limitation. Because claim 18 of the '545 reissue patent contains a limitation not present in claim 2 of the original '207 patent — that the magnetic members possess horizontal orientation and thus engage vertically— and this limitation affects the scope of the claims, these two claims are not substantially identical. See Laitram Corp., 163 F.3d at 1348 (<HOLDING>); Bloom Eng’g, 129 F.3d at 1251 (holding that Options: A. holding that original claim was not substantially identical to reissue claim because original claim covered printer that generated any quality of alphanumeric characters while reissue claim covered printer that generated a particular kind of alphanumeric characters type quality alphanumeric characters B. holding that a negligence claim is not a personal injury tort claim C. holding that breach of contract claim related back to misrepresentation claim because operative facts upon which the breach of contract claim was based were contained in the misrepresentation counts of the original complaint D. holding that defendants were not prejudiced by amendments to an employment discrimination claim because the original claim gave notice of the nature of the case E. holding plaintiffs claim barred because she failed to take the minimal steps necessary to preserve each claim by either requesting a stay pending administrative proceedings or amending her original claim

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that original claim was not substantially identical to reissue claim because original claim covered printer that generated any quality of alphanumeric characters while reissue claim covered printer that generated a particular kind of alphanumeric characters type quality alphanumeric characters
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: Corbin v. Langdon, 23 N.C. App. 21, 26, 208 S.E.2d 251, 254 (1974). The three requisite elements to form an enforceable contract are offer, acceptance, and consideration. Cap Care Grp., Inc. v. McDonald, 149 N.C. App. 817, 822, 561 S.E.2d 578, 582 (2002). Consequently, we must consider whether each element exists to determine whether a modified employment contract was formed between Plaintiff and U.S. Foods. “It is essential to the formation of any contract that there be mutual assent of both parties to the terms of the agreement so as to establish a meeting of the minds.” Harrison v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 170 N.C. App. 545, 550, 613 S.E.2d 322, 327 (2005) (quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Wooten v. S.R. Biggs Drug Co., 169 N.C. 64, 68, 85 S.E. 140, 142 (1915) (<HOLDING>). As such, a contract modification must also Options: A. holding that where the language of the contract is unambiguous and conveys a definite meaning the court may decide the meaning of the contract as a matter of law B. recognizing that an implied contract must result from a meeting of the minds of the parties in mutual assent to the terms and must be based upon a sufficient consideration free from fraud or undue influence not against public policy and sufficiently definite to be enforced C. holding that the one thing without which a contract cannot be made is the assent of the parties to the agreement the meeting of the minds upon a definite proposition D. holding that a valid contract requires a meeting of minds that gave rise to an obligation situation or state of law resulting from an agreement and that created certain expectations on the basis of which the parties acted E. holding mutual assent in contract law is elementary and it must be expressed by the parties

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the one thing without which a contract cannot be made is the assent of the parties to the agreement the meeting of the minds upon a definite proposition
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No Loan Party or any Subsidiary of any Loan Party, nor, to the knowledge of any Loan Party, any Related Party, (i) is currently the subject of any Sanctions, (ii) is located, organized or residing in any Designated Jurisdiction, (iii) has (within the previous five years) engaged in any transaction with any Person who was at the time of such transaction, to the knowledge of the Loan Parties, the subject of Sanctions or who was located, organized or residing in any Designated Jurisdiction or (iv) is included on OFAC’s List of Specially Designated Nationals, HMT’s Consolidated List of Financial Sanctions Targets and the Investment Ban List, or any similar list enforced by any other relevant Sanctions authority. The Transactions will not violate any applicable Sanctions. No Borrowing or Letter of Credit or the use of proceeds thereof will violate any applicable Sanctions.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: for purposes of these terms , ( i ) the term `` content '' means any creative expression and includes , without limitation , video , audio , photographs , images , illustrations , animations , logos , tools , text , ideas , communications , replies , `` likes , '' comments , information , data , software , scripts , executable files , graphics , maps , routes , geo-data , workouts and workout data , training plans , sleep activity , annotations , nutrition information , recipes , interactive features , designs , copyrights , trademarks , patents , sounds , applications and any intellectual property therein , any of which may be generated , provided , or otherwise made accessible on or through the services ; ( ii ) the term `` user-generated content '' means any content that an athlete ( that includes you ! )

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: though a plaintiff may pursue any number of common law claims in conjunction with the statutory cause of action, the plaintiff will be required to select either treble damages or punitive damages, in the event each are awarded. 9 . See generally Lisa K. Gregory, Annotation, Plaintiff s Rights to Punitive or Multiple Damages When Cause of Action Renders Both Available, 2 A.L.R. 5th 449, 459 (1992). 10 . See Grogan v. Garner, 806 F.2d 829, 839 (8th Cir.1986) (recognizing that when a statutory federal securities claim overlaps with a pendent state law claim, once a determination of liability and damages is made under each claim, the plaintiff is "entitled to the greatest amount recoverable under any single theory pled... SuperTurf, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 660 F.2d 1275, 1284 (8th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>); Bill Terry's, Inc. v. Atlantic Motor Sales, Options: A. holding that the sixth amendments guarantee of a trial by jury requires the jury to base its verdict only on the evidence presented at trial B. holding that trial court erred by requiring plaintiff to select which remedy to submit to the jury because plaintiff was allowed to elect its remedy between punitive damages and statutory treble after the jurys verdict on all claims was rendered C. holding that plaintiffs request that inquiry be made of the jury about its intent behind the verdict was not a request to poll the jury D. holding that where a plaintiff is entitled to treble damages under its state unfair trade practices act and to punitive damages under common law claims of fraud trial court should have submitted each theory of recovery to the jury and then allowed plaintiff to elect between the awards with duplicative elements E. holding that the trial court erred by denying plaintiffs request to instruct the jury on all its claims and to submit a special verdict form and by instead requiring the plaintiff to elect between its statutory antitrust claim and its common law tort claims to be submitted to the jury

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the trial court erred by denying plaintiffs request to instruct the jury on all its claims and to submit a special verdict form and by instead requiring the plaintiff to elect between its statutory antitrust claim and its common law tort claims to be submitted to the jury
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: aspect of the grand jury’s investigation.” Lopez, 393 F.3d at 1350 (citations omitted). Therefore, because Ms. Murphy’s declarations sufficiently establish a “nexus” between disclosing the draft indictm osed based on prior disclosure, a plaintiff must show that the specific information sought is already in the public domain. Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, 678 F.3d 926, 933 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (“A plaintiff asserting a claim of prior disclosure bears the burden of pointing to ‘specific information in the public domain that appears to duplicate that being withheld.’ ”); Davis v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 968 F.2d 1276, 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (stating requester must “point to ‘specific’ information identical to that being withheld”); see also In re Sealed Case, 192 F.3d at 1004 (<HOLDING>). Here, the plaintiffs attempt to demonstrate Options: A. holding rule 6e applicable because material was not coincidental to grand jury investigation but rather a direct result of it B. recognizing the importance of grand jury secrecy C. holding that usual rule 6e secrecy protecting identity of witnesses did not apply to the president because it was already widely known that he had testified in front of the grand jury D. holding that defendants false statement was material even though the grand jury was not certain that the defendant had lied until several weeks later when three witnesses testified contrary to the defendant E. holding the presence of counsel for a witness did not violate grand jury secrecy

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that usual rule 6e secrecy protecting identity of witnesses did not apply to the president because it was already widely known that he had testified in front of the grand jury
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: skype may in its sole discretion block , prevent delivery of or otherwise remove the content of communications as part of its effort to protect the software , products or its customers , or otherwise enforce these terms .

assistant: Content removal
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: — a device to compel respect for the [constitutional] guarantee by removing an incentive to disregard it. It is calculated to prevent; not to repair. The postulate is an enforcement official indifferent to basic rights. Id. at 513, 141 A.2d 46 (emphasis added). Even after Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961), by which the federal adoption of the exclusionary rule as a remedial device to vindicate the fourth amendment guaranty against unreasonable searches became applicable to states under the fourteenth amendment, we consistently recognized that the exclusionary rule served the primary purpose of deterrence. Moreover, we initially held that the rule should be applied only to redress culpable police misconduct. See State v. Gerardo, 53 N.J. 261, 267 (1969) (<HOLDING>); State v. Zito, 54 N.J. 206, 211 (1969) Options: A. holding that state law is immaterial for fourth amendment search analysis and refusing to suppress evidence obtained illegally under state law after warrantless arrest because the arrest rules that the officers violated were those of state law alone and as we have just concluded it is not the province of the fourth amendment to enforce state law that amendment does not require the exclusion of evidence obtained from a constitutionally permissible arrest B. holding that it is not C. holding that exclusion of evidence is not mandated by the fourth amendment since important as it is in our society it does not call for imposition of judicial sanctions where enforcing officers have followed the law with such punctilious regard as they have here D. holding that it is clear that ebys misrepresentation claim as it is presented here is a contractual one E. holding that the observation of evidence in plain view is not a search for purposes of the fourth amendment and does not require a warrant

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that exclusion of evidence is not mandated by the fourth amendment since important as it is in our society it does not call for imposition of judicial sanctions where enforcing officers have followed the law with such punctilious regard as they have here
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 arbitration proceeding in which the amount in controversy is $5,000,000.00 or less will be decided by a single arbitrator selected according to the Rules, and who shall not render an award of greater than $5,000,000.00. Any dispute in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.00 shall be decided by majority vote of a panel of three arbitrators; provided however, that all three arbitrators must actively participate in all hearings and deliberations. The arbitrator will be a neutral attorney licensed in Oregon or a neutral retired judge of the state or federal judiciary of Oregon, in either case with a minimum of ten years’ experience in the substantive law applicable to the subject matter of the dispute to be arbitrated. The arbitrator will determine whether or not an issue is arbitratable and will give effect to the statutes of limitation in determining any claim. In any arbitration proceeding the arbitrator will decide (by documents only or with a hearing at the arbitrator’s discretion) any pre-hearing motions which are similar to motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim or motions for summary adjudication. The arbitrator shall resolve all disputes in accordance with the substantive law of Oregon and may grant any remedy or relief that a court of such state could order or grant within the scope hereof and such ancillary relief as is necessary to make effective any award. The arbitrator shall also have the power to award recovery of all costs and fees, to impose sanctions and to take such other action as the arbitrator deems necessary to the same extent a judge could pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the corresponding rules of practice and procedure in Oregon or other applicable law. Judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. The institution and maintenance of an action for judicial relief or pursuit of a provisional or ancillary remedy shall not constitute a waiver of the right of any party, including the plaintiff, to submit the controversy or claim to arbitration if any other party contests such action for judicial relief.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: for example, notes that a number of elements in the consent decree go beyond the remedies sought in the Complaint, and suggests that the decree should simply enjoin collusion and punish the alleged colluders rather than compelling the Settling Defendants to terminate their contracts with third-party retailers. Apple argues that the decree should do no more than preclude the Settling Defendants from coercing retailers to adopt the agency model, since this is what the Complaint alleges that the defendants did as to Amazon. A variety of comments note that neither agency agreements nor vertical price restraints are necessarily disallowed under the antitrust laws. On this latter point of law, at least, these comments are undoubtedly correct. See Leegin, 551 U.S. at 882, 127 S.Ct. 2705 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Gen. Elec. Co., 272 U.S. Options: A. holding vertical price restraints subject to the rule of reason B. holding that plaintiff was entitled to sue under rule 10b5 for the difference between the price and the value received from the sale of the security where as here the evil is not the price at which plaintiff bought but the fact of being induced to buy C. holding that vertical minimum pricefixing agreements like vertical maximum pricefixing agreements should be evaluated under the traditional rule of reason D. holding that a maximum vertical price maintenance scheme is not per se illegal E. holding nonprice vertical restrictions are analyzed under the rule of reason

assistant: The best answer is A. holding vertical price restraints subject to the rule of reason
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: During the term of the Executive’s Employment, the Executive shall be eligible to accrue 17 days’ vacation per year on a pro-rata basis throughout the year, in accordance with the Company’s standard policy for senior management, including provisions with respect to maximum accrual, as it may be amended from time to time. During the term of the Executive’s Employment, the Executive shall be eligible to participate in any employee benefit plans maintained by the Company for senior management, subject in each case to the generally applicable terms and conditions of the plan in question and to the determinations of any person or committee administering such plan, and to the right of the Company to make changes in such plans from time to time.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.” Kramer v. Kemna, 21 F.3d 305, 309 (8th Cir.1994). This does not automatically lead to a conclusion that counsel was ineffective however, because even if we assume that counsel’s failure to interview Morales did not meet an objective standard of conduct, Vazquez still needs to “make a substantial showing that, but for counsel’s failure to interview ... the witness[ ] in question, there is a reasonable probability that the result of his trial would have been different.” Id. Vazquez has not made the substantial showing required of him in this case. He has not provided any independent evidence to the court as to what Morales would have allegedly said had be been interviewed or called to testify. See Sanders v. Trickey, 875 F.2d 205, 210 (8th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 898, 110 S.Ct. 252, Options: A. holding that appellant who filed a 2255 motion but produced no affidavit from the witness in question or any other independent support for his claim failed to show prejudice because he offered only speculation that he was prejudiced by his counsels failure to interview the witness which was not enough to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial as required by strickland B. holding that the defendants due process rights were violated when the trial judge singled out the only defense witness and indicated to that witness that he expected the witness to he and would personally ensure that the witness was prosecuted for perjury and thereby effectively drove that witness off the stand C. holding that not only the employees testimony at the grievance hearing but also the affidavit that he filed and his agreement to be listed as a potential witness were entitled to protection D. recognizing that in order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel a movant must show that he was prejudiced by his counsels performance E. holding that even if counsels performance in advising defendant to elect punishment by the court was deficient he failed to show prejudice because he had not filed a sworn motion for community supervision

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that appellant who filed a 2255 motion but produced no affidavit from the witness in question or any other independent support for his claim failed to show prejudice because he offered only speculation that he was prejudiced by his counsels failure to interview the witness which was not enough to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial as required by strickland
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: unless the arbitrator determines that your claim was frivolous or filed for the purpose of harassment , airbnb agrees it will not seek , and hereby waives all rights it may have under applicable law or the aaa rules , to recover attorneys ' fees and expenses if it prevails in arbitration .

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: and expand the “bom alive” rule to cover the present situation—a pregnant woman’s ingestion of an illegal controlled substance that results in harm to the subsequently born child. In so ruling, we note that “[t]he legislature has the primary right to define crimes and their punishments subject, only to certain constitutional limitations.” Atkinson, Syllabus Point 1. Finally, we note that the overwhelming majority of the jurisdictions confronted with the prosecution of a mother for prenatal conduct causing harm to the subsequently bom child, refuse to permit su t be held criminally liable under a reckless endangerment statute for the effect that prenatal ingestion of a controlled substance may have on her child, pre- or post-birth); State v. Aiwohi, 109 Hawai’i 115, 123 P.3d 1210 (2005) (<HOLDING>); State v. Deborah J.Z., supra (holding that Options: A. holding that a woman possessed immunity from criminal prosecution for causing injury or death to her fetus B. holding that the definition of person in the hawaii manslaughter statute did not include a fetus and thus did not apply when a woman caused the death of her fetus by smoking crystal methamphetamine C. holding that fetus was not a human being for purposes of attempted firstdegree intentional homicide and firstdegree reckless injury statutes D. holding for purposes of establishing the offense of reckless manslaughter against a pregnant woman a fetus is not a person E. holding a fetus is not a child person or individual for purposes of criminal prosecution under the reckless injury to a child statute

assistant: The best answer is D. holding for purposes of establishing the offense of reckless manslaughter against a pregnant woman a fetus is not a person
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: To the extent applicable, the Plan shall be interpreted and applied consistent and in accordance with Section 409A of the Code and Department of Treasury regulations and other interpretive guidance issued thereunder. Notwithstanding any provision of the Plan to the contrary, to the extent that the Plan Administrator determines that any payments or benefits under the Plan may not be either compliant with or exempt from Section 409A of the Code and related Department of Treasury guidance, the Plan Administrator may in its sole discretion adopt such amendments to the Plan or take such other actions that the Plan Administrator determines are necessary or appropriate to (i) exempt the compensation and benefits payable under the Plan from Section 409A of the Code and/or preserve the intended tax treatment of such compensation and benefits, or (ii) comply with the requirements of Section 409A of the Code and related Department of Treasury guidance; provided , however , that this Section 6.1 shall not create any obligation on the part of the Plan Administrator to adopt any such amendment or take any other action, nor shall the Company have any liability for failing to do so.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company hereby agrees to continue to employ the Executive, and the Executive hereby accepts continued employment with the Company, under the terms set forth in this Agreement. The Executive will serve as the Senior Vice President and Chief Medical Officer and shall perform such duties as are ordinary, customary and necessary in such role. The Executive will report directly to the President and CEO. The Executive shall devote his full business time, skill and attention to the performance of his duties on behalf of the Company.

assistant: Titles
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 reserve the right , in our absolute discretion , to modify or terminate any free trial offer , your access to the premium services during the free trial , or any of these terms without notice and with no liability .

assistant: Limitation of liability, Unilateral change, Unilateral termination
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: Issuer will at all times after the Initial Closing Date, at its own expense, keep or cause the Insurance Manager under the Insurance Agreement to keep each Portfolio Railcar insured with insurers of recognized responsibility with a rating of at least A-/7 by A.M. Best Company (or a comparable rating by a nationally or internationally recognized rating group of comparable stature) or by other insurers approved in writing by the Requisite Majority, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, in amounts and against risks and with deductibles and terms and conditions not less beneficial to the insured thereunder than the insurance, if any, maintained by the Manager with respect to similar equipment which it owns or leases, but in no event shall such coverage be for amounts or against risks less than the Prudent Industry Practice. In addition, Issuer shall cause the Insurance Manager to maintain insurance at levels and amounts as set forth in any Series Supplement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: The time frame given in the Arrest Warrant Affidavit for the exchange of money with the Cl overlaps with the time frame during which Defendant was at his mother’s house. Consequently, the affidavits do not impugn the veracity of the Investigating Officers because they are not inconsistent with what the police claim to have observed. The Defendant also maintains that the Investigating Officers must have lied about the April 19 sale because he was wearing a blue shirt that night, contrary to the facts as reported in the Arrest Warrant Affidavit. When a defendant offers proof of actual inaccuracies that are or should be within police knowledge, he has met his preliminary burden under the first prong of the Franks test. See, e.g., United States v. Stanert, 762 F.2d 775, 780 (9th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); Yusuf, 2005 WL 1592928, at *8-5 (holding that Options: A. holding that police officers have a duty to conduct an investigation into the basis of the witness report B. holding that witness statements in police report inadmissible C. holding that failure to investigate fully is not evidence of affiants reckless disregard for the truth because questioning of others might have caused a leak in the drug investigation D. holding that defendant made preliminary showing where the proffered evidence the investigation report contradicted the affiants statements E. holding that statements made to internal investigator of employer were made in an investigation under this subchapter where investigation was pursuant to a charge filed with eeoc

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that defendant made preliminary showing where the proffered evidence the investigation report contradicted the affiants 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: reported in a New Jersey opinion those cases must be regarded as authority). The courts of all other jurisdictions agree that a partner execute ing a guaranty in the name of the partnership is engaging in a transaction that is uncommon to the business of the partnership and will be binding on the partnership only if that partner has the express authority of the entire partnership to act. See, e.g., In re 9221 Associates v. Industrial State Bank, No.CIV.A.91-0196-CV-W-1, 1991 WL 405172, at *3 (W.D.Mo. Oct. 7, 1991) (“holding that [wjhere the limited partners have not ratified the transaction, a partnership is not bound by a promissory note or mortgage executed by a general partner acting beyond the scope of his authority.”); Luddington v. Bodenvest Ltd., 855 P.2d 204, 207 (Utah 1993) (<HOLDING>); Jamestown Banking Co. v. Conneaut Lake Dock & Options: A. holding a mechanic working in a garage owned by a partnership is an employee of the partnership not the individual partner B. holding one partner can not sic maintain an action at law against another partner to recover an amount claimed by him by reason of partnership transactions until there has been a final settlement of the affairs of the partnership C. holding that a partner who is without actual authority has no power to bind the partnership in a transaction that is not within the ordinary and apparent scope of the partnership business any person dealing with a partner can only rely on the partners acts if they are within the ordinary and apparent scope of the partnership business D. holding that a partnership agreement that contained prohibitions against the sale or assignment of a partners interest in the partnership without the others consent would be enforced E. holding that absent an agreement to the contrary any partner can act as an agent of the partnership when apparently carrying on in the usual way the business of the partnership

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a partner who is without actual authority has no power to bind the partnership in a transaction that is not within the ordinary and apparent scope of the partnership business any person dealing with a partner can only rely on the partners acts if they are within the ordinary and apparent scope of the partnership business