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: Any provision of this Agreement or the Notes which is prohibited or unenforceable in any jurisdiction shall, as to such provision and such jurisdiction, be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition or unenforceability without invalidating the remaining provisions of this Agreement or such Loan Document or affecting the validity or enforceability of such provision in any other jurisdiction.

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: The parties hereby consent to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Accordingly, with respect to any such court action, the Executive (a) submits to the personal jurisdiction of such courts; (b) consents to service of process; and (c) waives any other requirement (whether imposed by statute, rule of court, or otherwise) with respect to personal jurisdiction or service of process.

assistant: Consent To 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: The parties to each assignment shall (A) execute and deliver to the Administrative Agent an Assignment and Acceptance via an electronic settlement platform, or manually if previously confirmed, together with a processing and recordation fee of $3,500 unless waived in the sole discretion of the Administrative Agent, (B) deliver an Administrative Questionnaire unless the assignee is already a Lender and (C) deliver the documents required under Section 2.20 if such assignee is a Foreign Lender.

assistant: Assignments
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: appearing both in the record and in the briefs, we restrict our statement of the underlying facts of the case to facts alleged in TCI’s complaint that do not appear to be disputed by the parties. 2 . Greer v. Spock, it should be noted, did not hold that any military base falls automatically into the "nonforum” category. Rather, Greer held simply that, based on the facts in that case, which established that the base there had not been opened generally by the military to the public for expressive or other purposes, the base commander could constitutionally place certain content-neutral restrictions on speech on the base. See Greer, 424 U.S. at 837-838, 96 S.Ct. at .1217-1218 (distinguishing Flower v. United States, 407 U.S. 197, 92 S.Ct. 1842, 32 L.Ed.2d 653 (1972) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). 3 . The precise basis for the Ninth Circuit’s Options: A. holding that civilian distributing leaflets on military base could not constitutionally be convicted of unlawfully entering the base where the military had abandoned any right to exclude civilian vehicular and pedestrian traffic from the avenue greer 424 us at 835 96 sct at 1216 B. holding that a civilian employee injured when her automobile was hit by a military vehicle while she was driving on a road on the employers premises the military base to report to work sustained a compensable injury under the federal employees compensation act C. recognizing that suit against the government for alleged negligence of military club bartender would require questioning of a wide range of military and disciplinary decisions D. holding that a challenge of the press ban during the military action in grenada was moot after the military action ended because plaintiffs failed to allege ongoing conduct E. holding that a former spouse is a proportionate owner of the other spouses future military retirement pay and is thus entitled to onehalf of the percentage of such pay representing the number of military marriage years relative to the total length of military service

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that civilian distributing leaflets on military base could not constitutionally be convicted of unlawfully entering the base where the military had abandoned any right to exclude civilian vehicular and pedestrian traffic from the avenue greer 424 us at 835 96 sct at 1216
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: services.”). QIC confesses a lack of independence from the Plan when it states in its complaints that it “provided prescription drugs ... to [Carstens and Williby] pursuant to the terms of the Plan and the Texas AWP statute. As such, [QIC] is entitled to payment from [Humana] pursuant to the Plan....” In essence, QIC’s AWP claims are for benefits under the Plan and, thus, are completely preempted and subject to removal, regardless of any difference in their elements, see Davila, 542 U.S. at 216, 124 S.Ct. 2488, or how artful QIC is in its pleadings, see McGowin v. ManPower Int’l, Inc., 363 F.3d 556, 559 (5th Cir.2004). See also Quality Infusion, 2006 WL 3813774, at *7 (applying similar analysis to AWP); Cleghorn, v. Blue Shield of Cal., 408 F.3d 1222, 1224-26 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). As far as standing is concerned, QIC argues Options: A. holding negligent misrepresentation claim was not preempted because it neither sought benefits under plan nor alleged improper processing of benefits B. holding that claims were preempted where the factual basis of the complaint was the denial of reimbursement of plan benefits C. holding that erisa preempted a state law claim because the courts inquiry centered on the employee benefits plan at issue D. holding that an employees claim against plan administrator for denied benefits is preempted E. holding that a claim based on an insurers failure to provide emergency benefits under state law is completely preempted because the factual basis of the complaint was the denial of reimbursement of plan benefits

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a claim based on an insurers failure to provide emergency benefits under state law is completely preempted because the factual basis of the complaint was the denial of reimbursement of plan benefits
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No broker, investment banker, financial advisor or other Person is entitled to any broker’s, finder’s, financial advisor’s or other similar fee or commission for which Buyer could become responsible in connection with the Contemplated Transactions based upon arrangements made by or on behalf of any Seller.

assistant: Brokers
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: from any inbound callers to the phone lines that used non-mandatory messages. Moreover, ECMC has not submitted other persuasive evidence of express consent or “actual knowledge of recording during the Class Period followed by additional calls.” See NEI Contracting & Eng’g, Inc. v. Hanson Aggregates, Inc. (“NEI Contracting II"), No. 12-cv-01685-BAS(JLB), 2015 WL 4923510, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2015). The Court will therefore not presume that the need to resolve issues related to consent -will defeat the predominance requirement. See id. Accordingly, under these circumstances, the Court finds there is a minimal likelihood that establishing liability will require a series of individualized inquiries. See Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168, 1173 (9th Cir. 2010) (<HOLDING>). ECMC is skeptical of the sufficiency of the Options: A. holding that tolling applies to a subsequent class action when the prior denial of class certification was based solely on rule 23 deficiencies of the putative representative B. holding that the right of all putative members of a proposed class in an action filed pursuant to kansass class action rule of civil procedure to file a separate action is preserved pending the determination of whether the initial case shall be maintained as a class action C. holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification D. holding that predominance was satisfied even where class members purchased widely different products in completely unrelated markets E. holding that a putative class action satisfied predominance because the allegations were susceptible to proof by generalized evidence

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a putative class action satisfied predominance because the allegations were susceptible to proof by generalized evidence
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: it has generally been recognized that the goodwill of a professional partnership cannot be the subject of an involuntary sale or transfer. See Nail, 486 S.W.2d at 763 (and authorities cited therein). Rafati could not compel Salinas to perform the contract to satisfy partnership obligations, nor could the contract be sold to other physicians. Unlike tangible property that may be held in the name of one partner for the partnership, such as title to land, the contract between Salmas and Mercy Hospital was one for personal services to be rendered by Salinas. Given the nature of this contract, its value after dissolution should not be considered in determining Rafati’s share of the partnership assets. See Cofer v. Hearne, 459 S.W.2d 877, 881 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1970, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>). This case must nevertheless be remanded to Options: A. holding that upon dissolution of partnership of attorneys fees collected for work on cases prior to dissolution should be divided among former partners but fees for work done after dissolution went to individual partner who performed the work B. holding partners of dissolved firm are entitled to share in fees for predissolution cases earned after dissolution even when the client exercises its right to choose an attorney C. holding that your work exclusion is triggered only where the damage at issue is to work performed by you and is caused by work performed by you and does not apply to damage caused to original construction of a house during later repair work D. recognizing that the idea bars an award of attorneys fees for work performed subsequent to a settlement offer of all requested relief E. holding attorneys testimony on all work performed sufficient to support attorneys fees award even though no time records presented

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that upon dissolution of partnership of attorneys fees collected for work on cases prior to dissolution should be divided among former partners but fees for work done after dissolution went to individual partner who performed the work
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: 4. Recipient may use the Confidential Information solely for evaluation purposes in connection with Recipient business discussions with Discloser. 6. Freedom of Use. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, Recipient shall be free to use for any purposes the Residuals resulting from access to or work with Discloser's Confidential Information. However, the foregoing does not give Recipient the right to disclose (except as set forth in Section 3) the financial, statistical, or personnel information or the business plans of Discloser, and the foregoing shall not be deemed to grant to either party a license under the other party's copyright or patents. The term "Residuals" means information which may be retained in non-tangible form by person who have had access to the Confidential Information, including without limitation general ideas, concepts, know-how or techniques contained therein. Recipient certifies that the Confidential Information will only be used for the purposes expressly stated herein and will not be rented, leased, sold, sublicensed, assigned, or otherwise transferred.

assistant: No
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 Letter Agreement shall be administered, interpreted and enforced under the internal laws of the State of New Jersey, without regard to the principles of conflicts of law thereof, or principles of conflicts of law of any other jurisdiction that could cause the application of the laws of any jurisdiction other than the State of New Jersey.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: IN AN ATTEMPT TO OUTGAIN OR OUTDISTANCE ANOTHER VEHICLE. 3. NOW, IF YOU FIND FROM THE EVIDENCE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT ON OR ABOUT THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, A.D., 2007, IN BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS, THE DEFENDANT, RICKE SONY, DID THEN AND THERE INTENTIONALLY AND KNOWINGLY PARTICIPATE AS THE DRIVER OR OPERATOR OF A MOTOR VEHICLE TO OUTGAIN AND OUTDISTANCE ANOTHER VEHICLE, THEN YOU WILL FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE OF RACING AS CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION. The jury found Sony guilty, and the trial court sentenced him to thirty days in jail and a $250.00 fine. Due Process Challenge In his first issue, Sony contends section 545.420 of the Code is unconstitutional on its face. More specifically, he argues the statute is void for vagueness in violation of the Due App.1994) (<HOLDING>); Fluellen, 104 S.W.3d at 167 (“A Options: A. holding that litigant must object at trial to preserve error for review B. holding that defendant must object at trial to preserve as applied challenge for appeal C. holding that defendant did not preserve his challenge to alleged prosecutorial misconduct where he did not timely object D. holding defendant failed to preserve for appeal the question of admissibility of evidence that was the subject of the motion in limine where defendant failed to object to evidence when offered at trial E. holding appellant waived his challenge to statute as vague as applied because he did not specifically object at trial

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that defendant must object at trial to preserve as applied challenge for appeal
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 their interests. As it is clear that the administrator in selling the land for the purposes stated in the order of sale was not acting as the agent or with the consent of Rigby or his heirs, we must hold that the sale was not the voluntary sale at which Rigby intended to give the lessees the right of first refusal. It follows that the lessees had at the sale no preference over other bidders. Id. at 968, 969 (citations omitted). There are other cases which also analyze the voluntary or involuntary nature of the sale, together with the language of the agreement or other document creating the right, in determining whether an existing right of first refusal is triggered. See, e.g., Royal Oldsmobile Co. v. Heisler Props. L.L.C., Case No. 10-CA-152, 58 So.3d 483 (La.App. 5th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); Central Exec. Comm. of ODWU, Inc., v. Carbon Options: A. holding gratuitous transfer of real property to hospital did not trigger right of first refusal B. holding right of first refusal only applied to a voluntary sale and taking of property by condemnation is involuntary therefore right of first refusal not triggered C. holding courtordered sale of property to satisfy judgment against lessor was involuntary sale and did not trigger lessees right of first refusal since agreement required that lessor be a willing seller of the property D. holding united states marshals involuntary bankruptcy sale of property did not trigger right of first refusal E. holding sale of property by county taxing authority to pay delinquent taxes did not trigger right of first refusal provision contained in deed

assistant: The best answer is D. holding united states marshals involuntary bankruptcy sale of property did not trigger right of first refusal
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 business and operations of the Acquiror Company, to the knowledge of the Acquiror Company, have been and are being conducted in accordance with all applicable Laws and Orders. The Acquiror Company has not received notice of any violation (or any Proceeding involving an allegation of any violation) of any applicable Law or Order by or affecting the Acquiror Company and, to the knowledge of the Acquiror Company, no Proceeding involving an allegation of violation of any applicable Law or Order is threatened or contemplated. The Acquiror Company is not subject to any obligation or restriction of any kind or character, nor is there, to the knowledge of the Acquiror Company, any event or circumstance relating to the Acquiror Company that materially and adversely affects in any way its business, properties, assets or prospects or that prohibits the Acquiror Company from entering into this Agreement or would prevent or make burdensome its performance of or compliance with all or any part of this Agreement or the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: 10.6 skype reserves the right to refuse a refund request if it reasonably believes ( i ) that you are trying to unfairly exploit this refund policy , for example , by making repetitive refund requests in respect of the same product ; ( ii ) if you are in breach of these terms or ( iii ) if skype reasonably suspects that you are using our products or software fraudulently or that your user account is being used by a third party fraudulently .

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: Court’s holding in Montana was the notion that “[b]eeause such a [third party] has had the ‘opportunity to present proofs and argument,’ he has already ‘had his day in court’ even though he was not a formal party to the litigation.” Taylor, 128 S.Ct. at 2173(quoting Restatement 2d of Judgments § 39, Comment a, p. 302). The facts alleged by Bhatia in support of his privity argument come nowhere close to establishing privity between the government and Inderra. To be sure, the FBI was involved in a parallel criminal investigation of Bhatia while the civil suit was ongoing, but nothing in the record supports the claim that the government controlled or influenced the civil litigation, or took the “laboring oar.” See Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Inderra’s objective was understandably Options: A. holding the failure to establish identity alone is sufficient grounds to deny asylumrelated relief B. holding that numbers alone are not sufficient to establish or negate a prima facie ease C. holding that defamation standing alone is not sufficient to establish a claim for deprivation of a liberty interest citations omitted D. holding that parallel legal interests alone identical or otherwise are not sufficient to establish privity E. holding that the accrual of attorneys fees alone is sufficient to establish cause

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that parallel legal interests alone identical or otherwise are not sufficient to establish privity
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 valid, despite the fact that the Baltimore City Circuit Court has ordered a new trial in the Wallace case, collateral estoppel would not apply here because the issues litigated in the Wallace case are not identical to the one now before the court. Whether City Homes was negligent and/or made a negligent misrepresentation with respect to the Property is not the same fact or issue as whether the lead poisoning alleged in the Wallace case was accidental. Although the same subject matter is involved, the questions are not identical for purposes of collateral estoppel, as the jury in the Wallace case was not asked to decide whether City Homes actually foresaw or expected the Wallace children’s injuries. See, e.g., Sedlack v. Braswell Servs. Group, Inc., 134 F.3d 219, 224 (4th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, City Homes is not precluded from Options: A. holding insurer did not have to cover insured for a breach of contract because it was not an accident B. holding that an insureds personal belief that he was not liable for an accident provided no basis for submitting the question of the reasonableness of his delay in notification to a jury when the insured knew the day after the accident that it had been claimed that the cable he had installed had caused the accident C. holding that burden was on nonmoving party to show issue was not litigated where moving party presented supreme court opinion showing issue had been litigated D. holding that where the dispositive issue in an administrative proceeding was whether an accident occurred as the plaintiff alleged it did collateral estoppel did not bar litigation of whether the accident was workrelated because that issue had not yet been litigated E. holding that burden was on nonmoving party to show issue was not litigated where moving party presented arbitrators order showing issue had been litigated

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that where the dispositive issue in an administrative proceeding was whether an accident occurred as the plaintiff alleged it did collateral estoppel did not bar litigation of whether the accident was workrelated because that issue had not yet been litigated
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: considered by the Commission in Idaho Falls II & III and City of Tacoma—those orders involved FY 1999/FY 2000 assessments (FY 1998/FY 1999 OFA costs). 11 . We note, however, our skepticism of the petitioners’ assertion that the Congress, when it amended section 10(e) to add "including any reasonable and necessary costs incurred by Federal and State fish and wildlife agencies and other natural and cultural resource agencies in connection with studies or other reviews carried out by such agencies,” intended to limit recoverable costs to those related only to "studies and other reviews.” The use of the word "including” itself indicates that the enumerated costs are not the sole recoverable costs. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 177, 188-89, 61 S.Ct. 845, 849-50, 85 L.Ed. 1271 (1941) (<HOLDING>) ("To attribute such a function to the Options: A. holding that national labor relations act provision authorizing nlrb to take affirmative action including reinstatement of employees did not limit boards remedies to reinstatement only B. holding that a district court may have jurisdiction over action taken by the national labor relations board despite an express statutory finality provision when the agency has acted in excess of its delegated powers and contrary to a specific prohibition in the national labor relations act C. holding that userra authorized remedies including reinstatement with like status and backpay D. holding that the but for test applied in a mixed motive case under the national labor relations act E. holding that the nlrb was a creditor within the meaning of the code because it had been granted the power to enforce the national labor relations act even though a back pay award was made to individual workers not to the government

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that national labor relations act provision authorizing nlrb to take affirmative action including reinstatement of employees did not limit boards remedies to reinstatement only
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 property and (2) the property value must exceed $10,000. Van Haaften is precluded from denying either of these allegations in this subrogation action. EMCC, however, is alleging Van Haaften misappropriated $57,759.21 from PCM. The specific amount by which her theft exceeds $10,000 is not an essential element of first-degree theft. Her plea is valid whether she misappropriated $10,000.01 or $57,759.21; therefore, she had no incentive in the criminal proceeding to contest the amount by which her theft exceeded $10,000. Our reasoning is consistent with the majority of courts considering the issue that have refused to preclude litigation of damages in excess of the threshold amount needed to establish the criminal offense. United States v. Wight, 839 F.2d 193, 196 (4th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Appley v. West, 832 F.2d 1021, 1026-27 (7th Options: A. holding that court of appeals erred by rendering judgment for full amount of attorneys fees sought after reversing 0 fee award because jury awarded less in damages than amount sought and therefore uncontroverted attorney testimony on amount of attorneys fees did not establish amount of reasonable and necessary fees as a matter of law B. holding that the amount necessary to repair a vehicle under an insurance contract refers to the amount the insurer must spend to repair the vehicle not the amount the insured decides to spend C. holding that because the amount of his remuneration was not a necessary part of the plea agreement to theft the district court should not have estopped wight from contesting the 70107 amount D. holding that the district court determines the amount of loss under the preponderance of the evidence standard E. holding that when trial court orders restitution at sentencing pursuant to statute the defendant is entitled to notice of the amount claimed and the opportunity to dispute the amount

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that because the amount of his remuneration was not a necessary part of the plea agreement to theft the district court should not have estopped wight from contesting the 70107 amount
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: Within twenty (20) days after delivery of such notification, the Indemnifying Party may, upon written notice thereof to the Indemnified Party, assume control of the defense of such Claim with counsel reasonably satisfactory to the Indemnified Party. If the Indemnifying Party does not assume control of such defense, the Indemnified Party shall control such defense and, without limiting the Indemnifying Party’s indemnification obligations, the Indemnifying Party shall reimburse the Indemnified Party for all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred by the Indemnified Party in defending itself within thirty (30) days after receipt of any invoice therefor from the Indemnified Party. The Party not controlling such defense may participate therein at its own expense; provided , that if the Indemnifying Party assumes control of such defense and the Indemnified Party in good faith concludes, based on advice from counsel, that the Indemnifying Party and the Indemnified Party have conflicting interests with respect to such Claim, the Indemnifying Party shall be responsible for the reasonable fees and expenses of counsel to the Indemnified Party in connection therewith. The Party controlling such defense shall keep the other Party advised of the status of such action, suit, proceeding or claim and the defense thereof and shall consider recommendations made by the other Party with respect thereto.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and rejected by the Third Circuit, in Kline. Here, Defendant points to workplace and safety clauses in the CBAs and asserts that complete preemption must apply to Plaintiffs’ negligence claim. This argument fails. The Court does not have to interpret any of the clauses in the CBAs in order for Plaintiffs to establish the scope of the duty. While it is possible that Defendant could point to some portion of a CBA in arguing that it acted reasonably, or to establish that it provided some type of warning as to certain occupational hazards, whether these statements provide a defense (in that they show Defendant acted reasonably, or that Defendant did not breach its duty of care) is a question of fact for the jury. See Trans Penn Wax Corp. v. McCandless, 50 F.3d 217, 232 (3d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); see also Kleinknecht, 989 F.2d at 1371 Options: A. holding that under ohio law fraud claim failed because there was no evidence of reliance B. holding no justifiable reliance as a matter of law C. holding that in fraud and nondisclosure claims a plaintiff must show actual and justifiable reliance D. holding that 523a2a requires justifiable but not reasonable reliance E. holding that in interpreting the employees fraud claim whether there was justifiable reliance and extreme and outrageous conduct were purely factual questions which did not require interpretation of the cba or substantially depend on its construction

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that in interpreting the employees fraud claim whether there was justifiable reliance and extreme and outrageous conduct were purely factual questions which did not require interpretation of the cba or substantially depend on its construction
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: Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers, 451 U.S. 77, 94, 101 S.Ct. 1571, 67 L.Ed.2d 750 (1981)); see also Gonzaga Univ., 536 U.S. at 286, 122 S.Ct. 2268 (“[W]here the text and structure of a statute provide no indication that Congress intends to create new individual rights, there is no basis for a private suit, whether under § 1983 or under an implied right of action.”). Although the Eighth Circuit has not addressed this issue, the Tenth Circuit did so in Qwest v. City of Santa Fe 380 F.3d 1258, 1265-67 (10th Cir.2004), affirming the district court that no action under § 1983 was available because nothing in the text or structure of § 253 indicated an intention to create a private right. Cf. City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113, 125 S.Ct. 1453, 1454, 161 L.Ed.2d 316 (2005) (<HOLDING>). This Court concludes Level 3 has not met its Options: A. holding that the remedy in a prison conditions case must remedy actual injuries that have been identified by the court and suffered by the plaintiffs B. holding enforcement of the tcas substantive provisions through 1983 would distort the scheme of expedited judicial review and limited remedies created by the tcas remedial provisions after identifying the express private remedy in the tca 332c7 the court concluded that congress did not intend this remedy to coexist with an alternative remedy available in a 1983 action C. holding injunctive relief ordering issuance of a permit is the remedy that best serves the tcas goal of expediting resolution of actions and granting such an injunction D. holding that there is no enforceable private right where the statute itself creates a remedial scheme that is sufficiently comprehensive to demonstrate congressional intent to preclude the remedy of suits under 1983 E. holding that where plaintiffs had an alternative remedy the court would not substitute its judgment for that of congress by creating an implied right of action

assistant: The best answer is B. holding enforcement of the tcas substantive provisions through 1983 would distort the scheme of expedited judicial review and limited remedies created by the tcas remedial provisions after identifying the express private remedy in the tca 332c7 the court concluded that congress did not intend this remedy to coexist with an alternative remedy available in a 1983 action
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 Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Delivery by facsimile, .pdf or other electronic imaging means of an executed counterpart of a signature page to this Amendment shall be effective as delivery of an original executed counterpart of this Amendment. Agent may also require that any such documents and signatures delivered by facsimile, .pdf or other electronic imaging means be confirmed by a manually signed original thereof; provided that the failure to request or deliver the same shall not limit the effectiveness of any document or signature delivered by facsimile, .pdf or other electronic imaging means.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: 9gag , inc may change , suspend or discontinue the services at any time , including the availability of any feature , database , or content .

assistant: 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: The Recipient will be solely responsible for (i) compliance with all Laws affecting its business and (ii) any use the Recipient may make of the Services to assist it in complying with such Laws. Without limiting any other provisions of this Agreement, the parties agree and acknowledge that neither party has any responsibility or liability for advising the other party with respect to, or ensuring the other party’s compliance with, any public disclosure, compliance or reporting obligations of such other party (including the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and rules and regulations promulgated under such Acts or any successor provisions), regardless of whether any failure to comply results from information provided hereunder.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: subject to the limitations set out in these terms and conditions and to the extent permitted by law , we shall only be liable for direct damages actually suffered , paid or incurred by you due to an attributable shortcoming of our obligations in respect to our services , up to an aggregate amount of the aggregate cost of your reservation as set out in the confirmation email ( whether for one event or series of connected events ) .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: against the person of another, or (2) is burglary of a dwelling, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another. USSG § 4B1.2(a). In addition, relevant commentary to this section provides: “Crime of violence” includes murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, aggravated assault, forcible sex offenses, robbery, arson, extortion, extortionate extension of credit, and burglary of a dwelling. Other offenses are included as “crimes of violence” if (A) that offense has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another, or (B) the conduct set forth (ie., expressly charged) in the count of which the defendant was convict 261, 262, 264 (5th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). However, we acknowledge that the Eighth Options: A. recognizing that felony and misdemeanor dwi are separate offenses because a prior conviction is an essential element of felony driving while intoxicated but it is not an element of the misdemeanor offense B. holding morevstat 569055 qualifies as a crime of violence for purposes of ussg 4b12a C. holding that assault conviction for driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and causing serious bodily injury to the person of another with the motor vehicle qualified as a crime of violence under ussg 4b12a D. holding a felony conviction for driving while intoxicated dwi may be a crime of violence E. holding that misdemeanor offense of driving while intoxicated constitutes a crime of violence under ussg 4b12a

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that misdemeanor offense of driving while intoxicated constitutes a crime of violence under ussg 4b12a
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: Promptly after the filing or receiving thereof, copies of all reports and notices that Kelly or any ERISA Affiliate files under ERISA with the Internal Revenue Service, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation or the U.S. Department of Labor or that Kelly or any Affiliate receives from any of the foregoing or from any multiemployer plan (within the meaning of Section 4001(a)(3) of ERISA) to which Kelly or any of its Affiliates is or was, within the preceding five years, a contributing employer, in each case in respect of any Reportable Event (as defined in ERISA) that could, in the aggregate, result in the imposition of liability on Kelly and/or any such Affiliate.

assistant: Erisa
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: status as a person on felony probation and the murder, this claim is unpreserved. See id. (declining to address the appellant’s argument that the trial court improperly found the victims’ ages as mitigating circumstances where there was no causal link between the children’s ages and their deaths, because the appellant failed to raise that argument before the trial court). Even if this claim were not barred, we would find it to be without merit. As noted above, Caylor does not dispute that he was on felony probation at the time of the murder. Instead, he argues that because this Court has imposed a nexus requirement on the “avoid arrest” aggravator, a similar requirement should apply to the felony probation aggravating circumstance. See Connor v. State, 808 So.2d 598, 610 (Fla.2001) (<HOLDING>). However, the felony probation aggravator is Options: A. holding that failure of trial court to instruct jury that state must prove beyond reasonable doubt killing was not committed in heat of passion required reversal of murder conviction even though there was general charge that state was required to prove each element of offenses beyond reasonable doubt B. holding that to establish that a murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding a lawful arrest the state must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the sole or dominant motive for the murder was the elimination of a witness C. holding that indictment for murder in the first degree charges murder by whatever means it may have been committed regardless of the theory of murder presented to the grand jury D. holding that in order to establish this aggravator the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt only that the murder was motivated at least in part by a desire to obtain money property or other financial gain E. holding that evidence the defendant knew the victim supported a finding that the murder was committed to avoid arrest

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that to establish that a murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding a lawful arrest the state must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the sole or dominant motive for the murder was the elimination of a witness
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein (including Section 2.22), each Issuing Bank agrees, in reliance upon the agreements of the Revolving Lenders and the Administrative Borrower set forth in this Section 2.05 and elsewhere in the Loan Documents, to issue Letters of Credit denominated in Dollars or an Alternative Currency for the Borrower’s respective accounts (or for the account of any Subsidiary of the Borrower so long as the Borrower is an obligor in respect of all Loan Document Obligations arising under or in respect of such Letter of Credit), in a form reasonably acceptable to the Administrative Agent and the applicable Issuing Bank, which shall reflect the standard operating procedures of such Issuing Bank, at any time and from time to time during the period from the Effective Date until the date that is the fifth (5th) Business Day prior to the Revolving Maturity Date; provided that (x) no Issuing Bank shall be required to issue any trade letters of credit hereunder without its consent and (y) no Issuing Bank shall be required to issue any Letter of Credit if after giving effect thereto the LC Exposure with respect to all Letters of Credit issued by such Issuing Bank would exceed the amount set forth across from such Issuing Bank’s name on Schedule 2.05) (or in the documents pursuant to which such Issuing Bank became an Issuing Bank). In the event of any inconsistency between the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the terms and conditions of any form of letter of credit application or other agreement submitted by the Administrative Borrower to, or entered into by the Administrative Borrower with, the applicable Issuing Bank relating to any Letter of Credit, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall control.

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: Such Borrower shall not, and shall not permit any of its Material Subsidiaries to, create, assume or incur any Lien on any of its assets or property or upon any Equity Interests of any such Material Subsidiary, which Equity Interests are now owned or hereafter acquired by such Borrower or such Subsidiary to secure any Indebtedness of such Borrower or any other Person (other than the Indebtedness under this Agreement) other than Permitted Liens, without providing that the Loans of such Borrower shall be equally and ratably secured with such Indebtedness until such time as such Indebtedness is no longer secured by a Lien. Notwithstanding the foregoing, each Borrower may, and may permit any of its Material Subsidiaries to, create, assume or incur any Indebtedness secured by a Lien, other than a Permitted Lien, without securing the Loans of such Borrower, provided that the aggregate principal amount of all Indebtedness then outstanding secured by Liens (other than Permitted Liens) does not exceed 15% of Consolidated Net Tangible Assets.

assistant: Liens
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 term “disability”, as used herein, shall refer to the Participant’s inability because of physical or mental illness or incapacity, whether partial or total, with or without reasonable accommodation, to perform the Participant’s duties with the Company for a continuous period of at least three (3) months or for an aggregate of ninety (90) days within any twelve (12) month period.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you may send a copy to ebay at the following address : ebay , inc. c/o ct corporation system , 1108 e south union ave. , midvale , ut 84047 .

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: “immunity questions should be resolved as early as possible.” The State, in its answer, concedes that, although § 13A-3-23 creates an immunity defense, Watters is unable to demonstrate a clear legal right to the requested relief because, it says, the Code section includes no procedure requiring a pretrial hearing. Thus, according to the State, the trial court’s order stating its intent to consider Watters’s immunity defense “in due course” is sufficient and Watters’s petition is due to be denied. We cannot agree. Both the State and Watters acknowledge in their pleadings to this Court that the Court of Criminal Appeals, subsequent to the issuance of its order in this case, has issued opinions relevant to the issue before us. See Malone v. State, 203 So.3d 126, 131 (Ala. Crim. App. 2016) (<HOLDING>); Harrison v. State, 203 So.3d 126, 131 (Ala. Options: A. holding that where use of reasonable nondeadly force causes death defendant entitled to instruction on selfdefense B. holding that the defendant was entitled to a pretrial evidentiary hearing on his claim of immunity based on selfdefense C. holding an evidentiary hearing on the applicability of equitable estoppel D. holding that petitioner was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing under section 2254e2 on whether his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to seek a fitness hearing E. holding that defendant may be entitled to selfdefense instruction even though he did not testify

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the defendant was entitled to a pretrial evidentiary hearing on his claim of immunity based on selfdefense