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: was invalid, St. Paul Travelers was not obligated to indemnify Payne for the $250,000 confession of judgment. Id. In its order on the Pocisks and Payne’s motion to alter or amend, the court clarified that if the judgment entered on the underlying suit was vacated, it would then have jurisdiction to consider the issue of whether St. Paul Travelers’ denial of the claim was appropriate. The Pocisks then filed a motion in the Beaufort County Court of Common Pleas to vacate the $250,000 consent judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b), SCRCP, and restore the action to the trial roster. The court initially denied the Pocisks the relief requested. The Pocisks filed a motion to alter or amend asserting the court’s ruling violated the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. .E.2d 244 (2001) (<HOLDING>). We find the order granting the Pocisks’ Options: A. holding dismissal for failure to comply with rule 8 was dismissal of entire action which was appealable final order B. holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable C. holding order granting rule 60b relief from dismissal due to defects with service of process is not immediately appealable D. holding that an order granting a new trial in a civil action is appealable E. holding an order allowing a motion under rule 60b is not immediately appealable because it is interlocutory and does not affect a substantial right

assistant: The best answer is C. holding order granting rule 60b relief from dismissal due to defects with service of process is not immediately appealable
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 of appeals to address the issue was quick to point out that no statute required seat-belt use and no Texas authority supported a common-law duty to use seat belts. See Tom Brown Drilling Co. v. Nieman, 418 S.W.2d 337, 340-41 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1967, writ ref'd n.r.e.). And in lieu of forging a new path, some courts of appeals were able to dispose of the issue on the ground that defendants had no evidence the failure to use seat belts caused the plaintiffs’ injuries. See United Furniture & Appliance Co. v. Johnson, 456 S.W.2d 455, 459 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1970, writ dism’d); Nieman, 418 S.W.2d at 341. Others grappled with the evidentiary difficulties of admitting seat-belt evidence. See Red Top Taxi Co. v. Snow, 452 S.W.2d 772, 779 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1970, no writ) (<HOLDING>); Sonnier v. Ramsey, 424 S.W.2d 684, 689 Options: A. holding evidence of nonuse of seat belts irrelevant to the liability issues involving the plaintiffs alleged contributory negligence B. holding that contributory negligence in the sense of mere carelessness or inadvertence is not a defense in strict liability cases C. recognizing contributory negligence as a defense to professional malpractice claims D. holding that defendants bear the burden of proving contributory negligence by a preponderance of the evidence E. recognizing nonuse of seat belt may constitute such negligence as will permit apportionment of damages under comparative negligence

assistant: The best answer is A. holding evidence of nonuse of seat belts irrelevant to the liability issues involving the plaintiffs alleged contributory negligence
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: Kodak Co., 98 F.Supp.2d 141, 147 (D.Mass.2000) (internal quotations omitted)); see also Arruda v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 310 F.3d 13, 18-19 (1st Cir.2002). 123 . See id. at 46-47 (citing 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1298, at 625-26 (2d ed.1990)). 124 . Karvelas, 360 F.3d at 228. 125 . See Cal. Gov't Code §§ 12651(a)(1) & (2); Del.Code Ann. tit. 6, §§ 1201(a)(1) & (2); D.C.Code §§ 2-308-14(a)(1) & (2); Fla. Stat. §§ 68.082(2)(a) & (b); Haw.Rev.Stat. §§ 661-21(a)(1) & (2); 740 Ill. Comp. Stat.175/3(a)(1) & (2); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, §§ 5B(1) & (2); Nev.Rev.Stat. §§ 357.040(1)(a) & (b); Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 71-5-182(a)(1)(A) & (B); Tex. Hum. Res.Code Ann. § 36.002; Va.Code Ann. §§ 8.01-216.3(A)(1) & (2). 126 . Cf. Karvelas, 360 F.3d at 227-28 (<HOLDING>). 127 .Id. at 232. 128 . See id. at 225 Options: A. holding that heightened pleading standards do not apply to defamation actions B. holding that the federal false claims act is an antifraud statute to which rule 9bs heightened pleading requirements apply C. holding that the group pleading doctrine survives the pslra as to rule 9bs particularity requirements but does not apply to the pslras scienter requirements D. holding that rule 9bs heightened pleading requirement applies to allegations of mail and wire fraud used as predicate acts for a rico claim E. holding that a court may not apply a heightened pleading standard more stringent than the usual pleading requirements of rule 8 in civil rights cases alleging municipal liability under 1983

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the federal false claims act is an antifraud statute to which rule 9bs heightened pleading requirements apply
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: There are no Legal Proceedings pending or, to the Knowledge of MMT, threatened against or involving MMT, or any of its respective property or assets. There are no outstanding orders, judgments, injunctions, awards or decrees of any court, governmental or regulatory body or arbitration tribunal against or involving MMT.

assistant: Litigations
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: shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual findings on appeal and a de novo determination by a district judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 6; M.D. Fla. R. 4.20. June 6th, 2001. 1 . In arriving at this conclusion, the Court, like Judge McCoun, expresses no opinion on the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims. 2 . Objections, page 4. 3 . Id. 4 . Id., pages 4 and 17. 5 . Response, page 2. 6 . Id., page 22. 7 . To the extent that Judge McCoun's views as to the correctness of the rationale of Castaño differs from this Court's, see Report and Recommendation, page 671, note 21, the Court rejects it. 8 . Report and Recommendation, page 666-67. 9 . Id. 10 . Response, pages 7-10. 11 . See Y.H. Invests., Inc. v. Godales, 690 So.2d 1273, 1277 (Fla. 1997) (<HOLDING>). 12 . Transcript, pages 125-136. 13 . Options: A. holding that a woman possessed immunity from criminal prosecution for causing injury or death to her fetus B. holding immunity from liability is not jurisdictional C. holding bjecause immunity from liability constitutes an affirmative defense not a jurisdictional bar only immunity from suit is properly before us today D. holding that individuals immunity from liability did not bar jurys consideration of her fault in causing accident E. recognizing that under texas law governmental immunity embraces two principles immunity from liability and immunity from suit

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that individuals immunity from liability did not bar jurys consideration of her fault in causing accident
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: States, 23 CIT -, - n. 6, 41 F.Supp.2d 319, 323 n. 6 (1999) (noting that “[n]ot all rules of statutory construction rise to the level of a canon, however”) (citation omitted). If, after employing the first prong of Chevron, the Court determines that the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the Court becomes whether Commerce’s construction of the statute is permissible. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778. Essentially, this is an inquiry into the reasonableness of Commerce’s interpretation. See Fujitsu Gen. Ltd. v. United States, 88 F.3d 1034, 1038 (Fed.Cir.1996). Provided Commerce has acted rationally, the Court may not substitute its judgment for the agency’s. See Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 36 F.3d 1565, 1570 (Fed.Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); see also IPSCO, Inc. v. United States, 965 Options: A. holding that when a court is asked to construe an ambiguous statute it must defer to the interpretation set out in a regulation promulgated by the agency charged with administering the statute so long as the agencys interpretation is reasonable B. holding that a reviewing court must defer to an agencys interpretation of an operable statute as long as that interpretation is consistent with legislative intent and is supported by substantial competent evidence C. holding that a court must defer to an agencys reasonable interpretation of a statute even if the court might have preferred another D. holding that circuit court should defer to supreme courts interpretation of the act E. holding that courts should defer to agencys interpretation of its own regulations if not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a court must defer to an agencys reasonable interpretation of a statute even if the court might have preferred another
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: 19.1 this dispute resolution and arbitration agreement shall apply if you ( i ) reside in the united states ; or ( ii ) do not reside in the united states , but bring any claim against airbnb in the united states ( to the extent not in conflict with section 21 ) .

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: 8.1.2 viber may change the rates for calling phones at any time without notice to you by posting such change at http://account.viber.com/ .

assistant: Unilateral change
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: State, 751 So.2d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), concerned a “small amount of marijuana ... consistent with personal use,” State v. Gross, 833 So.2d 777, 781 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), which did “not suggest a pattern of continuous drug activity.” Raulerson, 714 So.2d at 537. Indeed, the court in Raulerson contrasted it with “those cases involving discovery of narcotics from a one-time trash pull, where additional information was included in the affidavits [that] suggested patterns of continuous drug activity,” id., such as State v. Mayes, 666 So.2d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), and Scott v. State, 559 So.2d 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), both of which combined a single trash pull with police surveillance that corroborated an anonymous tip. See also United States v. Sumpter, 669 F.2d 1215, 1221 (8th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Biondich, 652 F.2d 743 (8th Options: A. holding that a vehicle may be seized without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe that it is subject to forfeiture B. holding that an affidavit did not provide probable cause sufficient to validate a warrant where the affidavit stated an incorrect date uncontradicted by any other specific fact in the affidavit C. holding that affidavit is inadequate if it fails to disclose facts which would enable the magistrate to ascertain from the affidavit that the event upon which the probable cause was founded was not so remote as to render it ineffective D. holding that the purpose of a preliminary examination is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed it E. holding that a single trash pull might be sufficient but it helps if other facts bolster the sufficiency of the affidavit in establishing probable cause to believe that illegal drugs would be found

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a single trash pull might be sufficient but it helps if other facts bolster the sufficiency of the affidavit in establishing probable cause to believe that illegal drugs would be found
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: assets-are all of its creditors. 24 . S.I. Acquisition, 817 F.2d at 1152. 25 . H.R.Rep. No. 595, 2nd Sess., at 340 (1977), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1978, at 6297. We note that even though the automatic stay provision does not apply in this case, the injunctive relief that must be requested by the Curators embodies the same policy concerns. 26 . We do not imply that a creditor can never assert an individual claim against the debtor. Indeed, we intend just the opposite. Courts and commentators alike recognize differences between a "personal” claim — one in which an individual creditor has been harmed — and a "general” claim — one in which the creditors collectively have been harmed. 27 . But see Ellenberg v. Walliagha (In re Mattress N More), 231 B.R. 104, 109-10 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.1998) (<HOLDING>). 28 . In re E.F. Hutton Southwest Properties Options: A. holding that a chapter 7 trustee was the only person with authority to bring a cause of action after the appointment of a trustee B. holding that the trustee of a nominee trust functions more as an agent than as a true trustee C. recognizing authority of chapter 13 trustee to recover overpayment but not finding refund appropriate where error was attributable to trustee D. holding that because 544b1 provides only the power of avoidance it does not confer authority on the trustee to pursue state law damage claims but that the trustee could pursue such claims under 544a1 or 2 if the claims could have been asserted by the debtor corporation E. recognizing that from a policy perspective a trustee should be able to pursue general alter ego claims as a representative of the estate but concluding that no statutory basis under the code exists for the trustee to do so

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that from a policy perspective a trustee should be able to pursue general alter ego claims as a representative of the estate but concluding that no statutory basis under the code exists for the trustee to do so
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of the Elliott Parties represents and warrants to the Company that (a) the authorized signatory of such Elliott Party set forth on the signature page hereto has the power and authority to execute this Agreement and any other documents or agreements to be entered into in connection with this Agreement and to bind it thereto, (b) this Agreement has been duly authorized, executed and delivered by such Elliott Party, and is a valid and binding obligation of such Elliott Party, enforceable against it in accordance with its terms, except as enforcement thereof may be limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium, fraudulent conveyance or similar laws generally affecting the rights of creditors and subject to general equity principles, (c) the execution of this Agreement, the consummation of any of the transactions contemplated hereby, and the fulfillment of the terms hereof, in each case in accordance with the terms hereof, will not conflict with, or result in a breach or violation of the organizational documents of Elliott as currently in effect, (d) the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by such Elliott Party does not and will not (i) violate or conflict with any law, rule, regulation, order, judgment or decree applicable to Elliott, or (ii) result in any breach or violation of or constitute a default (or an event which with notice or lapse of time or both could constitute such a breach, violation or default) under or pursuant to, or result in the loss of a material benefit under, or give any right of termination, amendment, acceleration or cancellation of, any organizational document, agreement, contract, commitment, understanding or arrangement to which such Elliott Party is a party or by which it is bound, and (e) as of the date of this Agreement, (i) the Elliott Parties beneficially own in the aggregate 51,102,133 shares of Company common stock, and (ii) the Elliott Parties have additional economic exposure to the Company’s common stock through notional principal amount derivative agreements in the form of cash settled swaps comparable to an interest in 7,262,517 shares of Company common stock.

assistant: Representations
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: new versions of the terms , the community rules and the privacy policy and any other policies , codes or rules will be accessible at www.zynga.com or from within 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: This Agreement, together with the Purchase Agreement (including exhibits, annexes and appendices thereto and the Seller Disclosure Letter), the Financing Letter, the Note, the Mortgages, the Financing Documents and the Guaranty sets forth the entire agreement and understanding of the Parties in respect of the provisions contained herein and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, agreements, arrangements and understandings, whether oral or written, relating to the subject matter hereof and thereof. There are no warranties, representations or other agreements between the Parties in connection with the subject matter of this Agreement, except as specifically set forth in this Agreement or the Purchase Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Neither Borrower nor any ERISA Affiliate of Borrower has incurred or could be subjected to any liability under Title IV or Section 302 of ERISA or Section 412 of the Code or maintains or contributes to, or is or has been required to maintain or contribute to, any employee benefit plan (as defined in Section 3(3) of ERISA) subject to Title IV or Section 302 of ERISA or Section 412 of the Code. The consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement will not constitute or result in any non-exempt prohibited transaction under Section 406 of ERISA, Section 4975 of the Code or substantially similar provisions under federal, state or local laws, rules or regulations.

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: counsel was appointed, but disagree on whether that training was obtained. A review of the record indicates that Attorney Speice completed more than the requisite six hours of capital case CLE. See Commonwealth Exhibit D, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Continuing Legal Education Board course attendance record dated September 29, 2006 (indicating that Attorney Speice had completed over eight hours of capital case training by April 28, 2005). Moreover, we emphasize that even assuming Attorney Speice did not satisfy Rule 801’s capital case qualifications, such fact alone would not establish his ineffectiveness at Appellant’s trial. Rather, all the prongs of the Strickland/Pierce ineffectiveness standard must be demonstrated. See Commonwealth v. Boxley, 596 Pa. 620, 948 A.2d 742, 747 (2008) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Martin, 607 Pa. 165, 5 A.3d Options: A. recognizing rule B. holding that a defendant whose new trial motion is based on the alleged ineffectiveness of trial counsel may bypass rule 33s sevenday time limit only if his claim that his counsel was ineffective was based on information unavailable to the defendant at the time of trial C. holding that a defendant who fails to raise rule 11 error at trial has the burden to satisfy the plainerror rule D. holding that rule 801 in no way suggests that a defendant is automatically entitled to a new trial if his counsel fails to comply with the educational requirements of the rule E. holding that appellate rule 66b does not authorize an interlocutory appeal that fails to comply with appellate rule 14

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that rule 801 in no way suggests that a defendant is automatically entitled to a new trial if his counsel fails to comply with the educational requirements of the rule
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: attempt to remove and replace a court employe, In re Janitor, 35 Wis. 410 (1874); an attempt to dictate the physical facilities in which a court was to exercise its judicial functions, In re Court Room, 148 Wis. 109 (1912); an attempt to legislate what constitutes the legal sufficiency of evidence, Thoe v. Chicago M. & St. P.R. Co., 181 Wis. 456 (1923); an attempt to regulate trials in the conduct of court business, Rules of Court Case, 204 Wis. 501 (1931); bar admission and regulation of attorneys, In re Cannon, 206 Wis. 374 (1932), Integration of Bar Cases, 244 Wis. 8 (1943), 249 Wis. 523 (1946), 273 Wis. 281 (1956). In each of these cases we recognized areas of authority exclusive to the judicial branch and, therefore, free from intrusion by another branch of government. Id. at 778 (<HOLDING>). ¶ 22. To determine whether a legislative Options: A. holding that the setting and enforcement of time periods for judges to decide cases falls within an area of exclusive judicial authority B. holding that title vii provides the exclusive judicial remedy for claims of discrimination in federal employment C. holding that bankruptcy rule 4004 is not jurisdictional and falls within a courts adjudicatory authority D. holding that the apa does not permit a reviewing court to decide which side of the factual dispute it thinks the preponderance of the evidence in the administrative record falls on E. holding that complete preemption exists when a remedy falls within the scope of or is in direct conflict with erisas civil enforcement section

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the setting and enforcement of time periods for judges to decide cases falls within an area of exclusive judicial authority
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: 791 (1985). 161 . See Tuttle, 471 U.S. at 823-24, 105 S.Ct. 2427. That opinion garnered the support of only its author, then-Justice Rhenquist, and then-Chief Justice Burger, and Justices White and O'Connor. Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun, concurring in the judgment in Tuttle, specifically rejected the implication in the plurality's opinion that only existing municipal policies could form the basis for municipal liability where the acts of an official possessing final municipal policy-making authority were at issue. Id. at 831-32, 105 S.Ct. 2427. 162 . 475 U.S. 469, 106 S.Ct. 1292, 89 L.Ed.2d 452 (1986). 163 . See Pembaur, 475 U.S. at 480-81, 106 S.Ct. 1292. The Pembaur plurality, i.e., Justices Brennan, White, Marshall, and Black-mun, Ct. 1734; Gros, 181 F.3d at 615-17 (<HOLDING>); Dallas I.S.D., 153 F.3d at 216; Brady v. Fort Options: A. holding that state medical director of prison medical services corporation was not final policymaker B. holding that government entities are subject to suit under section 1983 when the alleged unconstitutional conduct results from an official government policy or from practices of government officials that are so wellsettled as to constitute a custom or usage with the force of law C. holding that an individual can be a final policymaker either by operation of state and local positive law or by custom or usage having the force of law D. holding that sources of state law identifying a final policymaker include not only positive state law but also custom or usage having the force oflaw E. holding that the phrase requirements or prohibitions imposed under state law in section 5b of the public health cigarette smoking act of 1969 codified at section 1334b title 15 uscode is not limited to positive enactments by legislatures and agencies but may also include certain state law damage actions

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that sources of state law identifying a final policymaker include not only positive state law but also custom or usage having the force oflaw
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 left the trial judge without guidance in determining whether a plaintiff has met the “reasonable person” test. The Watson panel stated the generally accepted proposition that “a ‘single isolated instance’ of employment discrimination is insufficient as a matter of law to support a finding of constructive discharge.” Watson, 823 F.2d at 361, citing, Nolan, 686 F.2d at 813-14 (held that evidence of four incidents of differential treatment over two years was sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact for trial); Satterwhite, 744 at 1381-82 (“courts which have considered the question [of constructive discharge] are reluctant to predicate a finding of constructive discharge solely on the fact of employment discrimination.”); see also, Clark v. Marsh, 665 F.2d 1168 (D.C.Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). In order to prevail in a Title YII Options: A. holding prima facie case of discrimination includes showing of adverse employment action constructive discharge could satisfy element of adverse employment action but there was no constructive discharge where evidence did not support that discrimination rather than actual performance problems prompted reprimands and poor evaluations B. holding that in order to sustain an action for constructive discharge the plaintiff must show that the conduct resulting in the resignation violated a virginia public policy embodied in an existing statute C. holding that in order to sustain death sentence as a matter of fundamental fairness the jury must find that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors and this balance must be found beyond a reasonable doubt D. recognizing that a constructive discharge claim and a hostile work environment claim are not equivalent because a constructive discharge claim imposes a higher standard E. holding that the mere fact of discrimination sans aggravating factors would not sustain a constructive discharge action

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the mere fact of discrimination sans aggravating factors would not sustain a constructive discharge 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: those arguments raise constitutional issues).” United States v. Berkowitz, 927 F.2d 1376, 1384 (7th Cir. 1991). Instead of developing his excessive-fines-clause argument, Crespo devoted his brief to attacking our jurisdiction and the ALJ’s initial decision. Crespo’s complete lack of development of this argument is sufficient to find waiver, especially given that this area' of law is quite unsettled. As an initial matter, it is not even clear that the excessive fines clause applies to civil monetary damages. See United States v. Rogan, 517 F.3d 449, 453-54 (7th Cir. 2008) (noting that it is not established that treble damages under False Claims Act are “fines”); Browning-Ferris Indus. of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257, 259-60, 109 S.Ct. 2909, 106 L.Ed.2d 219 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Even if we were to accept that a penalty paid Options: A. holding that punitive damages are not fines B. holding that the fines imposed by the challenged city ordinances are not excessive even if the excessive fines clause is applicable C. holding that punitive damages are not allowed under the flsa D. holding that excessive fines clause does not apply to civiljury award of punitive fines E. holding a court may not award punitive damages

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that punitive damages are not fines
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: There are no actions or proceedings pending or, to the knowledge of the Company, threatened by or against Company involving more than, individually or in the aggregate, Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000). There is no action, suit, inquiry, notice of violation, proceeding or investigation pending or, to the knowledge of the Company, threatened against or affecting the Company before or by any court, arbitrator, governmental or administrative agency or regulatory authority (federal, state, county, local or foreign) (collectively, an “Action”) which (i) adversely affects or challenges the legality, validity or enforceability of any of the Transaction Documents or the issuance of the Securities or (ii) could, if there were an unfavorable decision, have or reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect. Neither the Company nor any director or officer thereof, is or has been the subject of any Action involving a claim of violation of or liability under federal or state securities laws or a claim of breach of fiduciary duty. There has not been, and to the knowledge of the Company, there is not pending or contemplated, any investigation by the Commission involving the Company or any current or former director or officer of the Company.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any legally actionable dispute arises under this Agreement or otherwise which cannot be resolved by mutual discussion between the parties, then the Company and Executive each agree to resolve that dispute by binding arbitration before an arbitrator experienced in employment law. Said arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the rules applicable to employment disputes of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (“ JAMS ”) and the law applicable to the claim. The parties shall have 30 calendar days after notice of such arbitration has been given to attempt to agree on the selection of an arbitrator from JAMS. In the event the parties are unable to agree in such time, JAMS will provide a list of five (5) available arbitrators and an arbitrator will be selected from such five member panel provided by JAMS by the parties alternately striking out one name of a potential arbitrator until only one name remains. The party entitled to strike an arbitrator first shall be selected by a toss of a coin. The parties agree that this agreement to arbitrate includes any such disputes that the Company may have against Executive, or Executive may have against the Company and/or its related entities and/or employees, arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or Executive’s employment or Executive’s termination, including any claims of discrimination or harassment in violation of applicable law and any other aspect of Executive’s compensation, employment, or Executive’s termination. The parties further agree that arbitration as provided for in this Section 17(g) is the exclusive and binding remedy for any such dispute and will be used instead of any court action, which is hereby expressly waived, except for any request by any party for temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief pending arbitration in accordance with applicable law or for breaches by Executive of Executive’s obligations under Sections 12 , 13 , 15 or 16 hereof or for an administrative claim with an administrative agency. The parties agree that the arbitration provided herein shall be conducted in or around Morristown, New Jersey, unless otherwise mutually agreed. The Company shall pay the cost of any arbitration brought pursuant to this paragraph, excluding, however, the cost of representation of Executive, unless such cost is awarded in accordance with law or otherwise awarded by the arbitrators. Except as otherwise provided above, the arbitrator may award legal fees to the prevailing party in his sole discretion; provided that the percentage of fees so awarded shall not exceed 1% of the net worth of the paying party (i.e., the Company or Executive). Subject to Section 11 , except as may be required by law, neither party nor an arbitrator may disclose the existence, content or results of any arbitration hereunder without the prior written consent of both parties.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you shall not sell , license , rent , or otherwise use or exploit any content for commercial ( whether or not for profit ) use or in any way that violates any third party right .

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: not stand for long periods of time. Sears offered to further accommodate Llanes by providing him with a stool or a wheelchair while in the store. Llanes rejected these accommodations as well. In short, Llanes refused to consider any of Sears’ proposed reasonable alternatives and, instead, insisted that he be provided with the accommodation of his choice. The ADA, however, does not give a disabled employee such a right. As previously stated, an employee cannot make his employer provide a specific accommodation if another reasonable accommodation is offered. Hankins v. The Gap, Inc., 84 F.3d 797, 800-02, (6th Cir.1996), citing Ansonia Bd. of Education v. Philbrook, 479 U.S. 60, 68-69, 107 S.Ct. 367, 371-72, 93 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986); see also Kemer v. Johnson, 900 F.Supp. 677 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (<HOLDING>), aff'd., 101 F.3d 683 (2d Cir.1996), cert. Options: A. holding that ada may obligate employer to reassign disabled employee who can no longer even with reasonable accommodation perform the essential functions of her job B. holding that once a reasonable accommodation is made the employer has fulfilled its obligation under the ada C. holding that the employer must offer a medical leave of absence in order to satisfy the requirement of providing a reasonable accommodation D. holding that the disabled individual bears the initial burden of proposing an accommodation and showing that that accommodation is objectively reasonable and that the defendant was entitled to prevail because the plaintiffs proposed accommodation of remaining on unpaid medical leave until another customer service or receptionist position opened up was not a reasonable accommodation under the ada E. holding that an employer is not liable where it takes reasonable steps to provide an accommodation and the employee is responsible for a breakdown in the process of identifying a reasonable accommodation

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that once a reasonable accommodation is made the employer has fulfilled its obligation under the ada
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 also represent that all information you provide or provided to instagram upon registration and at all other times will be true , accurate , current and complete and you agree to update your information as necessary to maintain its truth and accuracy .

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: All the terms and provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the parties hereto, and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, personal representatives, successors and permitted assigns.

assistant: 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: (a) The Guarantees made hereunder (i) shall terminate when all the Obligations (other than contingent indemnification obligations for which no claim has been made) have been paid in full and the Lenders have no further commitment to lend under the Credit Agreement or to issue or participate in Letters of Credit and the LC Exposure has been reduced to zero and (ii) shall continue to be effective or be reinstated, as the case may be, if at any time any payment in respect thereof, of any Secured Obligation is rescinded or must otherwise be restored by any Secured Party or any Guarantor upon the bankruptcy or reorganization of Borrower, any Guarantor or otherwise. In connection with the foregoing, the Agents shall execute and deliver to such Guarantor or Guarantor’s designee, at such Guarantor’s expense, any documents or instruments which such Guarantor shall reasonably request from time to time to evidence such termination and release.

assistant: Terminations
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: minority holds that there is no per se prohibition of simultaneous filings. See, e.g., Davis v. Mather (In re Davis), 239 B.R. 573, 575 n. 2 (10th Cir. BAP 1999); Grimes v. United States (In re Grimes), 117 B.R. 531, 533-36 (9th Cir. BAP 1990); Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Saylors (In re Saylors), 869 F.2d 1434, 1437-38 (11th Cir.1989). In general, the minority takes the position that “a debtor who has been granted a discharge under one chapter under Title 11 may file a subsequent petition under another chapter even though the first case remains open.” Grimes, 117 B.R. at 536. They interpret Atkins “as stating that two cases which seek to discharge the same debt cannot be pending simultaneously.” Transamerica Credit Corp. v. Bullock (In re Bullock), 206 B.R. 389, 393 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1997) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis in original). In Atkins the debtor Options: A. holding that the eleventh amendment does not bar a bankruptcy court from issuing a money judgment against a state under the bankruptcy code B. holding that defamation action is not a proceeding arising in a bankruptcy case C. holding that atkins does not bar a simultaneous bankruptcy filing where a discharge already issued in the first proceeding D. holding that under the established law that bankruptcy courts could not discharge criminal judgments E. holding that bankruptcy court may issue proposed findings and conclusions in a core proceeding over which the bankruptcy court does not have constitutional authority

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that atkins does not bar a simultaneous bankruptcy filing where a discharge already issued in the first proceeding
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 accident. claiming that the repairs did not restore his car to its pre-accident condition and value. See id. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for the insure , 519 P.2d 667, 673 (1974) ("When an insurer makes an election to repair or rebuild under a 'repair, restore or replace clause’ in its policy, the insurer is then obligated to put the vehicle in substantially the same condition as it was prior to the collision so as to render it as valuable and as serviceable as before.”); Dependable Ins. Co. v. Gibbs, 218 Ga. 305, 127 S.E.2d 454, 461 (1962); Eby v. Foremost Ins. Co., 141 Mont. 62, 374 P.2d 857, 858 (1962) (following Rossier v. Union Automobile Ins. Co., 134 Or. 211, 291 P. 498 (1930) ); Campbell v. Calvert Fire. Ins. Co., 234 S.C. 583, 109 S.E.2d 572, 577 (1959) (<HOLDING>) (footnote omitted); Nat’l Farmers Union Prop. Options: A. holding the measure of damages is the difference between the value of the automobile prior to the upset and its value when prepared and presented to the plaintiff for acceptance B. holding that unless the collision resulted in a total loss the measure of recovery is the difference between the fair market value of the vehicle in the condition in which it was immediately prior to the collision and its value thereafter C. holding that if the insurer cannot return the vehicle to substantially the same condition then the actual cash value is the appropriate measure where insured sued for damages caused by insurers inappropriate election to repair and the value after repairs was almost sixty percent less than its preloss value D. holding there cannot be a complete restoration of the property unless it can be said that there has been no diminution of value after repair of the car and adding that the appropriate and fair measure of damages could be achieved by awarding either the difference between the fair cash value of the car before and after the collision or similarly the cost of repairs plus any diminution in value E. holding that to find the measure of damages as the difference in market value immediately before and after the collision would be arbitrarily reading out of the policy the right of defendant to make repairs or replace the damaged part with materials of like kind and quality

assistant: The best answer is D. holding there cannot be a complete restoration of the property unless it can be said that there has been no diminution of value after repair of the car and adding that the appropriate and fair measure of damages could be achieved by awarding either the difference between the fair cash value of the car before and after the collision or similarly the cost of repairs plus any diminution in value
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: with a waiver of sovereign immunity. Nor is there anything particularly offensive about requiring a state to accept the TTAB’s decision without further recourse. Other regimes pass constitutional muster where federal court review of agency adjudication is curtailed, and they concern rights at least as precious as a party’s interest in a trademark. In 2010, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that judicial review of the Attorney General’s decision to deport a person from the United States may be limited, see Kucana v. Holder, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 827, 831, 175 L.Ed.2d 694 (2010), and we have recognized in at least two en banc decisions that review of an agency’s entitlement determinations may be foreclosed, see Czerkies v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 73 F.3d 1435, 1437-39 (7th Cir.1996) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); Marozsan v. United States, 852 F.2d 1469, Options: A. holding that an agencys determination on a workers compensation claim was entitled to deference B. recognizing that a federal court may not review a challenge to a benefits determination of the office of workers compensation programs in the department of labor C. holding that the director of the office of workers compensation programs in the us dept of labor lacked standing to challenge a decision by the benefits review board and finding that when an agency in its governmental capacity is meant to have standing congress says so emphasis in original D. holding that the trial courts authority to initiate workers compensation benefits before the final adjudication was not divested by the legislature and was consistent with the stated purpose of the workers compensation act E. holding art v 8b does not apply to judgments rendered by the office of workers compensation

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that a federal court may not review a challenge to a benefits determination of the office of workers compensation programs in the department of labor
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: or any injury to another legally protected interest.” (Emphasis added; internal footnotes and citations omitted.) Accordingly, we focus on the source and scope of defendants’ liability. Assuming, without deciding, that defendants’ conduct, as alleged, infringed on a legally protected interest of plaintiff, we hold that the infringement of that interest is not of sufficient importance to warrant an award of damages for emotional distress. The underlying interest arises from the relationship between plaintiff as a client and defendants as accountants. Even though the relationship is fiduciary in nature, it is fundamentally an economic one. It is not similar to the interests that the court held cognizable for purposes of emotional damages in Norwest. See also Bennett, 154 Or App at 406 (<HOLDING>); Collver v. Salem Insurance Agency, Inc., 132 Options: A. holding that economic loss rule precludes recovery of economic damages only in the absence of personal injury or property damage claims B. holding that jury not required to award noneconomic damages merely because it has awarded economic damages C. holding that emotional distress damages related to an attorneyclient relationship was properly stricken because the underlying interest was chiefly economic D. holding that there is no right to a meaningful attorneyclient relationship E. holding there was no abuse of discretion where although the district court did not discuss the relationship that the damages awarded had to the damages sought the district courts opinion made clear that it was well aware of this relationship

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that emotional distress damages related to an attorneyclient relationship was properly stricken because the underlying interest was chiefly economic