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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The proceeds of the Loans will be used only to (a) to refinance existing indebtedness; (b) to pay the fees, expenses and other transaction costs of the transactions contemplated hereby; and (c) to fund working capital needs and general corporate purposes of the Company and its Subsidiaries including the making of Business Acquisitions and other acquisitions of property. No part of the proceeds of any Loan will be used, whether directly or indirectly, for any purpose that entails a violation of any of the Regulations of the Board, including Regulations T, U and X. Letters of Credit will be issued only to support the working capital needs and general corporate obligations of the Company and its Subsidiaries. No Borrower will request any Borrowing or Letter of Credit, and no Borrower shall use, and shall procure that its Subsidiaries and its or their respective directors, officers, employees and agents shall not use, the proceeds of any Borrowing or Letter of Credit (a) in furtherance of an offer, payment, promise to pay, or authorization of the payment or giving of money, or anything else of value, to any Person in violation of any Anti-Corruption Laws, (b) for the purpose of funding, financing or facilitating any activities, business or transaction of or with any Sanctioned Person, or in any Sanctioned Country, or (c) in any manner that would result in the violation of any Sanctions applicable to any party hereto.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: we always appreciate your feedback or other suggestions about facebook , but you understand that we may use your feedback or suggestions without any obligation to compensate you for them ( just as you have no obligation to offer them ) .

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: ADEA claims. We reject PwC’s construction of the worksharing agreement for another reason: it would effectively rewrite the ADEA’s administrative prerequisites, making them traps for the unwary, poised to spring into action and deny those who may have suffered employment discrimination their right to seek redress in federal court. Indeed, the Supreme Court has announced “a guiding principle for construing the provisions of Title VII,” Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 397, 102 S.Ct. 1127, 71 L.Ed.2d 234 (1982), which applies with equal force to the ADEA: a technical reading of the statute’s filing requirements is “particularly inappropriate in a statutory scheme in which laymen, unassisted by trained lawyers, initiate the process.” Love, 404 U.S. at 527, 92 S.Ct. 616 (<HOLDING>); see also Oscar Mayer, 441 U.S. at 755, 99 Options: A. holding that unreviewed state administrative proceedings do not have preclusive effect on title vii claim B. holding that a title vii claimant need not refile a charge after termination of state proceedings C. holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii D. holding that the antiretaliation provision of title vii reaches to employees who involuntarily participate in such proceedings and employees who do not seek to assist title vii claimant E. holding that arbitration agreement that did not provide for award of attorney fees to successful title vii claimant was unenforceable because the right to attorneys fees is central to the ability of persons to seek redress from violations of title vii

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a title vii claimant need not refile a charge after termination of state proceedings
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: For avoidance of doubt, in this Agreement “third party” means any party other than Client and AfriGIS and their holding and subsidiary companies or agents. 3.4 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement the Parties agree that the Confidential Information may be disclosed by the Receiving Party to its professional advisors on a need-to-know basis; provided that that Party takes whatever steps are necessary to procure that such professional advisors agree to abide by the terms of this Agreement to prevent the unauthorised disclosure of the Confidential Information to third parties.

assistant: No
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Holder specifically acknowledges that the Company would not enter into this Agreement or any related documents in the absence of the Holder’s representations, warranties and acknowledgments set out in this Agreement (including, without limitation, the representations set forth under clause (h) above), and that this Agreement, including such representations, warranties and acknowledgments, are a fundamental inducement to the Company, and a substantial portion of the consideration provided by the Holder, in this transaction, and that the Company would not enter into this transaction but for this inducement. The Holder understands that, unless the Holder notifies the Company in writing to the contrary before the Closing, each of the Holder’s representations and warranties contained in this Agreement will be deemed to have been reaffirmed and confirmed as of the Closing Date.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if we feel that your behavior towards any of our customer care representatives or other employees is at any time threatening or offensive , we reserve the right to immediately terminate your account .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Corp., 767 F.Supp. 167, 170 (N.D.Ill.1991), the court considered the amended complaint filed even though the plaintiff never requested leave because the complaint “merely alleged additional theories of liability based on the same set of facts,” which the court would have allowed the plaintiff to re-file. But it was more procedurally expedient to consider the complaint filed than to strike the amended complaint and then grant leave to file another complaint that raised the exact same issues. And more important, the parties would be in the same position regardless of which procedure the court used. Similarly, in Straub v. Desa Industries, Inc., 88 F.R.D. 6, 9 (M.D.Pa.1980), an amended complaint alleging a new cause of action was deemed filed without a request 4, 987-88 (5th Cir.1989)(<HOLDING>). Thus, this exception does not apply and the Options: A. holding that the loss of a statute of limitations defense prejudices a defendant B. holding that potential loss of a contract constitutes irreparable injury C. holding that the loss of a statute of limitations defense constitutes clear legal prejudice D. holding that the running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense E. holding neither a lack of prejudice to the defendant nor the running of the statute of limitations constitutes good cause

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the loss of a statute of limitations defense constitutes clear legal prejudice
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 PARTIES HERETO HEREBY WAIVES TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW ANY RIGHT IT MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY WITH RESPECT TO ANY LITIGATION DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ARISING OUT OF, UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OF THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY. EACH OF THE PARTIES HEREBY (A) CERTIFIES THAT NO REPRESENTATIVE, AGENT OR ATTORNEY OF THE OTHER PARTY HAS REPRESENTED, EXPRESSLY OR OTHERWISE, THAT SUCH OTHER PARTY WOULD NOT, IN THE EVENT OF LITIGATION, SEEK TO ENFORCE THE FOREGOING WAIVER AND (B) ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT HAS BEEN INDUCED TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT AND THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED BY THIS AGREEMENT, AS APPLICABLE, BY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE MUTUAL WAIVERS AND CERTIFICATIONS IN THIS SECTION 5.7.

assistant: Waiver Of Jury Trials
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: theory of the case — generally falls within the broad range of reasonable professional conduct.” And counsel’s reasoned explanation for his strategy here was “not so unsound that no reasonable lawyer would have pursued it.” Thus, the trial court did not err in denying Issa’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Decided January 31, 2017 Reconsideration denied February 23, 2017 Gerard J. Lupa, for appellant. Paul L. Howard, Jr., District Attorney, Paige Reese Whitaker, Michael V. Snow, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee. For all the foregoing reasons, we affirm Issa’s convictions and the denial of his motion for new trial. Judgment affirmed. Reese and Bethel, JJ., concur. 1 See, e.g., Powell v. State, 310 Ga. Ap ite v. State, 315 Ga. App. 54, 62 (7) (726 SE2d 548) (2012) (<HOLDING>). 32 White v. State, 281 Ga. 276, 280 (3) (637 Options: A. holding that a properly instructed jury may not consider the redacted confession of a codefendant which obviously referred directly to someone often obviously the defendant B. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to continue due to pretrial publicity in part because court instructed jury on three separate occasions to consider only evidence presented in the courtroom C. holding that similartransaction evidence against codefendant did not require severance given that trial court instructed jury that such evidence only pertained to codefendant D. holding that the trial court correctly instructed the jury that the defendant had to establish by evidence that outweighed the evidence against him that he lacked the capacity to form specific intent E. holding that the enhancement requires that the defendant either threaten the codefendant witness or juror in his or her presence or issue the threat in circumstances in which there is some likelihood that the codefendant witness or juror will learn of the threat

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that similartransaction evidence against codefendant did not require severance given that trial court instructed jury that such evidence only pertained to codefendant
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: evaluate the “minimum criminal conduct” necessary to sustain a conviction under Conn. Gen.Stat. § 53-21 in order to determine whether the offense of risk of injury to a minor “by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force” may be used against the person of another. 18 U.S.C. § 16(b); Chery v. Ashcroft, No. 3:01CV1883(PCD), slip op. at 3 (D.Conn. May 21, 2002); In re Sweetser, 22 I. & N. Dec. 709 (phrasing the issue as whether the “nature of the crime — as elucidated by the generic elements of the offense- — -is such that its commission would ordinarily present a risk that physical force would be used against the person or property of another irrespective of whether the risk develops or the harm actually occurs”); In re Ramos, 23 I. & N. Dec. 336, 340 (BIA 2002)(en banc)(<HOLDING>). As the BIA stated in In re Sweetser, 22 I. & Options: A. holding that it is the conduct required to obtain a conviction rather than the consequences resulting from the crime that is relevant B. holding that courts should look to the statutory definition of the crime charged rather than the actual facts of the individuals prior conviction to determine whether the crime qualifies as a violent felony under the acca C. holding that being deported after a conviction for an aggravated felony is all that is required and it is irrelevant whether the conviction is valid at the time of sentencing D. holding that the impact upon the victims is relevant to circumstances of the crime E. holding that the relevant question in imposing restitution under the mvra is whether the loss is caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that it is the conduct required to obtain a conviction rather than the consequences resulting from the crime that is relevant
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: 13-246, Acts 1897, ch. 143, § 3, p. 219) (repealed 1978). At the time of White’s conviction, the statute read in relevant part: “At each meeting of said board held at such prison, every prisoner confined in said prison upon an indeterminate sentence, whose minimum term of sentence has expired, shall be given an opportunity to appear before such board and apply for his release upon parole, or for an absolute discharge, as hereinafter provided, and said board is hereby prohibited from entertaining any other form of application or petition for the release upon parole or absolute discharge of any prisoner.” I.C. § 11-7-1-1 (emphasis added). Thus, only inmates serving indeterminate sentences were eligible for parole. Gilchrist v. Overlade, 233 Ind. 569, 575, 122 N.E.2d 93, 96-97 (Ind.1954) (<HOLDING>). Despite being ineligible for parole, those Options: A. recognizing that the legislature has the sole power of enacting law B. holding that the legislature which created the state board of education has the power to abolish modify and control it and therefore had the power to do away with the prerequisite that the senate affirm the governors appointments of all commissioners serving on the board C. holding that in order for there to be state debt in the constitutional sense one legislature in effect must obligate a future legislature to appropriate funds to discharge the debt created by the first legislature D. holding that the dominant rule to be observed in construction of statute is to give effect to intention of legislature E. holding that the sole power of the parole board in indiana is confined to the granting of paroles and this was granted by the legislature in order to give effect to and assist in the administration of the indeterminate sentence laws

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the sole power of the parole board in indiana is confined to the granting of paroles and this was granted by the legislature in order to give effect to and assist in the administration of the indeterminate sentence 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: due to the general equitable tolling doctrine. This doctrine allows courts to mitigate the statute of limitations in the proper circumstances. Bailey v. Glover, 88 U.S. 342, 347-48, 22 L.Ed. 636 (1874). The general equitable tolling doctrine was applied in Tyger Construction Co. v. United States, 28 Fed.Cl. 35 (1993), which dealt with whether the statute of limitations begins upon submission of alleged fraudulent claims. As the court noted, “fraudulent concealment provides a major justification for [suspending] a statute of limitations.” Tyger Constr. Co., 28 Fed.Cl. at 51. The court also stated that “[fjraud allegations ... differ in kind from other potentially time-barred allegations.” Id. at 52; see Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 397, 66 S.Ct. 582, 585, 90 L.Ed. 743 (1946) (<HOLDING>). Thus, this court could choose to waive the Options: A. holding that the general equitable tolling doctrine is read into every statute of limitations B. recognizing the validity of the doctrine but holding no equitable tolling on the facts presented C. holding that limitations from the specification should not be read into the claims D. holding that the doctrine of equitable tolling can fairly be read to encompass cases where a plaintiff has been unable to timely file because of disability E. holding that application of equitable tolling doctrine was appropriate as to statute of limitations in abatement and refund proceedings under cireumstances in that case

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the general equitable tolling doctrine is read into every statute of limitations
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 herein to the contrary, if prior to settlement of the Restricted Stock Units as unrestricted stock, the Board of Directors finds sufficient cause, in its absolute discretion, it may resolve to forfeit any or all of the Restricted Stock Units held for the Grantee; provided, however, that this provision shall not apply after a Change of Control has occurred. Such forfeiture shall apply to Beneficiaries as well as the Grantee.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, by original or facsimile or electronic pdf signature, each of which when executed and delivered shall be deemed an original, and such counterparts together shall constitute one instrument.

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: we should ask whether we want to encourage or discourage reliance by investors and others on the finality of bankruptcy confirmation orders. The strong public policy in favor of maximizing debtors’ estates and facilitating successful reorganization, reflected in the Code itself, clearly weighs in favor of encouraging such reliance.” 91 F.3d at 565. IV. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. 1 . The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d)(1) and 1291. 2 . Manchester argues that equitable mootness should not apply because the claim could be paid as an administrative expense without requiring amendment of the Plan. We reject ed that argument in Continental I. 91 F.3d at 566 (<HOLDING>)- 3 . Manchester argues additionally that the Options: A. holding that because apprendi does not apply retroactively neither does blakely B. holding that rookerfeldman does not apply to state administrative decisions C. holding that a plans provision of a mechanism by which a reorganized debtor can pay an administrative claim does not mean that equitable mootness does not apply D. holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively E. holding that 727a2a does not apply to the transfer of the assets of a corporation in which the debtor is a shareholder

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a plans provision of a mechanism by which a reorganized debtor can pay an administrative claim does not mean that equitable mootness does not 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: Except as set forth in Schedule 3.1(j) , 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, any Subsidiary or any of their respective properties 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 Securities or (ii) could, if there were an unfavorable decision, have or reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect. Except as set forth in Schedule 3.1(j) , neither the Company nor any Subsidiary, nor, to the knowledge of the Company, 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. The Commission has not issued any stop order or other order suspending the effectiveness of any registration statement filed by the Company or any Subsidiary under the Exchange Act or the Securities Act.

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: holding undisturbed. Civil Rights Act of 1991, § 101, 105 Stat. 1071. See also H.R.Rep. No. 102-10(1), 102d Cong., 1st Sess. 92 (1991), reprinted in 1991 U.S.C.C.A.N. 549, 627-631. 9 . Although it is possible that the 1991 amendment to § 1981, Civil Rights Act of 1991, 105 Stat. 1071, was intended to create a tort remedy for victims such as Spencer, the court believes that Congress would not have departed so abruptly from current decisional law without stating explicitly that it was doing so. For the text of the amendment, see supra note 7. 10 . Plaintiffs argue that Mahone’s interpretation of the "equal benefit" clause is foreclosed by the interpretation given a similar clause in § 1985(3), the "equal protection of the laws” clause, in Griffin, 403 U.S. at 97, 91 S.Ct. at 1795 (<HOLDING>). Unlike § 1981, however, § 1985(3) contains Options: A. holding that the fourteenth amendment protects property interests however only from a deprivation by state action B. holding that there is nothing inherent in the phrase that requires the action working the deprivation to come from the state C. holding that state action occurs when inter alia the party charged with the deprivation is a person who may fairly be said to be a state actor D. holding that the possibility of a mistaken understanding of the phrase preponderance of the evidence on the part of the jury is too remote to constitute plain error when counsel gave the jury an accurate explanation of the legal meaning of the phrase in his closing argument and that meaning is consistent with the common understanding of the words in the phrase E. recognizing that where the marks share a word or phrase but are otherwise different the plaintiff is not pmmitted to claim a right to all variant of the phrase in a specific market

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that there is nothing inherent in the phrase that requires the action working the deprivation to come from the state
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 provided in this Section 13.1, the Plan may be wholly or partially amended or otherwise modified, suspended or terminated at any time or from time to time by the Board. However, without approval of the Company’s stockholders given within twelve (12) months before or after the action by the Administrator, no action of the Administrator may, except as provided in Section 13.2 hereof, (i) increase the Share Limit (including the Fungible Unit Limit) or the Director Limit, (ii) reduce the price per share of any outstanding Option or Stock Appreciation Right granted under the Plan, or (iii) cancel any Option or Stock Appreciation Right in exchange for cash or another Award in violation of Section 11.6 hereof. Except as provided in Section 13.13 hereof, no amendment, suspension or termination of the Plan shall, without the consent of the Participant, impair any rights or obligations under any Award theretofore granted or awarded, unless the Award itself otherwise expressly so provides. No Awards may be granted or awarded during any period of suspension or after termination of the Plan, and in no event may any Award be granted under the Plan after the tenth (10 th ) anniversary of the Effective Date.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: arguing that plaintiffs do not ascribe any economic significance to the eight county area. They argue that plaintiffs’ experts reach contradictory conclusions and have not made findings supporting the alleged eight county geographic market. Plaintiffs allege in their amended complaint that the alleged antitrust violation, injury and damage occurred in the eight county area and that defendants and their co-conspirators have market power in this area. The court of appeals has approved geographic markets consisting of multiple counties in antitrust cases involving the provision of health care. See Blue Cross, 65 F.3d at 1411 (noting that either the individual counties or a group of counties where defendants operate would be an appropriate geographic market); Rockford, 898 F.2d at 1284-85 (<HOLDING>). Whether plaintiffs’ expert reports or other Options: A. recognizing that what is a reasonable area is a factual matter to be determined in each noncompete case B. recognizing the uncertain state of federal law in this area C. holding physician in action based on illegal cavity search to standard of a reasonable physician D. recognizing that a geographic market is hard to define but approving a three county area based on defendants service area and physician and patient preference for nearby hospitals E. holding that a plaintiff physician alleging race and national origin discrimination was not required to pursue his claims initially with the phc because the hospitals basis for revoking his privileges was sexual harassment allegations and not patient care deficiencies

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that a geographic market is hard to define but approving a three county area based on defendants service area and physician and patient preference for nearby hospitals
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 rights and obligations of the parties under the provisions of this Plant (including without limitation Section 6 shall survive, and remaining binding and enforceable, notwithstanding the termination of Executive’s employment hereunder or otherwise, to the extent necessary to preserve the intended benefits of such provision.

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: The date and time of the Closing (the " Closing Date ") shall be 10:00 a.m., New York City time, on the Execution Date (or such later date as is mutually agreed to by the Company and each Buyer) after notification of satisfaction (or waiver) of the conditions to the Closing set forth in Sections 6 and 7 below, at the offices of Nason, Yeager, Gerson, White & Lioce, P.A., 3001 PGA Boulevard, Suite 305, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: by the Rose Foundation and others had no effect on the decision to sue Mr. Hurwitz,?” Williams responded, "Absolutely so.” 84 . See, e.g., Schwarzer, 104 F.R.D. at 196 (“Were a court to entertain inquiries into subjective bad faith, it would invite a number of potentially harmful consequences,, such as generating satellite litigation, inhibiting speech and chilling advocacy.”). 85 . 126 S.Ct. at 1704. 86 . Id. at 1704 n. 7. 87 . Id. at 1706 ("The connection, to be alleged and shown, is the absence of probable cause.”). 88 . Id. 89 . See, e.g., Davis v. Veslan Enters., 765 F.2d 494, 500 (5th Cir.1985) (affirming Rule 11 sanctions for improper purpose where a party brought a removal petition solely to delay the judgment in a case); Morley v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 66 F.3d 21, 25 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); see also Georgene M. Vairo, Rule 11 Options: A. holding that rule 11 sanctions are not appropriate when a motion is filed in part for a legitimate purpose even when the motion includes certain evidence which is assertedly presented for an improper purpose B. holding that rule 11 is not properly used to sanction the inappropriate filing of papers where other rules more directly apply C. holding that filing a supplemental complaint to intimidate the defendant into a large settlement was an improper purpose while also finding other rule 11 violations internal quotations omitted D. holding that under chevron step two courts may not disturb an agency rule unless it is arbitrary or capricious in substance or manifestly contrary to the statute internal quotations omitted E. holding that filing of an administrative complaint did not meet the requirement that the employee seek counseling prior to filing

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that filing a supplemental complaint to intimidate the defendant into a large settlement was an improper purpose while also finding other rule 11 violations internal quotations omitted
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: applicable to petitions for third-party visitation to give special weight to a parent's decision concerning visitation, in accordance with Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000). Specifically, this court concluded that in considering a stepparent's request for visitation, the trial court must also consider the presumption that a fit parent acts in his or her child's best interests, the special weight afforded a fit parent's decision to deny visitation, and whether the parent has denied or simply limited visitation. Schaffer v. Schaffer, 884 N.E.2d 423. This court's early third-party visitation cases did not hold, however, that standing to seek such visitation was limited to stepparents. See, e.g., Krieg v. Glassburn, 419 N.E.2d 1015 (Ind.Ct.App.1981) (<HOLDING>), superseded by statute as recognized in In re Options: A. holding prior to the passage of the grandparent visitation act that grandparents may be granted thirdparty visitation B. holding that a plaintiff who had asserted no claim against a thirdparty defendant lacked standing to complain of the courts action with regard to the thirdparty defendant C. holding that the thirdparty beneficiary theory did not apply D. holding that the governments cooperation with a thirdparty is not sufficient to establish a thirdparty beneficiary relationship E. holding thirdparty claims may be premised upon a violation of kucspa

assistant: The best answer is A. holding prior to the passage of the grandparent visitation act that grandparents may be granted thirdparty visitation
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: 428, 429 n. 1, 343 S.E.2d 45, 46 n. 1 (Ct.App.1986). 2. Separation Agreements Prior to 1983, the law in South Carolina was unclear as to what specific words were necessary to render a separation agreement enforceable in the family court. In Kelly v. Edwards, 276 S.C. 368, 278 S.E.2d 773 (1981), the supreme court held that an agreement incorporated but not merged in a divorce decree was enforceable only as a contract and that the family court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enforce it. Thereafter, in Brooks v. Brooks, 277 S.C. 322, 326, 286 S.E.2d 669, 671 (1982), the supreme court concluded the family court properly held a party in contempt for violating a separation agreement that was not merged in the final decree. See also Bryant v. Varat, 278 S.C. 77, 292 S.E.2d 298 (1982) (<HOLDING>). In 1983, however, the South Carolina Supreme Options: A. holding that the trial court had authority to enforce a marital property settlement agreement that had not been incorporated into the parties final divorce decree B. holding that the trial judge had the power to incorporate a settlement agreement in a decree following the entry of a decree of divorce C. holding that the family court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hold a party in contempt where the separation agreement was incorporated but not merged into a divorce decree D. holding that the jurisdiction of the divorce court with regard to support and maintenance is statutorily determined unless otherwise provided by agreement incorporated into the divorce decree E. holding a motion to revise an enrolled divorce decree because of a discrepancy between the separation agreement and the decree filed more than 5 years after entry of the enrolled decree was properly denied

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the family court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hold a party in contempt where the separation agreement was incorporated but not merged into a divorce decree
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Executive understands and agrees that the Executive’s employment creates a relationship of confidence and trust between the Executive and the Employers with respect to all Confidential Information. At all times, both during the Executive’s employment with the Employers and after its termination, the Executive will keep in confidence and trust all such Confidential Information, and will not use or disclose any such Confidential Information without the written consent of the Employers, except as may be necessary in the ordinary course of performing the Executive’s duties to the Employers.

assistant: Confidentiality
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 remedies provided in this Warrant shall be cumulative and in addition to all other remedies available under this Warrant, at law or in equity (including a decree of specific performance and/or other injunctive relief), and nothing herein shall limit the right of the Holder to pursue actual damages for any failure by the Company to comply with the terms of this Warrant. The Company acknowledges that a breach by it of its obligations hereunder may cause irreparable harm to the Holder and that the remedy at law for any such breach may be inadequate. The Company therefore agrees that, in the event of any such breach or threatened breach, the holder of this Warrant shall be entitled, in addition to all other available remedies, to seek an injunction restraining any breach. Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything else herein to the contrary, other than as expressly provided, if the Company is for any reason unable to issue and deliver Warrant Shares upon exercise of this Warrant as required pursuant to the terms hereof, the Company shall have no obligation to pay to the Holder any cash or other consideration or otherwise “net cash settle” this Warrant.

assistant: Remedies
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: during the life of the performer. 3. Naxos Has Not Competed Unfairly Since Capitol has no rights in the original recordings, it cannot charge Naxos with unfair competition. As both parties agree, unauthorized copying without more is not actionable. (Def.’s Mem. at 16; Pl.’s Opp. Mem. at 18.) See Leonard Storch Enters., Inc. v. Mergenthaler, No. 78-C-238, 1980 WL 1175, at *30 (E.D.N.Y. Aug.8, 1980) (“[N]o New York case has ever recognized a right of unfair competition based solely on the copying or photocopying of a tangible product.”), aff'd, 659 F.2d 1060 (2d Cir.1981). A plaintiff only has a viable claim where it also has exclusive, cognizable rights to the property it seeks to prevent from copying. E.g., Hebrew Publ’g Co. v. Scharfstein, 288 N.Y. 374, 376-77, 43 N.E.2d 449 (1942) (<HOLDING>); G. Ricordi & Co. v. Haendler, 194 F.2d 914, Options: A. holding that without more for defendant to copy books published by plaintiff which were not covered by copyright and then sell these copies does not state a claim for unfair competition B. holding that conversion and unjust enrichment claims were preempted by the copyright act since they were not qualitatively different from a copyright claim because they contained no extra element beyond those necessary to show copyright infringement C. holding that while the computer program at issue was within the subject matter of copyright the right sought under state law pursuant to a license was not equivalent to the exclusive rights under copyright as such copyright preemption did not apply D. holding that the use of copies or derivatives of copies of copyrighted technical drawings to manufacture a machine did not constitute an act of copyright infringement E. holding that claim against state for failing to prevent sexual abuse was covered by statute

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that without more for defendant to copy books published by plaintiff which were not covered by copyright and then sell these copies does not state a claim for unfair competition
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: however , we will not be responsible for any errors or omissions in relation to such content or for any technical problems you may experience with our site or our service .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: an employer from intentionally treating someone differently based on his or her age. It would be a stretch to read the phrase “because of such individual’s age” to prohibit incidental and unintentional discrimination that resulted because of employment decisions which were made for reasons other than age. Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 611-13, 113 S.Ct. 1701, 1707, 123 L.Ed.2d 338 (1993) (“The ADEA requires the employer to ignore an employee’s age ...; it does not specify further characteristics that an employer must also ignore.”). Admittedly, in Griggs, the Supreme Court construed language in Title VII that was nearly identical to that found in Section 623(a) of the ADEA to create a disparate impact theory of discrimination. Griggs, 401 U.S. at 431, 91 S.Ct. at 853 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, we generally interpret the ADEA Options: A. holding that discriminatory employment practices are cognizable under title ix B. holding that dogs are effects C. holding that title vii proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form but discriminatory in operation D. holding that employment practices which are neutral in form but which result in discriminatory effects are prohibited unless justified by business necessity E. holding that the csras exclusive and comprehensive remedial scheme precludes review under the apa of disputes that concern not only employment practices specifically prohibited under the csra but also employment practices that are so insignificant as not even to bear mention in the csra

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that employment practices which are neutral in form but which result in discriminatory effects are prohibited unless justified by business necessity
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 execution, delivery and effectiveness of this Amendment shall not operate as a waiver of any right, power or remedy of any Lender, any Issuing Bank, any Swingline Lender or the Administrative Agent under any of the Loan Documents, nor constitute a waiver of any provision of any of the Loan Documents.

assistant: No Waivers
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: rather than among investors.” (citing Brodt v. Bache & Co., 595 F.2d 459 (9th Cir.1978)), rev’d on other grounds, 904 F.2d 918 (4th Cir.1990) (per curiam); Waterman v. Alta Verde Indus., Inc., 643 F.Supp. 797, 803 n. 6 (E.D.N.C.1986) (“A common enterprise exists where the fortunes of the investor are interwoven with and dependent upon the efforts of and success of the party seeking the investment or of a third party.” (citing SEC v. Continental Commodities Corp., 497 F.2d 516, 522 (5th Cir.1974)), aff'd, 833 F.2d 1006 (4th Cir.1987) (table). Other courts, although not directly addressing the issue whether vertical commonality alone is sufficient, have indicated which approach to vertical commonality they follow. See In re EPIC Mortgage Ins. Litig., 701 F.Supp. 1192, 1248 (E.D.Va.1988) (<HOLDING>), aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other Options: A. holding that a person who obtains drugs from a seller is not an accomplice of the seller B. holding that there was no common venture where the fortunes of the purchasers were not tied to the fortunes of the seller C. holding that breach occurred when seller told buyer that seller would do no more to rectify alleged warranty violation D. holding that the seller of a business implicitly transferred a property right in the firms good will to the buyer and that the seller could not then impair that right by actively soliciting the customers of his former business E. holding that the owner of the land could not bring a 93a action against a prior owner of the land who was not the seller because there was no business connection between the two parties

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that there was no common venture where the fortunes of the purchasers were not tied to the fortunes of the seller
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: corporation chartered by the Boy Scouts to administer Scouting programs in the San Diego area. Both the Council and the Boy Scouts of America are named as defendants. Congress chartered the Boy Scouts of America “to promote ... the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916.” 36 U.S.C. § 30902 (2012). While Scouting focuses primarily on outdoor activity, the Boy Scouts’ rules include a prohibition against allowing youths or adults who are atheists, agnostics, or homosexuals to be members or volunteers. Cf. Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 659-61, 120 S.Ct. 2446, 147 L.Ed.2d 554 (2000) (<HOLDING>). These rules bind the Council. The Boy Scouts Options: A. holding right to testify was federal constitutional right B. holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony C. holding that the boy scouts have a constitutional right to exclude homosexuals D. recognizing the right to trial by jury is a constitutional right to be given the same protections as other constitutional rights E. recognizing that courts have discretion to exclude evidence as a sanction for violation of a discovery order

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the boy scouts have a constitutional right to exclude homosexuals
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: law. Courts were unwilling to recognize a common law cause of action against purveyors of intoxicating beverages because, as a matter of law, consumption, rather than the furnishing of alcohol, was considered the proximate cause of the ultimate damages. See Haafke, 347 N.W.2d at 384; Snyder v. Davenport, 323 N.W.2d 225, 226 (Iowa 1982). Thus, dram shop statutes were enacted to enable tort plaintiffs to bridge the proximate cause gap between the sale of an intoxicating beverage and the subsequent injury or damage caused by the intoxicated patron. In exchange for this new claim, the legislature mandated that liquor purveyors were strictly liable and carefully prescribed the means by which liability may be ascertained. Snyder, 323 N.W.2d at 227. The statute limits recovery for injuri 984) (<HOLDING>); Bauer v. Dann, 428 N.W.2d 658, 661 (Iowa Options: A. holding tavern employees could be held liable for negligently furnishing alcohol to a patron in violation of a criminal statute or ordinance 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 that employer who failed to take remedial action could be held liable for sexual harassment of employee by subcontractors employees D. holding that tavern will be held liable for serving alcohol to visibly intoxicated patron who then foreseeably becomes involved in a motor vehicle accident E. holding tavern owner not liable for injuries sustained when intoxicated patron assaulted a police officer

assistant: The best answer is A. holding tavern employees could be held liable for negligently furnishing alcohol to a patron in violation of a criminal statute or ordinance