flwrlabs/fed-legal huggingface dataset:
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: appellant, lacking any proprietary interest in the house, or even any possessory right other than by the grace of his grandfather, assumed the risk that his grandfather might permit the search of any area of the house that he might reasonab xplaining that where defendant and landlord maintain a “family style” living arrangement with shared access to defendant’s living quarters, landlord is deemed to have actual authority to consent to a search of defendant’s living quarters); Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968) (noting that defendant accepted that his grandmother, as joint tenant of their home and as owner of the rifle in question, had authority to consent to a search of their home); People v. Goforth, 222 Mich. App. 306, 564 N.W.2d 526 (1997) (<HOLDING>). 34 .See e.g., Broughton v. State, 570 So.2d Options: A. holding that twentyyearold appellants mother had authority to consent to a search of sons bedroom where appellant had agreed to pay 10 per week as rent he had not instructed mother to stay out of his room and mother infrequently entered appellants room to pick up after him B. holding that while a mother could consent to a search of her sons room she did not have authority to consent to a search of a locked footlocker within the room C. holding that a mother had apparent authority to consent to a search of her adult sons bedroom including a closed vinyl bag found in the bedroom D. holding that although son was eighteen years old and paid rent mother could consent to search of sons bedroom where nothing suggested mother lacked access to room E. holding that appellants mother had the authority to consent to search of defendants bedroom defendant lived with parents rentfree for four years mother owned the house appellants bedroom door was open mother knocked whenever appellants door was locked and there were no restrictions placed on mothers right to enter bedroom

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that although son was eighteen years old and paid rent mother could consent to search of sons bedroom where nothing suggested mother lacked access to room
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 counterparts, each of which shall constitute a separate document but all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement. Signature pages may be detached and reattached to physically form one document. A signature executed by digital means and/or scanned and sent by facsimile and/or e-mail shall be binding as an original signature.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: trigger CERCLA liability, nor does actual disposal of hazardous substances. A release must occur or be threatened before CERCLA is triggered. A party that “arranged for disposal” of a hazardous substance under § 9607(a)(3) does not become hable un der CERCLA until there is an actual or threatened release of that substance into the environment. Arranging for disposal of hazardous substances, in itself, is neither regulated under nor prohibited by CERCLA. Further, disposal activities that were legal when conducted can nevertheless give rise to liability under § 9607(a)(3) if there is an actual or threatened release of such hazardous substances into the environment. See Cadillac Fairview/California, Inc. v. United States (Cadillac Fairview/California I), 41 F.3d 562, 565-66 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Cadillac Fairview/California, Inc. v. Dow Options: A. holding that a party that sold a product to another party arranged for disposal of a hazardous substance B. holding past owners liable for the disposal of hazardous wastes that leaked from an underground storage tank C. holding that the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorneys fees D. holding that arranger liability claim requires proof that defendant arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances owned or possessed by defendant E. holding that in a situation where the police have probable cause to arrest one party and reasonably mistake a second party for that first party the arrest of the second party is still a valid arrest

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a party that sold a product to another party arranged for disposal of a hazardous substance
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: consistent with the Legislature’s concern about the dangers associated with horses in general and the problem of allowing these cases to be governed by ordinary principles of negligence. Id. The court went on to say that by adopting G.L.c. 128, §2D, the Legislature established that such dangers were understood to be widely known and especially obvious to experienced riders. Id. Similarly, in Fraumeni v. Aleppo Temple Shriners Activities, 6 Mass. L. Rep. 644, Middlesex Sup.Ct. No. 95-0204 (Mass.Super.Ct. 1997), this court suggested that the Legislature specifically sought to grant immuniiy to equine professionals regarding injuiy relating to the inherent risks of equine activities, because they recognized the unpredictable nature of horses, and wanted to protect those in the industiy (<HOLDING>). Considering the Legislature’s intent in Options: A. holding a landlord liable for injuries sustained in the laundry room of an apartment complex B. holding proprietor of a tavern was not liable to officer who sustained injuries caused by a patron while the officer was attempting to make an arrest C. holding individual standing not available where inter alia there is no claim that plaintiff sustained a loss disproportionate to that sustained by the corporation D. holding the defendant temple wasnt liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff rider after he was thrown by the defendants horse E. holding a landlord liable for injuries sustained by a tenant who slipped on an icy sidewalk

assistant: The best answer is D. holding the defendant temple wasnt liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff rider after he was thrown by the defendants horse
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: by using the service ( as defined below ) , you agree to and accept these terms , including important dispute resolution procedures and all policies and terms linked to or otherwise referenced herein , all of which are incorporated into this agreement .

assistant: Contract by using
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: by creating an account , you agree to : ( i ) provide accurate , current and complete account information ; ( ii ) maintain the security of your password , not share your password with any other person and accept all risks of unauthorised access to your account ; and ( iii ) promptly provide notice at https://www.facebook.com/whitehat if you discover or otherwise suspect any security breaches related to the services .

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: THE BORROWER HEREBY IRREVOCABLY SUBMITS TO THE NON-EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF ANY UNITED STATES FEDERAL OR TEXAS STATE COURT SITTING IN FORT WORTH, TEXAS IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO ANY LOAN DOCUMENTS AND THE BORROWER HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AGREES THAT ALL CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING MAY BE HEARD AND DETERMINED IN ANY SUCH COURT AND IRREVOCABLY WAIVES ANY OBJECTION IT MAY NOW OR HEREAFTER HAVE AS TO THE VENUE OF ANY SUCH SUIT, ACTION OR PROCEEDING BROUGHT IN SUCH A COURT OR THAT SUCH COURT IS AN INCONVENIENT FORUM. NOTHING HEREIN SHALL LIMIT THE RIGHT OF THE AGENT OR ANY LENDER TO BRING PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE BORROWER IN THE COURTS OF ANY OTHER JURISDICTION. ANY JUDICIAL PROCEEDING BY THE BORROWER AGAINST THE AGENT OR ANY LENDER OR ANY AFFILIATE OF THE AGENT OR ANY LENDER INVOLVING, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ANY MATTER IN ANY WAY ARISING OUT OF, RELATED TO, OR CONNECTED WITH ANY LOAN DOCUMENT SHALL BE BROUGHT ONLY IN A COURT IN FORT WORTH, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: prosecutions. See Arms v. State, 2015 Ark. 364, 471 S.W.3d 637 (2015) (Defendant’s unborn child was not a “person,” for purposes of statute governing criminal offense of introduction of a controlled, substance into the body of anoth er person, and thus none of defendant’s actions prior to birth of child violated statute; criminal code expressly limited criminalizing conduct with respect to unborn child to homicide offenses and even then did not allow a mother to be charged or convicted of any homicide offense while her child was in úte-ro); State v. Stegall, supra (pregnant woman cannot be charged for a crime allegedly committed against her unborn child; unborn fetus was not a “child” within meaning of endangerment statute); State v. Martinez, 139 N.M. 741, 137 P.3d 1195 (Ct.App.2006) (<HOLDING>); Kilmon v. State, supra (holding a mother may Options: A. holding an unborn viable fetus is not a human being under the new mexico child abuse statute and the mothers use of cocaine during pregnancy was not child abuse B. holding a mothers ingestion of a controlled substance while pregnant does not constitute child abuse as an unborn child is not a person for purposes of criminal prosecution C. holding ohios child endangerment statute does not apply to mothers who abuse drugs during pregnancy D. holding a fetus is not a child person or individual for purposes of criminal prosecution under the reckless injury to a child statute E. holding an unborn child is not a child for purposes of criminal prosecution of mistreatment of a child

assistant: The best answer is A. holding an unborn viable fetus is not a human being under the new mexico child abuse statute and the mothers use of cocaine during pregnancy was not child abuse
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: personally liable for administrative expenses, an excessive award will reduce funds otherwise available to pay creditors to whom the McGuirls will remain directly liable. We see nothing either remote or indirect in such an interest. We do not agree with the bankruptcy court that the McGuirls are attempting to assert rights belonging to creditors and the estate, none of whom exercised their right to object to the administrative expenses in this ease. See In re McGuirl, at 3 (citing Worth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 2205, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975) for proposition that a plaintiff “generally must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties”); see also Securities Northwest, 573 F.2d at 626 (<HOLDING>). For one thing, as we conclude above, because Options: A. holding that the irs did not improperly withhold records when it provided responsive documents just over five months after the request was made but gave four intervening notices stating that the irs needed more time B. holding that a decedents tax settlement with the irs did not establish the value of his estates claim against the irs as a matter of law C. holding that shareholder was improperly seeking to champion rights belonging to the irs D. holding that majority shareholders had legitimate business reasons for terminating a shareholder which included the reason that the shareholder was not working well with other employees E. holding that unless a shareholder can show personal cause of action and personal injury claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty belong to the corporation and not the shareholder

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that shareholder was improperly seeking to champion rights belonging to the irs
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 that any payment that is either received by the Participant or paid by the Company or any of its Affiliates on the Participant’s behalf or any property, or any other benefit provided to the Participant under this Plan or under any other plan, arrangement or agreement with the Company or any other person whose payments or benefits are treated as contingent on a change of ownership or control of the Company (or in the ownership of a substantial portion of the assets of the Company) or any person affiliated with the Company or such person (but only if such payment or other benefit is in connection with the Participant’s employment by the Company) (collectively the “ Company Payments ”), would be subject to the tax imposed by Section 4999 of the Code (and any similar tax that may hereafter be imposed by any taxing authority) (the “ Excise Tax ”), the Company shall pay to the Participant an additional amount (the “ Gross-Up Payment ”) such that the net amount retained by the Participant, after deduction of any Excise Tax on the Company Payments and any U.S. federal, state, and local income or payroll tax upon the Gross-Up Payment provided for by this clause (a), but before deduction for any U.S. federal, state, and local income or payroll tax on the Company Payments, shall be equal to the Company Payments. This Section 7 shall terminate and cease to apply upon payment of all Retention Bonuses hereunder; provided that this Section 7 shall only continue to apply in respect of a change in control (within the meaning of Section 280G of the Code) occurring before December 31, 2018.

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: (a) Each Loan Party that owns Vessel Collateral shall maintain with financially sound and reputable insurance companies not Affiliates of the Parent Borrower insurance with respect to its properties and business against loss or damage of the kinds customarily insured against by Persons engaged in the same or a similar business of such types and in such amounts (after giving effect to any self-insurance compatible with the following standards) as are customarily carried under similar circumstances by such other Persons, and as required to be maintained under the terms of the Fleet Mortgages, and the Loan Parties shall cause the Collateral Agent to be named as loss payee, for the ratable benefit of the Secured Parties, as to the Vessel Collateral, including, as trustee/mortgagee, and the Collateral Agent, as agent for the Secured Parties, to be named as an additional insured, with a waiver of rights of subrogation, under a marine and war-risk insurance policy, and the Collateral Agent, as agent for the Secured Parties, to be named as an additional insured, with a waiver of rights of subrogation, under the comprehensive general liability insurance, statutory workers’ compensation insurance and longshoreman and harbor workers’ act coverage policies. Such policies of insurance must also contain a provision prohibiting cancellation or the alteration of such insurance without at least thirty (30) days’ prior written notice to the Collateral Agent of such intended cancellation or alteration.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: See generally Thomas R. Trenkner, Annotation, Liability of Private Oumer or Occupant of Land Abutting Highway for Injuries or Damage Resulting from Tree or Limb Falling onto Highway, 94 A.L.R.3d 1160 § 3 (1979). Even though other jurisdictions may be rethinking their approach to landowner liability, South Carolina follows the traditional rural and urban distinction. Cf. Ford v. South Carolina Dep’t of Transp., 328 S.C. 481, 492 S.E.2d 811 (Ct.App.1997). The policy reasons which were present at the inception of the rural landowner rule still exist in rural South Carolina today. See Prosser and Keeton, supra, § 57. To restrict or reverse the rural landowner rule would “impose a new and unusual burden upon the owners of forest lands.” Chambers v. Whelen, 44 F.2d 340, 341 (4th Cir.1930) (<HOLDING>). Staples also argues that constructive notice Options: A. holding that when the government takes property by flooding it the government is also liable for the cost of protective measures by landowners in preventing erosion caused by raised water levels B. holding that california governmental tort immunity statute would apply if decayed eucalyptus tree limb fell on user of governmental property and would not apply to injuries caused to nonusers on adjacent property C. holding the department liable for the fall of a tree that stood on private property abutting a highway D. holding that mere use of a road will not make a road a public road even though such use is with the knowledge and consent of the landowner unless the use is accompanied by recognition by public authority or by its maintainance sic E. holding a landowner not liable for an accident on a country road caused by a tree which fell from the landowners property

assistant: The best answer is E. holding a landowner not liable for an accident on a country road caused by a tree which fell from the landowners property
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Following any termination of employment, the Executive agrees to reasonably cooperate (taking into account his other business and personal commitments) with any investigation, suit or claim involving the Company and of which the Executive has knowledge, provided any such cooperation is not adverse to his legal interests. The Company agrees to reimburse the Executive for any costs incurred by him in connection with such cooperation, including payment of separate counsel for the Executive if he reasonably determines such separate representation is warranted by the circumstances.

assistant: Cooperation
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: Jones in Lincoln, Nebraska. (Tr. 35:23-37:1.) This lawsuit was “fairly contentious.” (Id.) After the search warrants were executed, Jones hired a private investigator to "visit with ... Rick Lucchino and Rock Port Oil, the employees, and try to ascertain what had happened here.” (Tr. 200:3-201:8.) In order to persuade R. Lucchino to cooperate, the private investigator bed to R. Lucchino about who and what the private detective was investigating. (Tr. 210:10-212:21.) Jones admitted he might have suggested the private investigator he in order to obtain this information. (Id.) In addition, as their claims in this case demonstrate, Plaintiffs believe they now know who the informants were. As a result, Plaintiffs sued the individuals whom they believed to be the informants. See Filing 22 (<HOLDING>). Ironically, this very suit serves to buttress Options: A. holding that similar allegations were insufficient to state a due process claim B. holding that allegations against nondiverse defendants must be factual not conclusory because conclusory allegations do not state a claim C. holding that because the allegations purportedly suppressed by the government were not material an evidentiary hearing further exploring the allegations themselves and the governments knowledge of the allegations is unnecessary D. holding that wrongfuldisclosure allegations of count iv did not state a claim against private individuals and further holding that conspiracy allegations of count vi did not state a claim E. holding district court dismissal of plaintiffs present action did not constitute prior action and thus did not count as third strike

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that wrongfuldisclosure allegations of count iv did not state a claim against private individuals and further holding that conspiracy allegations of count vi did not state a claim
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: has not established a likelihood of future injury, and thus, lacks standing to pursue injunctive relief under the ADA. i. Proximity of Public Accommodation As the distance between the plaintiffs residence and the public accommodation increases, the likelihood of future harm decreases. When the distance between the two is significant, especially if it is in excess of 100 miles, courts have consistently held that it weighs against finding a reasonable likelihood of future harm. E.g., Molski v. Levon Inv., No. C03-8437-SVW (C.D. Cal. filed August 24, 2005)(finding that “considerable distance” of 30 miles between Molski’s residence and gas station weighed against Molski establishing a likelihood of future harm); Delil v. El Torito Rest., No. C93-3900, 1997 WL 714866, at *3 (N.D.Cal.1997)(<HOLDING>); Brother v. Tiger Partner, LLC, 331 F.Supp.2d Options: A. holding plaintiff failed to demonstrate disparate treatment because she failed to show she was similarly situated to coworker to whom she compared herself B. holding that a plaintiff failed to establish likelihood of future harm in part because she lived over 100 miles from restaurant C. holding that icecovered steps did not present a high likelihood of harm or severity of harm D. holding that likelihood of irreparable harm must be based on evidence in the record not unsupported and conclusory statements regarding harm the plaintiff might suffer E. holding that plaintiffs who alleged a subjective chill of their first amendment rights failed to establish specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a plaintiff failed to establish likelihood of future harm in part because she lived over 100 miles from restaurant
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 specifically provided herein, any Purchaser may sell to one or more Persons (each a “ Participant ”) participating interests in the interests of such Purchaser hereunder; provided, that no Purchaser shall grant any participation under which the Participant shall have rights to approve any amendment to or waiver of this Agreement or any other Transaction Document. Such Purchaser shall remain solely responsible for performing its obligations hereunder, and the Seller, the Servicer, each Purchaser Agent and the Administrator shall continue to deal solely and directly with such Purchaser in connection with such Purchaser’s rights and obligations hereunder. A Purchaser shall not agree with a Participant to restrict such Purchaser’s right to agree to any amendment hereto, except amendments that require the consent of all Purchasers. Any such Participant shall not have any rights hereunder or under the Transaction Documents. Each Committed Purchaser that sells a participation shall, acting solely for this purpose as an agent of the Seller, maintain a register on which it enters the name and address of each Participant and the principal amounts (and stated interest) of each Participant’s interest in the Capital or other obligations under this Agreement (the “ Participant Register ”); provided that no Committed Purchaser shall have any obligation to disclose all or any portion of the Participant Register (including the identity of any Participant or any information relating to a Participant’s interest in any Commitments, Capital, Letters of Credit or its other obligations under any this Agreement) to any Person except to the extent that such disclosure is necessary to establish that such Commitment, Capital, Letter of Credit or other obligation is in registered form under Section 5f.103-1(c) of the United States Treasury Regulations. The entries in the Participant Register shall be conclusive absent manifest error, and such Committed Purchaser shall treat each Person whose name is recorded in the Participant Register as the owner of such participation for all purposes of this Agreement notwithstanding any notice to the contrary. For the avoidance of doubt, the Administrator (in its capacity as Administrator) shall have no responsibility for maintaining a Participant Register.

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: disagreement with Dr. Sears’ professional judgment. But lacking any evidence that the dentist’s treatment plan was obviously inadequate, see Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 441-42 (7th Cir.2010), or a substantial departure from standard practice, see Gayton v. McCoy, 593 F.3d 610, 622-23 (7th Cir. 2010), Hoeft cannot make out a claim of deliberate indifference. As for his claim against Hasten, Hoeft insists that exposing prisoners to loud noises does constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Compare Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1090 (9th Cir. 1996) (reversing summary judgment in favor of official who subjected prisoner to constant “ ‘screaming, wailing, crying, singing and yelling’ ” by other inmates), with Lunsford v. Bennett, 17 F.3d 1574,-1577 n. 2,1580 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). But he has no answer to the district court’s Options: A. holding that a waiver of counsel once made and not retracted is operative throughout the proceedings B. holding that the fact that nearly all music cassettes censored by prison authorities was afrieanamerican rap music failed to demonstrate that the purpose of the ban was to discriminate against africanamerican inmates C. holding that evidence of multiple interrogations and 24hour detention did not compel finding of persecution D. holding that music and loud talking broadcast over prison intercom throughout 24hour period did not offend contemporary standards of deeency E. holding that prison conditions are those aspects of prison life affecting the entire prison population

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that music and loud talking broadcast over prison intercom throughout 24hour period did not offend contemporary standards of deeency
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 Loan Parties are in compliance with and conform to all statutes, laws (including Environmental Laws), ordinances, rules, regulations, orders, restrictions and all other legal requirements of all domestic or foreign governments or any instrumentality thereof having jurisdiction over the conduct of their respective businesses or the ownership of their respective properties, the violation of which would have a Material Adverse Effect, including regulations of the Board, the Federal Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, the Florida Land Sales Act or any comparable statute in any other applicable jurisdiction. None of the Loan Parties has received any notice to the effect that any of them are (a) in non-compliance with any of the requirements of applicable Environmental Laws or any applicable federal, state and local health and safety statutes and regulations or (b) the subject of any governmental investigation concerning the release of any Hazardous Substances, in either case, which non-compliance or remedial action could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

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: be inappropriate in this case because all Defendants lack standing to enforce the arbitration agreement, given that none of the Defendants were parties to the contract. (Pl.’s Mem. in Opp’n at 10.) In certain circumstances, however, a nonparty to an arbitration agreement can enforce, or be bound by, an arbitration provision within a contract executed by other parties so long as it is the “appropriate case,” or certain exceptions apply. See Int’l Paper Co. v. Schwabedissen Maschinen & Anlagen GMBH, 206 F.3d 411, 416-17 (4th Cir.2000) (“Well-established common law principles dictate that in an appropriate case a non-signatory can enforce, or be bound by, an arbitration provision within a contract executed by other parties.”); Britton v. Co-op Banking Group, 4 F.3d 742, 744 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. Am. Arbitration Assoc., Options: A. holding that an arbitration agreement enforceable against party who signed the agreement even where the other party did not sign it because generally it is enough that the party against whom the contract is sought to be enforced signs it B. holding that a party seeking to compel arbitration must establish the existence of an arbitration agreement and show that the claims raised fall within the scope of that agreement C. holding the party seeking to invalidate an arbitration agreement because of prohibitive arbitration fees bears the burden of proof and the possibility of such party incurring prohibitive costs is too speculative to invalidate an arbitration agreement where the record reveals only that the agreement is silent on the subject of arbitration costs D. recognizing that generally a nonparty to an arbitration agreement does not have standing to invoke the agreement but considering whether the nonparty could force arbitration because it was a third party beneficiary of the contract a successor in interest to the contracting party or an agent of the contracting party E. holding that once the party seeking to compel arbitration establishes the existence of an arbitration agreement and that the claims raised fall within the scope of that agreement the trial court must compel arbitration

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that generally a nonparty to an arbitration agreement does not have standing to invoke the agreement but considering whether the nonparty could force arbitration because it was a third party beneficiary of the contract a successor in interest to the contracting party or an agent of the contracting party
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: You and the Company agree to submit to mandatory binding arbitration any and all claims arising out of or related to your employment with the Company and the termination thereof, including but not limited to, claims for unpaid wages, wrongful termination, torts, stock or stock options or other ownership interest in the Company, and/ or discrimination (including harassment) based upon any federal, state or local ordinance, statute, regulation or constitutional provision except that each party may, at each party’s option, seek injunctive relief in court related to the improper use, disclosure or misappropriation of a party’s proprietary, confidential or trade secret information. All arbitration hearings shall be conducted in Santa Clara County, California. THE PARTIES HEREBY WAIVE ANY RIGHTS THEY MAY HAVE TO TRIAL BY JURY IN REGARD TO SUCH CLAIMS. This offer letter does not restrict your right to file administrative claims you may bring before any government agency where, as a matter of law, the parties may not restrict the employee’s ability to file such claims (including, but not limited to, the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Labor). However, the parties agree that, to the fullest extent permitted by law, arbitration shall be the exclusive remedy for the subject matter of such administrative claims. The arbitration shall be conducted through JAMS before a single neutral arbitrator, in accordance with the JAMS employment arbitration rules then in effect. The JAMS rules may be found and reviewed at http://jamsadr.com/rules-employment-arbitration . If you are unable to access these rules, please let me know and I will provide you with a hardcopy. The arbitrator shall issue a written decision that contains the essential findings and conclusions on which the decision is based.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, the representations and warranties of the Parties contained herein, as well as the Party’s respective rights and obligations arising under Article VIII hereof shall survive the termination of this Agreement and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties and their successors and assigns.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any written stock option agreement, indemnification agreement and any confidential information/proprietary information/and-or invention assignment agreement between the Company and Executive shall survive this Agreement in accordance with their express written terms. Any such stock option agreement shall be applied in accordance with its express written terms as to the effects of the fact that Executive’s service has ceased.

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: and you could be sentenced to prison. Because you are now on standard probation supervision, it would not be mandatory that you be sentenced to prison. (Emphasis added.) Botkin was not informed that if he pled guilty to the 2004 offense, the court would be required to revoke his probation from the 2000 offenses and sentence him to imprisonment for those offenses. Instead, Botkin was told the opposite: that “it would not be mandatory” that he be sentenced to imprisonment. Accordingly, if the trial court considers and finds a Boykin violation with respect to Botkin’s plea agreement on the 2004 offense, we presume the court will either vacate the plea agreement or allow the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea. See State v. Gordon, 125 Ariz. 425, 428 n. 2, 610 P.2d 59, 62 n. 2 (1980) (<HOLDING>); see also Ariz. R.Crim. P. 17.5 (granting Options: A. holding that a defendants guilty plea was unconditional where the guilty plea was not in writing and the government did not consent to it being conditional B. holding remedy for boykin violation is not reduction in sentence but either setting aside guilty plea as unintelligent or remand to determine if defendant was properly advised of possible sentences C. holding that defendant was entitled to withdraw guilty plea upon habeas corpus proceedings where he pled guilty in exchange for an illegal sentence D. holding that a brady violation is waived by guilty plea E. holding failure to advise of right to compel witnesses and plead not guilty are not required by boykin and there is absolutely no requirement that defendant be advised of any other rights in order to be able to enter a valid guilty plea

assistant: The best answer is B. holding remedy for boykin violation is not reduction in sentence but either setting aside guilty plea as unintelligent or remand to determine if defendant was properly advised of possible sentences
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: Schedule 4.20 sets forth a true, complete and correct description of all insurance maintained by Holdings or by the Restricted Subsidiaries as of the Closing Date. Such insurance is in full force and effect and all premiums have been duly paid. Holdings and the Restricted Subsidiaries have insurance in such amounts and covering such risks and liabilities as are in accordance with normal industry practice.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the best interests of the child, however, must be made on the basis of evidence before the court. See, e.g., In re Jacinta M., 107 N.M. 769, 771, 764 P.2d 1327, 1329 (Ct.App.1988) (finding must be supported by evidence); Khalsa v. Khalsa, 107 N.M. 31, 36, 751 P.2d 715, 720 (Ct.App.) (harm to child cannot be assumed but must be demonstrated), cert. denied, 107 N.M. 16, 751 P.2d 700 (1988); Fitzsimmons v. Fitzsimmons, 104 N.M. 420, 423, 722 P.2d 671, 674 (Ct.App.) (court’s ruling must be supported by evidence), cert. quashed, 104 N.M. 378, 721 P.2d 1309 (1986). We hold that, under New Mexico law, the district court erred in concluding that this type of an agreement is unenforceable as a matter of law. But see Sporleder v. Hermes (In re Z.J.H.), 162 Wis.2d 1002, 471 N.W.2d 202, 211 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Whether visitation would be against the best Options: A. holding similar agreement void on public policy grounds B. recognizing an agreement whose sole purpose is to prevent competition per se is void as a matter of public policy C. holding plaintiffs claims moot on similar grounds D. holding that where agreement prohibits recovery of attorneys fees in civil rights case the relevant portions of the arbitration policy are therefore void as against public policy E. holding that prospective waivers of claims are void as against public policy

assistant: The best answer is A. holding similar agreement void on public policy grounds
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as set forth on Schedule 3(q) , no current employee, director, officer or, to the Knowledge of the Company, any former employee, director or officer, any stockholder of the Company or its Subsidiaries, affiliate of any thereof who occupied such role during the past 12 months, or any relative with a relationship no more remote than first cousin of any of the foregoing, is presently, or has ever been in the last 12 months, (i) a party to any transaction with the Company or its Subsidiaries (including any contract, agreement or other arrangement providing for the furnishing of services by, or rental of real or personal property from, or otherwise requiring payments to, any such director, officer or stockholder or such associate or affiliate or relative (but excluding any employment or consulting contract with the Company) or (ii) the direct or indirect owner of an interest in any corporation, firm, association or business organization which is a competitor, supplier or customer of the Company or its Subsidiaries (except for a passive investment (direct or indirect) in less than 5% of the common stock of a company whose securities are publicly traded on or quoted), nor does any such Person receive income from any source other than the Company or its Subsidiaries which relates to the business of the Company or its Subsidiaries or should properly accrue to the Company or its Subsidiaries. As used in this Agreement, Knowledge means the actual or constructive knowledge of Miles Jennings. Except as set forth on Schedule 3(q) , no employee, officer, stockholder or director of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries or member of his or her immediate family is indebted to the Company or its Subsidiaries, as the case may be, nor is the Company or any of its Subsidiaries indebted (or committed to make loans or extend or guarantee credit) to any of them, other than (i) for payment of salary for services rendered, (ii) reimbursement for reasonable expenses incurred on behalf of the Company, and (iii) for other standard employee benefits made generally available to all employees or executives (including stock option agreements outstanding under any stock option plan approved by the board of directors of the Company).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the position in question is filled (and by logical extension when the promotion is de facto denied). Egelston v. State University College at Genesco, 535 F.2d 752, 755 (2nd Cir. 1976); Gates v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation, 492 F.2d 292, 294-295 (9th Cir. 1974). Here, however, it is evident that plaintiff did not apply for the newly created position, nor did she even make her interest in that position known to her superiors until almost a year and a half had elapsed from the time the position was filled. That fact alone casts extreme doubt on plaintiff’s ability to make out a prima facie case. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); Wright v. Stone Container Corporation, 386 F.Supp. 890, 894 (E.D.Mo.1974), aff’d 524 F.2d 1058 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff contends that the delay in filing Options: A. holding fourpart individual job applicant test for establishing prima facie title vii case the same for promotion cases B. holding that because plaintiff did not apply for a job he could not be rejected in a title vii case C. holding that there is no individual liability under title vii D. holding that in title vii disparate treatment case in order for a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case the plaintiff must proffer evidence among other things that she performed her job according to her employers legitimate expectations if the plaintiff establishes the prima facie case the presumption shifts the burden to the employer to produce a legitimate nondiseriminatory reason for its actions E. recognizing that a plaintiffs burden in establishing a prima facie case is not onerous

assistant: The best answer is A. holding fourpart individual job applicant test for establishing prima facie title vii case the same for promotion cases
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: under the enumerated constraints and concludes that any environmental impacts will not be significant. The EA also contains very specific and detailed information on the ways that the timber harvest will be conducted in order to minimize effects on wildlife or watershed. In addition to these specifically identified measures, the EA also cross-references applicable Best Management Practices (“BMPs”), attached in an appendix, which are also quite detailed. Compare Wetlands Action Network v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 222 F.3d 1105, 1121 (9th Cir.2000) (upholding mitigation measures where special permit conditions were “extremely detailed,” even though all details of mitigation plan were not yet finalized) with Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. USFS, 137 F.3d 1372, 1380 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). The EA also explains that there will be Options: A. holding that words which expressly refer to adequate legal description provide nucleus of description that is legally sufficient for statute of frauds B. holding that mitigation of damages is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded C. holding that an eis must consider the extent to which adverse effects can be avoided by discussing possible mitigation measures D. holding that perfunctory description of mitigation measures was inadequate E. holding that description was sufficiently detailed

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that perfunctory description of mitigation measures was inadequate
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: cases, the loss is the actual loss to the victim (or if the loss has not yet come about, the expected loss). For example, if a defendant fraudulently obtains a loan by misrepresenting the value of his assets, the loss is the amount of the loan not repaid at the time the offense is discovered, reduced by the amount the lending institution has recovered (or can expect to recover) from any assets pledged to secure the loan. However, where the intended loss is greater than the actual loss, the intended loss is to be used. U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1, comment, (n. 7(b)). In the past, courts imposing sentences under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1 have applied § 2Bl.l’s definition of “loss” unless the situation fit into one of § 2Fl.l’s express exceptions. See United States v. Burns, 894 F.2d 334, 336 (9th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Recently, this Circuit has refused to Options: A. holding that plaintiffs were injured by defendants collection and publication of highly sensitive personal information including credit card numbers social security numbers financial account numbers and information regarding plaintiffs personal issues including sexuality mental illness alcoholism incest rape and domestic violence B. holding arbitration clause in credit card agreement unconscionable C. holding that the amount of loss should include sales tax and shipping costs on computer equipment bought by stolen credit card numbers D. holding that even if one of the governments calculation methods impermissibly counted funds obtained from the same stolen credit card towards both actual and intended loss any error was harmless because an alternate calculation method which was free of any double counting also resulted in a loss amount of between 120000 and 400000 and thus application of the same enhancement E. holding property lien for nonpayment of sales tax was beyond boroughs authority to collect sales tax

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the amount of loss should include sales tax and shipping costs on computer equipment bought by stolen credit card numbers