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 Agreement, including any Exhibits or Attachments to the Agreement, and this First Amendment constitute the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersede all previous agreements, oral or written, between the Parties concerning the subject matter hereof. No modification or amendment of the terms of the Agreement or this First Amendment shall be effective except by a writing executed by both Parties.

assistant: Entire Agreements
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 Restricted Stock may not be sold, transferred, pledged, assigned or otherwise alienated or hypothecated until its restrictions are removed or expire. The Restricted Stock may be forfeited to the Company pursuant to Section 5(b), at which time the Company shall have the right to instruct the Company’s transfer agent to transfer the Restricted Stock to the Company to be held by the Company in treasury or by any designee of the Company.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to the Plaintiffs. If Plaintiffs’ lots diminished in value, the various alleged causes for this harm — WSP’s negligence, the negligence of various engineers and contractors, the negligence of the County — are all related to privatized development and the regulation of privatized development. In sum, Plaintiffs do not state a valid takings claim under any takings theory, and Pima County is entitled to summary judgment on this claim. 2. Pima County is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim In order to state a claim for substantive due process, Plaintiffs must allege that Pima County engaged in arbitrary and irrational conduct that deprived Plaintiffs of a legally cognizable interest in their real property. See Lingle, 544 U.S. at 542, 125 S.Ct. 2074 (<HOLDING>). In the present case, Plaintiffs have alleged Options: A. holding that although state is not required to operate welfare program it must do so in accordance with the due process clause B. holding that a termination of a government contract does not constitute a taking of the plaintiffs property without just compensation or without due process of law C. holding that to comport with due process the legislation must have a rational basis for the deprivation and may not be so inadequate that the judiciary will characterize it as arbitrary D. holding that deprivation of real property although it would no longer constitute a taking might be so arbitrary or irrational that it runs afoul of the due process clause E. holding that deprivation of property must conform to due process principles

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that deprivation of real property although it would no longer constitute a taking might be so arbitrary or irrational that it runs afoul of the due process clause
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: intentionally or unintentionally violate any applicable local , state , national or international law , including , but not limited to , regulations promulgated by the u.s. securities and exchange commission , any rules of any national or other securities exchange , including , without limitation , the new york stock exchange , the american stock exchange , or the nasdaq , and any regulations having the force of law ;

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: P.J., and O’CONNELL, J., concurred with MURRAY, J. 1 The DOC also argued that plaintiffs failure to verify the complaint and failure to comply with the disclosure requirements of MCL 600.5507(2) as set forth in the prison litigation reform act, MCL 600.5501 et seq., each independently warranted dismissal. The court ultimately rejected the former argument, while the DOC voluntarily withdrew the latter. 2 This Court previously dismissed plaintiff’s jurisdictional challenge. Rusha v Dep’t of Corrections, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered May 29, 2014 (Docket No. 317693). 3 Plaintiff relies almost exclusively on an unpublished decision of this Court for the proposition that statutory notice requirements are inapplicable where constitutional t 446, 451; 212 NW 207 (1927) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). 6 See Price Paper Corp v Options: A. holding that a provision of the constitution is to be construed in the sense in which it was understood by the framers and the people at the time of its adoption but that if new products or circumstances that did not exist at the time the constitutional provision was enacted fall within the meaning of the provision the constitutional provision applies to them B. holding constitutional provision selfexecuting if it grants right that can be put into operation without further legislative action C. holding that to the extent the constitutional provision permitting cities to acquire parks without their corporate limits comprehends the right of acquisition by eminent domain see 1908 const art 8 22 the provision is not selfexecuting as it merely lays down a general principle D. holding that defendants testimony that he did not see a provision in the agreement because the plaintiffcounterparty failed to direct him to the provision was insufficient as a matter of law to establish fraud and defendant was therefore bound to the terms of the provision E. holding a nexus to the united states is not required and noting the venue provision comports with us const art iii 2 cl 3

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that to the extent the constitutional provision permitting cities to acquire parks without their corporate limits comprehends the right of acquisition by eminent domain see 1908 const art 8 22 the provision is not selfexecuting as it merely lays down a general principle
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 plans and drawings (and changes thereto) shall be subject to Landlord's written approval. Landlord shall not unreasonably withhold, condition, or delay its consent to such plans and drawings. Such approval shall not constitute either (a) approval of any delay caused by Tenant or a waiver of any right or remedy that may arise as a result of such delay, or (b) Landlord's representation that such approved plans, drawings or changes comply with all applicable governmental laws, codes, orders, rules or regulations. Any deficiency in design or construction, although same had prior approval of Landlord, shall be solely the responsibility of Tenant. All materials and equipment furnished by Tenant shall be new or like-new and all work shall be done in a good and workmanlike manner. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, any alterations or improvements which connect into the Base Building Systems (as defined in the Lease), or which are made to the exterior of the Third Expansion Premises or the Building, or which are visible from the exterior of the Third Expansion Premises or the Building shall be subject to Landlord's prior written approval, in its sole and absolute discretion. To the extent that Landlord does not have a third party review the plans and drawings (or changes thereof) provided by Tenant in connection with Tenant's Work, Landlord shall advise Tenant within seven (7) business days after receiving any request for such approval (including receipt of such reasonable plans and drawings) whether or not Landlord approves such plans and drawings (or changes thereof) (or if disapproval, the specific reasons for such disapproval). If Landlord does hire a third party to review any such plans and drawings (or changes thereto), then the time period for reviewing such plans and drawings (or changes thereto) shall be extended from seven (7) business days to ten (10) business days. In the event Tenant is required to resubmit plans or drawings (or changes thereto) for approval, Landlord shall respond to such resubmitted plans and drawings (or changes thereto) within five (5) business days after Tenant's submission of a complete set thereof. If Landlord fails to respond to a submission of plans and drawings (or changes thereto) within the time frames set forth above, and Landlord also fails to respond to Tenant within three (3) business days after Landlord's receipt of a second written request for Landlord's approval (which second request states in bold capital letters that the request will be deemed approved if Landlord fails to respond within the three (3) business day period) then, Landlord shall be deemed to have approved the same as submitted, however such “deemed approval” concept shall not apply with respect to improvements affecting the base Building structure or the Base Building Systems.

assistant: Approvals
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 this Court. The documents presented to the Court are not forms as prescribed by the Secretary of which the Debtors have verified under penalty of perjury. Instead, the Debtors submitted affidavits of Charles D. Tobias and documents entitled “Actual and Constructive Notice of Declaration.” In filing bankruptcy, the Debtors have sought this Court’s protection from creditors, including the Internal Revenue Service. However, the Debtors have continued to ig nore this Court’s orders and the Internal Revenue laws in failing to file tax returns. The Court finds that the Debtors’ disregard of this Court’s orders as well as their duty to file tax returns is evidence that the Debtors lacked good faith in filing this bankruptcy case. Matter of Crayton, 169 B.R. 243, 245 (Bankr.S.D.Ga.1994) (<HOLDING>). Section 1307(c) of Title 11 provides that Options: A. holding that failure to file correct tax returns constitutes bad faith and makes it difficult for the court to confirm a plan B. holding that a debtors right to strip off a wholly unsecured lien is conditioned on the debtors obtaining confirmation of and performing under a chapter 13 plan that meets all of the statutory requirements rather than on a debtors discharge C. holding that order denying confirmation of plan became final when upon being notified that the debtors did not intend to seek confirmation of an alternate plan the court dismissed their case D. holding that debtors failure to pay postconfirmation taxes pursuant to terms of court order constituted cause for dismissal as a lack of good faith E. holding on an objection to confirmation of plan that the debtors failure to file tax returns before filing the chapter 13 plan and debtors failure for six months to comply with federal law constituted a lack of good faith sufficient to warrant dismissal of the case

assistant: The best answer is E. holding on an objection to confirmation of plan that the debtors failure to file tax returns before filing the chapter 13 plan and debtors failure for six months to comply with federal law constituted a lack of good faith sufficient to warrant dismissal of the case
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As of the date hereof, the authorized capital stock of the Company consists of: (i) 375,000,000 shares of Common Stock, of which approximately 22,081,928 shares are issued and outstanding; and (ii) no shares of preferred stock. Except as disclosed in the SEC Documents, no shares are reserved for issuance pursuant to the Company’s stock option plans, no shares are reserved for issuance pursuant to securities (other than the Note) exercisable for, or convertible into or exchangeable for shares of Common Stock and 1,238,614 shares are reserved for issuance upon conversion of the Note. All of such outstanding shares of capital stock are, or upon issuance will be, duly authorized, validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable. No shares of capital stock of the Company are subject to preemptive rights or any other similar rights of the shareholders of the Company or any liens or encumbrances imposed through the actions or failure to act of the Company. Except as disclosed in the SEC Documents, as of the effective date of this Agreement, (i) there are no outstanding options, warrants, scrip, rights to subscribe for, puts, calls, rights of first refusal, agreements, understandings, claims or other commitments or rights of any character whatsoever relating to, or securities or rights convertible into or exchangeable for any shares of capital stock of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, or arrangements by which the Company or any of its Subsidiaries is or may become bound to issue additional shares of capital stock of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, (ii) there are no agreements or arrangements under which the Company or any of its Subsidiaries is obligated to register the sale of any of its or their securities under the 1933 Act and (iii) there are no anti-dilution or price adjustment provisions contained in any security issued by the Company (or in any agreement providing rights to security holders) that will be triggered by the issuance of the Note or the Conversion Shares. The Company has filed in its SEC Documents true and correct copies of the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation as in effect on the date hereof (“Certificate of Incorporation”), the Company’s By-laws, as in effect on the date hereof (the “By-laws”), and the terms of all securities convertible into or exercisable for Common Stock of the Company and the material rights of the holders thereof in respect thereto. The Company shall provide the Buyer with a written update of this representation signed by the Company’s Chief Executive on behalf of the Company as of the Closing Date.

assistant: Capitalization
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 anything to the contrary in the Award Agreement or the Plan, Grantee shall not be entitled to, and shall not claim any benefit (including without limitation a legal right) under the Plan if the provision of such benefit would give rise to a breach of Part 2D.2 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the "Act"), any other provision of the Act, or any other applicable statute, rule or regulation which limits or restricts the giving of such benefits.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: appellant) must include at least one of three statements in his notice of appeal. The three statements are: 1) that the appeal involves a jurisdictional defect, 2) that the substance of the appeal was raised below by written motion and ruled upon by the court, or 3) that the trial court granted permission to appeal. Tex.R.App. P. 25.2(b)(3). Moreover, it is the inclusion of these statements which vests us with jurisdiction over the appeal. Should they be omitted, we are restricted to considering only those points averring jurisdictional defects or impugning the voluntariness of the initial plea. Flowers v. State, 935 S.W.2d 131, 134 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (involving the predecessor to the current rule of appellate procedure); see Watson v. State, 924 S.W.2d 711, 714-15 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (<HOLDING>). As previously mentioned, appellant pled Options: A. recognizing that an appellants obligation to timely perfect her appeal from the general sessions court is mandatory and if it is not complied with the circuit court has no jurisdiction B. recognizing that exception to requirement of timely filing of notice of appeal exists in cases where defendant either was not told of right to appeal or was not furnished attorney to exercise those rights or was furnished attorney for that purpose who failed to perfect and complete appeal C. holding that prejudice should be presumed where counsel filed notice of appeal but failed to perfect the direct appeal D. holding that the rule also applies to those attempting to perfect an appeal after their community supervision is revoked and they are adjudicated guilty E. holding that a notice of appeal filed when an appeal bond is required to perfect is a bona fide attempt to invoke appellate jurisdiction and that the court of appeals dismissal was improper without first affording an opportunity to correct the defective perfection of appeal

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the rule also applies to those attempting to perfect an appeal after their community supervision is revoked and they are adjudicated guilty
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 immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. Because the transitional rules apply, see Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997), our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We review de novo, Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.2002), and deny the petition. Garza-Gorena’s sole contention is that he is a U.S. citizen and therefore cannot be removed for his criminal offenses. GarzaGorena’s alienage has been established twice, in his 1974 deportation hearing and in his 1987 conviction for illegal re-entry pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326. General principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel prevent him from re-litigating matters that were finally resolved in earlier proceedings. See Ramon-Sepulveda v. INS, 824 F.2d 749, 750 (9th Cir.1987) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); see also Pena-Cabanillas v. U.S., 394 F.2d Options: A. holding res judicata ie claim preclusion doctrine applies to consent judgments B. holding res judicata also applies to those in privity with parties C. holding that res judicata applies when the question of jurisdiction is raised and determined D. holding that the doctrine of res judicata applies to deportation proceedings E. holding that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to defenses that could have been raised in a prior action

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the doctrine of res judicata applies to deportation proceedings
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 and any of its Affiliates are authorized to withhold from any Award granted, or any payment relating to an Award under the Plan, including from a distribution of Stock, amounts of withholding and other taxes due or potentially payable in connection with any transaction involving an Award, and to take such other action as the Committee may deem advisable to enable the Company, its Affiliates and Participants to satisfy obligations for the payment of withholding taxes and other tax obligations relating to any Award. The Committee shall determine, in its sole discretion, the form of payment acceptable for such tax withholding obligations, including, without limitation, the delivery of cash or cash equivalents, Stock (including previously owned shares, net settlement, a broker-assisted sale, or other cashless withholding or reduction of the amount of shares otherwise issuable or delivered pursuant to the Award), other property, or any other legal consideration the Committee deems appropriate. Any determination made by the Committee to allow a Participant who is subject to Rule 16b-3 to pay taxes with shares of Stock through net settlement or previously owned shares shall be approved by either a committee made up of solely two or more Qualified Members or the full Board. If such tax obligations are satisfied through net settlement or previously owned shares, the maximum number of shares of Stock that may be so withheld (or surrendered) shall be the number of shares of Stock that have an aggregate Fair Market Value on the date of withholding or repurchase equal to the aggregate amount of such tax liabilities determined based on the greatest withholding rates for federal, state, foreign and/or local tax purposes, including payroll taxes, that may be utilized without creating adverse accounting treatment with respect to such Award, as determined by the Committee.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event Executive’s employment hereunder is terminated by reason of Executive’s death, the Company shall pay Executive’s designated beneficiary or beneficiaries, within thirty (30) days of Executive’s death in a lump sum in cash, (i) Executive’s Base Salary through the end of the month in which death occurs, and (ii) any other Accrued Obligations (as defined in Section 1(f) below).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: (Fed.Cir.2004); Spherix, Inc. v. United States, 62 Fed.Cl. 497, 505 (2004). 1. A Permanent Injunction Regarding Sole-Source Solicitation No. F45613-03- QA068 And Contract No. FA4620-04- D-A003 Is Warranted. a. Success On The Merits. For the reasons previously discussed, the record in this case supports by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiffs claim that the Air Force’s decision to issue Sole-Source Solicitation No. F4561303-Q-A068 and award Waste Management— Washington Contract No. FA4620-04-DA003 wa tract and secure any resulting profit has been recognized as “significant harm” to issue an injunction. See United Int’l Investigative Servs., Inc. v. United States, 41 Fed.Cl. 312, 323 (1998); see also Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, 710 F.2d 806, 809 (Fed.Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); International Res. Recovery, Inc. v. United Options: A. holding that potential loss of a contract constitutes irreparable injury B. holding that where the uncontradicted evidence shows that a former employee is working for a direct competitor no finding of irreparable injury is necessary to support a permanent injunction to protect trade secrets because irreparable injury is established as a matter of law C. holding that even when likelihood of success has been established the absence of irreparable injury standing alone makes preliminary injunctive relief improper D. holding that evidence of specific competitive injury establishes irreparable injury warranting injunctive relief E. holding that injunctive relief may be warranted where there is a particularly strong likelihood of success on the merits even if there is a relatively slight showing of irreparable injury

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that evidence of specific competitive injury establishes irreparable injury warranting injunctive relief
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 Committee may amend, modify or terminate this Award Certificate without approval of Grantee; provided, however, that such amendment, modification or termination shall not, without Grantee’s consent, reduce or diminish the value of this award determined as if it had been fully vested (i.e., as if all restrictions on the Shares hereunder had expired) on the date of such amendment, modification or termination.

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: plaintiff does not fairly and adequately represent the interests of the shareholders or members similarly situated in enforcing the right of the corporation or association.”). The Court does not believe that Mr. Chien can fairly and adequately represent the interests of Skystar’s shareholders for many reasons, chief among them that Mr. Chien is unrepresented and proceeding pro se; that he struggles with the English language; that he seems to lack even a basic understanding of the law; that he was previously sanctioned for bringing a frivolous lawsuit against these same Defendants; and that he has exhibited an animosity towards Defendants that is above and beyond what is generally expected during the normal course of litigation. See Phillips v. Tobin, 548 F.2d 408, 413-15 (2d Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>). In his First Amended Complaint, Mr. Chien Options: A. holding that pro se litigant cannot act as representative in derivative suit and stating that we can find no reason or justification for permitting the corporation or the other shareholders to be subjected involuntarily to the risks of this plaintiffs transgressions distractions and deficiencies as their advocate B. holding a court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond C. holding a pro per litigant to the same standard as an attorney D. holding that a defendant proceeding pro se is bound by same rules as party represented by counsel and a court cannot allow pro se litigant lower standard of performance E. holding that corporation could not assign rights to pro se litigant to circumvent rule that corporation must be represented by licensed attorney

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that pro se litigant cannot act as representative in derivative suit and stating that we can find no reason or justification for permitting the corporation or the other shareholders to be subjected involuntarily to the risks of this plaintiffs transgressions distractions and deficiencies as their advocate
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: Borrower (a) is a corporation duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the jurisdiction of its formation, (b) is duly qualified and in good standing as a foreign corporation or company in each other jurisdiction in which it owns or leases property or in which the conduct of its business requires it to so qualify or be licensed except where the failure to so qualify or be licensed would not be reasonably likely to have a Material Adverse Effect, and (c) has all requisite corporate power and authority to enter into the Loan Documents to which it is a party. Borrower is not an EEA Financial Institution.

assistant: Organizations
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: 487 U.S. 1242, 108 S.Ct. 2918, 101 L.Ed.2d 949 (1988); Julius v. Johnson, 840 F.2d 1533, 1540 (11th Cir.) (allowing double-counting of felony-murder factor), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 960, 109 S.Ct. 404, 102 L.Ed.2d 392 (1988). I. Improper Prosecution Arguments Coe cites four statements made by the prosecution at the sentencing stage that he claims were improper. First, Coe complains that the prosecutor improperly injected his expertise into his death-penalty argument. The prosecutor said that he took his decision to seek the death penalty very seriously; that the decision was difficult; that he had only ever requested the death penalty once before. Coe cites Eleventh Circuit precedent that is directly on point. See, e.g., Brooks v. Kemp, 762 F.2d 1383, 1410 (11th Cir.1985) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). But Kemp ultimately held the error to be Options: A. holding very similar commentsto be prejudicial B. holding that the special needs exception did not apply to very similar facts C. recognizing similar duties D. holding that explicit finding that probative value of similar transactions outweighed their prejudicial impact is not required E. holding that erroneous admission of improper and prejudicial evidence did not require reversal because the jury would have returned a verdict of guilty against the defendant even without the prejudicial testimony

assistant: The best answer is A. holding very similar commentsto be prejudicial
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: claims set forth in Counts III, TV and I respectively. Count VIII alleges a claim for “inducing refusals to deal under the Illinois Antitrust Act.” Although Menasha did not raise a refusal to deal allegation in its Sherman Act claims, the threshold requirement of defining the relevant market is applied with equal force in the context of refusals to deal. See Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585, 595, 105 S.Ct. 2847, 86 L.Ed.2d 467 (1985). Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Court’s discussion of Menasha’s Sherman Act claims, News America is entitled to summary judgment on Counts V-VIII of Menasha’s Complaint. See A & A Disposal and Recycling, Inc. v. Browning-Ferris Industries of Illinois, Inc., 279 Ill.App.3d 337, 215 Ill.Dec. 954, 664 N.E.2d 351 (1996)(<HOLDING>). Menasha’s Unfair Competition and Tortious Options: A. holding that a plaintiffs failure to establish a welldefined relevant market entitles a defendant to summary judgment for claims under section 3 of the illinois antitrust act B. holding because trial court fully considered plaintiffs response to summary judgment motion failure to render summary judgment without notice or hearing harmless thus trial court was not required to vacate the summary judgment and then reinstate it to accomplish the same end C. holding that the trial court correctly entered summary judgment in favor of defendant and denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment where plaintiff failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that defendant breached its duty to act in good faith D. holding that the court had an adequate record to grant the defendants motion for summary judgment because the relevant evidence would have been in plaintiffs possession E. holding that plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim under section 1 of the sherman act

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a plaintiffs failure to establish a welldefined relevant market entitles a defendant to summary judgment for claims under section 3 of the illinois antitrust act
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: reports created by Citco NV. 45 .See Def. Mem. at 10. 46 . Indeed, the same reasoning that the court used in LaSalle — upon which plaintiffs rely— applies here. See 951 F.Supp. at 1093. In LaSalle, the court found that defendant, a bond rating company, could nevertheless be liable to plaintiffs with whom defendant had no contact. See id. at 1093-94. The court reasoned that "[k]nowledge of the identity of each particular plaintiff is not necessary, however, if the defendant's representation is designed to target a 'select group of qualified investors' rather than 'the public at large.’ " See id. at 1093 (quoting Schwartz v. Michaels, No. 91 Civ. 3538, 1992 WL 184527, at *32 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 1992)). 47 . See Def. Mem. at 2. 48 . See id. at 2-3; Pension Committee, 2007 WL 528703, at *6 (<HOLDING>). 49 . See Def. Mem. at 5-6. 50 . See Def. Options: A. holding that where summary judgment is granted on the underlying tort claims a conspiracy claim must also fail B. holding that claims brought under section 10b of the securities exchange act and rico claims were arbitrable C. recognizing that withholding of removal claims must fail if petitioner is unable to show the objective likelihood of persecution needed to make out an asylum claim and the claims are based on the same factual predicate D. holding that the fraudbased common law claims against the citco defendants fail for the same reason that the section 10b claims fail E. recognizing that withholding of removal and cat claims necessarily fail if the applicant is unable to show the objective likelihood of persecution needed to make out an asylum claim and the factual predicate for the claims is the same

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the fraudbased common law claims against the citco defendants fail for the same reason that the section 10b claims fail
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: CURIAM. Although this case reflects a tragic workplace accident that cost Olegario Rin-con his life, there was insufficient evidence that his supervisors acted with culpable negligence within the meaning of section 440.11(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2009), as is required to remove this case from the ambit of the laws of Worker’s Compensation. See Fla. Dep’t of Transp. v. Juliano, 864 So.2d 11, 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>); Mekamy Oaks, Inc. v. Snyder, 659 So.2d 1290, Options: A. holding there is no right to a specific dollar remedy B. holding that defendants were not in control and therefore were not supervisors and not subject to liability under 1983 C. holding that if appellate court determines segregation was required but not done proper remedy is not that party recover no fees but that judgment be reversed and the case remanded for more evidence D. holding there was no evidence of culpable negligence where supervisors were merely aware of poor condition and could have done more to remedy it E. holding that erroneous manslaughter instruction that defendant intentionally caused the death of the victim did not constitute fundamental error certifying question if a jury returns a verdict finding a defendant guilty of seconddegree murder in a case where the evidence does not support a theory of culpable negligence does a trial court commit fundamental error by giving a flawed manslaughter by act instruction when it also gives an instruction on manslaughter by culpable negligence

assistant: The best answer is D. holding there was no evidence of culpable negligence where supervisors were merely aware of poor condition and could have done more to remedy it
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 foregoing representations and warranties shall survive the Closing. The Company acknowledges and agrees that the representations contained in Section 3.2 shall not modify, amend or affect such Purchaser’s right to rely on the Company’s representations and warranties contained in this Agreement or any representations and warranties contained in any other Transaction Document or any other document or instrument executed and/or delivered in connection with this Agreement or the consummation of the transaction contemplated hereby.

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: he or she is innocent of these allegations would do. Wyche and McCord are thus archetypal eicirmsic-fabrication cases. Moreover, the confession cases the majority relies upon are wholly distinguishable. Many of these confession cases involve situations where the police lie to the suspect by falsely claiming that a eodefen-dant has already confessed and implicated the suspect, so the suspect might as well come clean. See, e.g., Frazier, 394 U.S. at 739, 89 S.Ct. 1420; Burch, 343 So.2d at 833 (substantially similar, but involving “failed polygraph” ruse). Even in those cases that do not involve this precise species of misrepresentation, the misrepresentation is still intrinsic to the case the police are actually investigating. See, e.g., Escobar v. State, 699 So.2d 988, 994 (Fla. 1997) (<HOLDING>), abrogated on other grounds by Connor v. Options: A. holding that physical brutality led to an involuntary confession B. holding that impermissible police procedures rendered confession involuntary C. holding that agents promise to inform prosecutor of defendants cooperation does not render a subsequent confession involuntary D. holding that later declarations during defendants confession leading officers to evidence of the crime constituted part of one continuous confession that began at the police station E. holding that pjolice misrepresentation alone does not necessarily render a confession involuntary in the context of a case where police allegedly misrepresented that they possessed physical evidence of the crime at issue

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that pjolice misrepresentation alone does not necessarily render a confession involuntary in the context of a case where police allegedly misrepresented that they possessed physical evidence of the crime at issue
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: 704(a); see also United States v. Wantuch, 525 F.3d 505, 513 (7th Cir.2008). But this rule “does not lower the bars so as to admit all opinions.” Fed.R.Evid. 704 advisory committee’s note. The evidence must be otherwise admissible as lay testimony under Rule 701, United States v. Baskes, 649 F.2d 471, 478-79 (7th Cir.1980), or expert testimony under Rule 702, United States v. Scavo, 593 F.2d 837, 844 (8th Cir.1979). Most importantly for our purposes, the testimony must be helpful to the trier of fact under either rule. Fed.R.Evid. 704 advisory committee’s note; see also Fed.R.Evid. 701(b), 702. We have held repeatedly that lay testimony offering a legal conclusion is inadmissible because it is not helpful to the jury, as required by Rule 701(b). See, e.g., Wantuch, 525 F.3d at 514 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Espino, 32 F.3d 253, 257 Options: A. holding that the timing of the alleged actions of the prosecutor supported the courts conclusion that the prosecutors actions were associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process instead of the investigatory phase because the conduct occurred one month before plaintiffs trial and more than five years after the grand jury indicted plaintiff B. holding that the question of whether the defendant knew his actions were legal demanded a conclusion as to the legality of the defendants conduct which is unhelpful to the jury under rule 701 C. holding that the relevant question in imposing restitution under the mvra is whether the loss is caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction D. holding that it is well established that whether an employees actions were within the scope of employment is a question of fact and even if some of the actions were unauthorized the question of whether the actions were within the scope of employment is for the jury E. holding that it is error to conduct most of the jury selection process in the absence of the defendant

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the question of whether the defendant knew his actions were legal demanded a conclusion as to the legality of the defendants conduct which is unhelpful to the jury under rule 701
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 representations and warranties of each Borrower contained herein or in any other Loan Document or made in connection herewith or therewith shall survive the making of, and shall not be waived by the execution and delivery of this Agreement or any other Loan Document, any investigation by or knowledge of the Administrative Agent or any Issuer or Lender, the making of any Loan or issuance or Modification of any Letter of Credit, or any other event or condition whatever. All covenants and agreements of each Borrower contained herein or in any other Loan Document shall continue in full force and effect from and after the date hereof so long as any Borrower may borrow hereunder and until payment in full in cash of all Obligations. Without limitation, all obligations of the Borrowers hereunder or under any other Loan Document to make payments to or indemnify the Administrative Agent or any Lender shall survive the payment in full in cash of all other Obligations, termination of the Borrowers’ right to borrow hereunder, and all other events and conditions whatever, including without limitation the assignment of a Lender’s Commitments and Loans and LC Exposure hereunder. In addition, all obligations of each Lender to make payments to or indemnify the Administrative Agent shall survive the payment in full in cash by the Borrowers of all Obligations, termination of the Borrowers’ right to borrow hereunder, and all other events or conditions whatever.

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: Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed.Cir.2001). After looking at the claim language, the court can consider the remaining intrinsic evidence, Interactive Gift, 256 F.3d at 1331, however, the court “does not accord the specification, prosecution history, and other relevant evidence the same weight as the claims themselves.” Eastman Kodak Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 114 F.3d 1547, 1552 (Fed.Cir.1997) overruled on other grounds by Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1452-1455 (Fed.Cir.1998) (en banc). This hierarchy among the sources of intrinsic evidence translates into a “proscription of not reading limitations” from the specification and prosecution history into the claim language. Texas Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1204 (Fed.Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); see also Middleton, Inc. v. Minn. Mining and Options: A. holding that limitations from the specification should not be read into the claims B. holding that claims are not to be interpreted by adding limitations appearing only in the specification C. holding improper reading into claims a limitation appearing only in the specification D. holding that the general equitable tolling doctrine is read into every statute of limitations E. holding that courts must not import limitations from the specification into the claim

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that limitations from the specification should not be read into the claims
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 Partnership maintains insurance covering the properties, operations, personnel and businesses of the Rhino Entities. Such insurance insures against such losses and risks as are reasonably adequate to protect the Rhino Entities and their businesses. None of the Rhino Entities has received notice from any insurer or agent of such insurer that substantial capital improvements or other expenditures will have to be made in order to continue such insurance; all such insurance is outstanding and duly in force on the date hereof and will be outstanding and duly in force on the Closing Date.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: amazon does not warrant that the amazon services , information , content , materials , products ( including software ) or other services included on or otherwise made available to you through the amazon services , amazon 's servers or electronic communications sent from amazon are free of viruses or other harmful components .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As set forth below, under Section [**], Section [**], Section [**], Section [**] and Section [**] of that certain [**] Agreement, dated as of [**], by and between [**] has certain rights to [**].

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as otherwise defined herein or as the context may otherwise require, capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein are defined in Appendix A to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of the date hereof (as from time to time amended, supplemented or otherwise modified and in effect, the “ Sale and Servicing Agreement ”) among Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2018-1, Santander Consumer, as Servicer, the Purchaser, as Seller, and Wilmington Trust, National Association, a national banking association, as Indenture Trustee, which also contains rules as to usage that are applicable herein.

assistant: Definitions
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 SIXTH AMENDMENT AND THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES UNDER THIS SIXTH AMENDMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED AND INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. EACH PARTY HERETO HEREBY AGREES AS SET FORTH FURTHER IN SECTIONS 10.12 AND 10.16 OF THE AMENDED CREDIT AGREEMENT AS IF SUCH SECTION WERE SET FORTH IN FULL HEREIN.

assistant: Governing Laws