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: Cash Collateral (or the appropriate portion thereof) provided to reduce Fronting Exposure or to secure other obligations shall be released promptly following (i) the elimination of the applicable Fronting Exposure or other obligations giving rise thereto (including by the termination of Defaulting Lender status of the applicable Lender) (or, as appropriate, its assignee following compliance with Section 11.06(b)(vi) ), (ii) delivery of Cash Collateral to the Administrative Agent pursuant to Section 2.15(a)(ii) in substitution of Cash Collateral previously delivered by the Borrowers pursuant to Section 2.14(a) or (iii) the good faith determination by the Administrative Agent that there exists excess Cash Collateral; provided , however , (x) that Cash Collateral furnished by or on behalf of a Loan Party shall not be released during the continuance of a Default or Event of Default (and following application as provided in this Section 2.14 may be otherwise applied in accordance with Section 9.03 ), (y) any such release shall be without prejudice to, and any disbursement or other transfer of Cash Collateral shall be and remain subject to, any other Lien conferred under the Loan Documents and the other applicable provisions of the Loan Documents, and (z) the Person providing Cash Collateral and the L/C Issuer may agree that Cash Collateral shall not be released but instead held to support future anticipated Fronting Exposure or other obligations.

assistant: Releases
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: that “the question is whether the officers’ actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation”). The Supreme Court has admonished that “[t]he calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments — in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving — about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” Id. at 396-97, 109 S.Ct. 1865. Finally, in judging the reasonableness of the officers’ actions, we assess only the reasonableness of their actions vis-a-vis the dogs; we do not consider potential harm to third parties. Cf. Howerton v. Fletcher, 213 F.3d 171, 175 (4th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). The task of this court is to put itself into Options: A. holding that the question of whether a municipal official is a policymaking official is a matter of state law to be decided by the court B. holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the officials office C. holding that inquiry as to whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for use of excessive force is distinct from inquiry on the merits of the excessive force claim D. holding that excessive force by a school official should be analyzed under the fourth amendment E. holding that the risk posed to third parties by the official use of force is not to be considered in determining whether an official used excessive force as against a particular plaintiff

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the risk posed to third parties by the official use of force is not to be considered in determining whether an official used excessive force as against a particular plaintiff
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: identity.” Id. In contrast, the images of Catherine Bosley are not sufficiently altered to reflect a creative component which was added to the images of Bosley. This Court viewed the two video tapes in question, as well as the video clips placed on the “members only” portion of SexBrat.com. The images merely capture Plaintiff Bosley’s performance at the wet t-shirt contest and do not contain any editorial content. The substance of images were not accompanied by any dialog discussing Plaintiffs status as a former news anchor. The lack of artistic expression and significant editorial comments clearly distinguish this case from other cases where First Amendment protections have applied. See e.g., Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball Players Assoc., 95 F.3d 959, 976 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). For example, the District of New Jersey, in Options: A. holding that certain dual purpose documents created in response to the epa information request and consent order were protected from discovery by the work product doctrine as they were created because of potential litigation with the epa B. holding that documents that are created in the ordinary course of business or would have been created irrespective of litigation are not protected by the work product doctrine C. holding that when a first 2255 motion succeeds in obtaining a sentence amendment a subsequent motion will be considered a first motion to the extent that it challenges a new or amended component of the sentence and a second motion to the extent that it challenges either a component of the original unamended sentence or the underlying conviction D. holding that the first amendment protected trading cards which involved caricatures of major league baseball players and humorous commentary because the cards added a significant creative component of its own to the celebrity identity and created an entirely new product E. recognizing that entry of new players through draft has an enormous effect on those already in the unit and the collective agreement which governs them

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the first amendment protected trading cards which involved caricatures of major league baseball players and humorous commentary because the cards added a significant creative component of its own to the celebrity identity and created an entirely new product
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: determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation. Fed. R. BaNkrJP. 9011(a)-(c). Rule 9011 conforms to Fed. R.Civ.P. 11, and accordingly, “[c]ourts may look to case law interpreting Rule 11 when deciding cases under Bankruptcy Rule 9011.” In re Babcock, 258 B.R. 646, 651 (Bankr.E.D.Va.2001) (citing McGahren v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Co. (In re Weiss), 111 F.3d 1159, 1170 (4th Cir.1997)); In re Atlas Mach. & Iron Works, Inc., 190 B.R. 796, 806 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1995). The primary purpose of Rule 11 is “to deter baseless filings ... and thus, streamline the administrat nkr.LEXIS at *9 (<HOLDING>). In the present case, neither Beneficial nor Options: A. holding that case law interpreting rule 11 may be use to interpret rule 9011 B. holding that filing a bankruptcy petition days before an important state court deadline amounted to bad faith and upholding sanctions under rule 9011 C. holding that regarding rule 9011 this court is only concerned with documents filed in this court and thus filings in state court provide no basis to impose sanctions under rule 9011 D. holding that misrepresentations in documents filed in state court in no way constituted a basis for imposing federal rule 11 sanctions E. holding that rule 9011 allows a bankruptcy court to sanction attorneys parties and individuals that sign and file false documents in badfaith with the court

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that regarding rule 9011 this court is only concerned with documents filed in this court and thus filings in state court provide no basis to impose sanctions under rule 9011
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: And, if a fit parent’s decision of the kind at issue here becomes subject to judicial review, the court must accord at least some special weight to the parent’s own determination. Troxel, 530 U.S. at 70, 120 S.Ct. at 2062, 147 L.Ed.2d at 59. In post-Troxel decisions, courts of last resort in Maryland and Illinois have likewise held their state visitation statutes unconstitutional where grandparents were required to prove only that visitation was in their grandchild’s best interest without a preliminary finding that the parents opposing the visits were unfit to make that decision. Lulay v. Lulay, 193 Ill.2d 455, 250 Ill.Dec. 758, 739 N.E.2d 521, 534 (2000); Brice v. Brice, 133 Md.App. 302, 754 A.2d 1132, 1135-36 (2000); see also Rideout v. Riendeau, 761 A.2d 291, 301-03 (Me.2000) (<HOLDING>). But see In re G.P.C., 28 S.W.3d 357, 365-66 Options: A. holding that the government interest in preventing crime is compelling B. recognizing the compelling interest in highway safety C. holding that for a compelling state interest to exist justifying an order of visitation over the objection of a childs parents a court must find an actual harm to the childs health or welfare without such visitation construing virginias statute as requiring such a finding D. holding that grandparent has no protected liberty interest in the visitation of a child of whom she once had custody E. holding grandparent visitation statute serves compelling state interest in maintaining grandparentgrandchild relationship where grandparents had raised child for period of time but agreeing with trial court that something more than childs best interest must be established to serve compelling state interest

assistant: The best answer is E. holding grandparent visitation statute serves compelling state interest in maintaining grandparentgrandchild relationship where grandparents had raised child for period of time but agreeing with trial court that something more than childs best interest must be established to serve compelling state interest
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in an increase in the sentencing range from 15-21 months to 27-33 months, did not present an “exceptional circumstance[ ]” as contemplated by McMillan. Watts, 519 U.S. at 156-57, 117 S.Ct. 633. Nor does the case before us today. See e.g., United States v. Fenner, 147 F.3d 360, 366 (4th Cir.1998) (rejecting argument that increases from 42 years imprisonment to 55 years imprisonment for one defendant and from 115 months imprisonment to 210 months imprisonment were “so profound that it is sufficient to implicate due process concerns or to give the impression of having been tailored to permit the application of [a] cross-reference to be a tail which wags the dog of the substantive offense” (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Galloway, 976 F.2d 414, 425-26 (8th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); cf. United States v. Lombard, 72 F.3d 170, Options: A. holding that detention of approximately eight months violated due process B. holding that where a defendants guideline range is 121 to 151 months and his statutory minimum sentence is 240 months and the government moves for a downward departure pursuant to both 3553e and 5k11 the starting point for the departure is 240 months and the court is not limited to the low end of the guideline range in determining the extent of the departure C. holding that a potential increase in a guideline range from 2127 months to 6378 months did not raise due process concerns D. holding one and onehalf months establishes causation while three months is too long and does not E. holding that dismissal was required where overall length of prosecution was 16 months state was responsible for 13 months of delay and six months of that delay was due to simple neglect

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a potential increase in a guideline range from 2127 months to 6378 months did not raise due process concerns
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: undertaken sua sponte, and outside the context of any pending case, thus lending itself to controversy similar to that which attends Freed. 15 . See generally Commonwealth v. Morris, 573 Pa. 157, 187, 822 A.2d 684, 702 (2003) (Saylor, J., concurring) ("It would seem, at least to me, to be more rational to deem the maintenance of the status quo to be procedural and an affirmative award of relief substantive; indeed, given the Morris and Laudenberger holdings in these regards, it is quite difficult for me to predict how the substantive/procedural dichotomy will be applied to various decisions made by the legislative and judicial branches in future contexts as they may arise.” (citations omitted)). 16 . See generally Naylor v. Twp. of Hellam, 565 Pa. 397, 408, 773 A.2d 770, 777 (2001) (<HOLDING>); Program Admin. Servs., Inc. v. Dauphin County Options: A. recognizing this as the general rule B. recognizing the general assemblys superior ability to examine social policy issues and to establish appropriate substantive legal standards C. recognizing the general assemblys superior ability to examine social policy issues and determine legal standards so as to balance competing concerns D. recognizing standards to determine discrimination are the same under the ra and the ada E. recognizing general rule

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing the general assemblys superior ability to examine social policy issues and determine legal standards so as to balance competing concerns
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No waiver by the parties hereto of any breach of any condition, covenant or agreement hereof will constitute a waiver of such condition, covenant or agreement except in respect of the particular breach giving rise to such waiver.

assistant: 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: to prove the existence of a vacancy is unfair, given the employer’s greater access to this information. This concern is over-stated. Once the litigation has begun, the plaintiff can utilize the liberal discovery procedures of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including interrogatories, depositions, and document demands, to identify vacancies that existed at the pertinent time.”); Smith v. Midland Brake Inc., 180 F.3d 1154, 1174 (10th Cir.1999) (en banc) (“Even if Midland Brake failed to fulfill its interactive obligations to help secure a reassignment position, Smith will not be entitled to recovery unless he can also show that a reasonable accommodation was possible and would have led to a reassignment position.”); Willis v. Conopco, Inc., 108 F.3d 282, 285 (11th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Moses v. American Nonwovens, Inc., 97 F.3d Options: A. holding that res judicata properly barred claims based on an employers decision to terminate an employee because the termination was not a fresh act of discrimination rather it was the same decision not to allow the employee to return to work that the employee had challenged previously B. holding county employee with unenforceable contract was atwill employee C. holding that the employers failure to interact with the employee does not preclude the employee from losing on summary judgment because the employee must still prove that a reasonable accommodation could have been made D. holding that an employee could not establish pretext when the employer in good faith believed that the employee engaged in misconduct regardless whether the employee in fact engaged in the misconduct E. holding defendant was not required to make a reasonable accommodation for an employee because the employee did not apprise defendant that she suffered from a mental impairment

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the employers failure to interact with the employee does not preclude the employee from losing on summary judgment because the employee must still prove that a reasonable accommodation could have been made
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: During the Term, the Company shall pay Executive an annual base salary of five hundred fifty thousand U.S. dollars (US$550,000) (the “ Base Salary ”), payable in equal biweekly installments (or, if different, in accordance with the Company’s payroll practice as in effect from time to time). For all purposes under this Agreement, the term “Base Salary” shall refer to the Base Salary as in effect from time to time.

assistant: Base Salary
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: From the Chairman Date through the day of the Company’s 2018 annual meeting of shareholders (the “ Chairman Term ”), in addition to serving as a member of the Board, Executive shall serve as Executive Chairman of the Company and shall remain an employee of the Company. The Chairman Term may not be extended other than pursuant to a written agreement between the Company and Executive, entered into not less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the Chairman Term. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Agreement requires the Company to continue to employ Executive as Executive Chairman or restricts the Board from removing Executive from the Board to the extent permitted by the Company’s governing documents and applicable law and subject to the terms of this Agreement.

assistant: Terms
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 provisions of this Award Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their successors and assigns, including, without limitation, the Company, its successors or assigns, the estate of the Grantee and the executors, administrators or trustees of such estate and any receiver, trustee in bankruptcy or representative of the creditors of the Grantee.

assistant: Binding Effects
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: added). 61 . Ex. D, Docket No. 14-4 at 7:4-11. 62 . Id. 63 . The doctrine takes its name from Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). In Rooker, the Supreme Court of the United States held that federal statutory jurisdiction over direct appeals from state courts lies exclusively in the Supreme Court and is beyond the original jurisdiction of federal district courts. 263 U.S. at 415-16, 44 S.Ct. 149. In Feldman, the Supreme Court held that this jurisdictional bar extends to particular claims that are "inextricably intertwined” with those a state court has already decided. 460 U.S. at 486-87, 103 S.Ct. 1303. 64 .Cf In re Albert, 206 B.R. at 641 (<HOLDING>). 65 . To the extent that PJAMM seeks to create Options: A. holding that notwithstanding the chapter 7 trustees postpetition settlement of state court litigation attorney had a valid charging lien in settlement proceeds for the attorneys prepetition services where services were beneficial to the estate B. holding that an attorneys cause for services rendered over a period of time accrued when his services had been completely performed C. holding that the entirety of litigation settlement proceeds was taxable income to client not net after payment of attorney fees D. holding that because proceeds of a letter of credit were not secured by estate collateral the proceeds were not property of the estate E. holding that in the context of a settlement contract the defrauded party may either 1 rescind the settlement or 2 ratify the settlement retain the proceeds and institute an action to recover fraud damages

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that notwithstanding the chapter 7 trustees postpetition settlement of state court litigation attorney had a valid charging lien in settlement proceeds for the attorneys prepetition services where services were beneficial to the estate
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Except (i) for such public disclosure as may be necessary, in the good faith judgment of the disclosing Party consistent with advice of counsel, for the disclosing Party not to be in violation of any applicable law, regulation or order, or (ii) with the prior written consent of the order Party, neither Part shall: (x) make any disclosure (and each Party shall direct its Representatives not to make any disclosure) to any person of (A) the fact that discussions, negotiations or investigations are taking or have taken place concerning a Transaction, (B) the existence or contents of this Agreement, or the fact that either Party has requested or received Evaluation Material from the other Party, or (C) any of the terms, conditions or other facts with respect to any proposed Transaction, including the status of the discussions or negotiations related thereto, or (y) make any public statement concerning a proposed Transaction.

assistant: Yes
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 not be used, circulated, quoted or otherwise referred to in any document, except with the written consent of the Parties hereto; provided, that no such written consent shall be required (a) for any disclosure of the existence or terms of this Agreement to the parties to the Transaction Agreements or their representatives or advisors with a need to know in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Agreements, (b) to the extent required by applicable Law, the applicable rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission or any national securities exchange or if required or requested in connection with any required filing or notice with any governmental authority relating to the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Agreements or (c) to enforce the rights and remedies under this Agreement.

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: This Note has been issued subject to certain investment representations of the original Holder set forth in the SPA and may be transferred or exchanged only in compliance with the SPA and applicable federal and state securities laws and regulations. The rights and obligations of the Company and the Holder of this Note shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the successors and permitted assigns of the parties hereto. To complete an assignment or transfer this Note, the Holder shall deliver a completed and executed Form of Assignment attached hereto as Exhibit C and surrender and deliver this Note, duly endorsed, to the Company’s office or such other address which the Company shall designate, upon receipt of which a new Note, in substantially the form of this Note (any such new Note, a “ New Note ”), evidencing the portion of this Note so transferred shall be issued to the transferee and a New Note evidencing the remaining portion of this Note not so transferred, if any, shall be issued to the transferring Holder. The acceptance of the New Note by the transferee thereof shall be deemed the acceptance by such transferee of all of the rights and obligations in respect of the New Note that the Holder has in respect of this Note. Interest and principal are payable only to the registered Holder of this Note set forth on the books and records of the Company.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: bankruptcy court has looked to “compelling circumstances” and the In re Lett factors proposed by Kadlecek, that same court has reiterated that those factors are not mandatory. See, e.g., In re Scott, 260 B.R. 375, 381-82 (Bankr.D.S.C.2001). As such, it appears, and Kadlecek in fact concedes, that there is no test that must, or must not, be used by a bankruptcy court in determining whether cause exists to grant retroactive relief from an automatic stay. Besides In re Wiencko, the Fourth Circuit has never considered a case that involves the retroactive annulment of an automatic stay. The In re Wiencko decision has no precedential value, as it is unpublished; it is nevertheless valuable for its persuasive reasoning. See Collins v. Pond Creek Mining Co., 468 F.3d 213, 219 (4th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). The court’s conclusion that the application Options: A. holding that traditional allocation of burden of proof to the party challenging the decisions applies to decisions under the tca B. holding that this courts review of board decisions is limited to final orders or final decisions C. recognizing that we ordinarily do not accord precedential value to our unpublished decisions and that such decisions are entitled only to the weight they generate by the persuasiveness of their reasoning citation omitted D. holding that unpublished opinions are of persuasive value at best and not precedential E. holding that unpublished opinions have precedential effect

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that we ordinarily do not accord precedential value to our unpublished decisions and that such decisions are entitled only to the weight they generate by the persuasiveness of their reasoning citation 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: of his Business, for such Time or Times as they shall think proper: A Certificate of which Appointment the Select-men shall forthwith set upon the Sign-Post, and lodge a Copy thereof in the Town-Clerks-Office of said Town; and thereupon no such Person, while under such Appointment, shall be able to make any Bargain or Contract, without the Consent of such Overseer, that shall be binding, or valid in Law.” Acts and Laws of the State of Connecticut (1796) pp. 232-34. 26 The parties appear to assume that this court has the power to infer a cause of action for damages directly from the due process provision of the state constitution. For the purpose of this appeal, we will make the same assumption. Cf., e.g., Sheets v. Teddy’s Frosted Foods, Inc., 179 Conn. 471, 480, 427 A.2d 385 (1980) (<HOLDING>); Urban v. Hartford Gas Co., 139 Conn. 301, Options: A. recognizing the tort of retaliatory discharge B. recognizing cause of action for wrongful discharge C. recognizing tort of wrongful discharge D. recognizing a tort action for wrongful discharge when employee was terminated because he refused to commit a criminal act E. recognizing common law tort claim for wrongful discharge in violation of ohio public policy based upon statutory and judicial sources

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing tort of wrongful discharge
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 Plan. (See Pl.s’ Response at 38, Doc. 25-1.) B. Burden of Proof A claimant suing under ERISA has the burden of proving entitlement to plan benefits. Horton v. Reliance Std. Life Ins. Co., 141 F.3d 1038, 1040 (11th Cir.1998) (internal citation omitted). However, “if the insurer claims that a specific policy exclusion applies to deny the insured benefits, the insurer generally must prove the exclusion prevents coverage.” Id. (internal citation omitted). Plaintiff argues that the Limitation Provision at issue here is a policy exclusion, and thus, the burden shifts to MetLife to prove the applicability of the Limitations Provision as a basis to terminate Plaintiffs long term disability benefits. See Owens v. Rollins, No. 1:08-cv-287, 2010 WL 3843765, *2 n. 4 (E.D.Ten. Sept. 27, 2010) (<HOLDING>). MetLife argues the burden of proof remains Options: A. holding that the plaintiffs have the burden of proof and persuasion as to the existence of standing B. holding that defendant must establish the application of the limitationexclusion to the plaintiffs claim where defendant did not contest the plaintiffs assertion that defendant bore the burden of proof in this case because the limitation on benefits for mental and nervous conditions is a coverage exclusion and the plan documents contained no express provision regarding burden of proof C. holding that additional instructions were necessary when the statutory definition of the charged offense by itself suggested that the defendant bore the burden of proof D. holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant E. holding that any potential prejudice regarding burdenshifting is diminished by the prosecutors statement that the burden of proof is the governments and the courts explicit instructions regarding the burden of proof in the jury charge

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that defendant must establish the application of the limitationexclusion to the plaintiffs claim where defendant did not contest the plaintiffs assertion that defendant bore the burden of proof in this case because the limitation on benefits for mental and nervous conditions is a coverage exclusion and the plan documents contained no express provision regarding burden of proof
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: beyond a reasonable doubt. See id. We suspect Knight’s multiple attempts to obtain relief on this claim stem from a mistaken belief that such an error is, or was at one time, per se reversible. The supreme court, however, has never held that it is. In the absence of such a declaration by the supreme court, all judgments are subject to a harmless error analysis. See § 924.33, Fla. Stat. (1993); State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016, 1020 (Fla.1995); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1134 (Fla.1986). Knight likely was misled because until recently the supreme court had not discussed the harmless error test in any of its decisions reversing an improper firearm enhancement. See, e.g., Tripp, 642 So.2d at 728; State v. Overfelt, 457 So.2d 1385 (Fla.1984). A reversal without a discussion of wh ) (<HOLDING>); State v. Overfelt, 457 So.2d 1385, 1387 Options: A. holding that even where evidence regarding the use of a firearm is unrebutted to impose mandatory minimum sentence a jury must make that finding B. holding that even if the minimum mandatory exceeds the statutory maximum the court must impose the minimum mandatory C. holding that even where the evidence is uncontroverted to sentence a defendant to a minimum mandatory sentence for trafficking the jury must make express findings of the amount of cocaine involved D. holding that the trial court was not entitled to impose a threeyear mandatory minimum sentence on a defendant convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon where the jury verdict did not specifically find actual possession E. holding that to enhance a sentence because of the defendants use of a firearm the jury must find the defendant guilty of a crime involving a firearm or otherwise specifically find that a firearm was used

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that even where evidence regarding the use of a firearm is unrebutted to impose mandatory minimum sentence a jury must make that finding
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: speedy and adequate remedy otherwise provided by law.... [Rleview shall be limited to a determination of whether the body or officer has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its dis cretion, based on the evidence in the record before the defendant body or officer. (Emphasis added.) Under this Rule, our review of the issue before us is limited to determining whether the court of appeals properly upheld the district court's conclusion that the zoning authorities of Colorado Springs abused their discretion or exceeded their jurisdiction. Ultimately, the resolution of this issue turns on whether the Zoning Code grants the zoning authorities the power to deny the development plan of a permitted use. See Sherman v. City of Colorado Springs Planning Comm'n, 680 P.2d 1302, 1304 (Colo.App.1983) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 763 P.2d 292, 294 (Colo.1988). As Options: A. holding that a local governmental body exceeds its jurisdiction under crcp 106a4 when it exercises discretion it does not have B. recognizing that member of local governmental body does not necessarily act in legislative capacity when participation takes form of vote C. recognizing that although there was no property in a dead body at common law the one whose duty it is to care for the body of the deceased is entitled to possession of the body as it is when death comes and that it is an actionable wrong for another to interfere with that right by withholding the body or mutilating it in any way D. holding that if a contract surrenders or contracts away governmental functions then it exceeds the scope of a governmental entitys powers and is void E. holding the circuit court erroneously exercises its discretion if it fails to apply or misapplies statutory factors

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a local governmental body exceeds its jurisdiction under crcp 106a4 when it exercises discretion it does not have
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 to the extent that the failure to comply would not materially interfere with the conduct of its business, the Borrower and each Borrower Subsidiary has complied with all applicable laws in respect of: (a) restrictions, specifications, or other requirements pertaining to products that it sells or to the services it performs; (b) the conduct of its business; and (c) the use, maintenance, and operation of its properties.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the early use of stain material to produce vaccine lots directly did not thereby mean that the strain material had to be qualified as seed material.” 56 Fed.Reg. 21,422 (May 8, 1991). However, while this language suggests that the Sabin original materials did not need to be tested even under the former regulations, there is no evidence indicating that the former regulations actually exempted the Sabin original materials from testing. In fact, Bozzo questioned whether the 1991 preamble accurately reflected the viewpoint of the FDA at the time it drafted the former regulations. Without more, we cannot say the trial court erred in allowing the jury to interpret the word "seed” as including the Sabin original materials. 7 . See, e.g., Bradley v. Ray, 904 S.W.2d 302, 314 (Mo.App. W.D.1995) (<HOLDING>); Imperial Premium Finance, Inc. v. Northland Options: A. holding that the failure to act in good faith does not amount to an independent tort the breach of the implied duty under the ucc gives rise only to a cause of action for breach of contract B. recognizing implied private action under the plat act rejecting implied private action under the national flood insurance act of 1968 C. recognizing implied private action under the collection agency act D. holding that alleged breach of child abuse reporting act did not amount to negligence per se because analysis of statute indicated no private cause of action could be implied under the act E. holding that there was no federal subject matter jurisdiction under the private cause of action provision of the act

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that alleged breach of child abuse reporting act did not amount to negligence per se because analysis of statute indicated no private cause of action could be implied under the act
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Parties hereto acknowledge that, in view of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, each Party would not have an adequate remedy at law for money damages in the event that this Agreement has not been performed in accordance with its terms, and therefore agrees that the non-breaching Party(ies) shall be entitled to specific enforcement of the terms hereof in addition to any other remedy to which such non-breaching Party(ies) may be entitled at law or in equity.

assistant: Specific Performance
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 Lenders agree to indemnify each Agent and its officers, directors, employees, Affiliates, agents, advisors and controlling persons (each, an “ Agent Indemnitee ”) (to the extent not reimbursed by Holdings or the Borrowers and without limiting any obligation of Holdings or the Borrowers to do so), ratably according to their respective Aggregate Exposure Percentages in effect on the date on which indemnification is sought under this Section 8.7 (or, if indemnification is sought after the date upon which the Commitments shall have terminated and the Loans shall have been paid in full, ratably in accordance with such Aggregate Exposure Percentages immediately prior to such date), from and against any and all liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, actions, judgments, suits, costs and expenses or disbursements of any kind whatsoever that may at any time (whether before or after the payment of the Loans) be imposed on, incurred by or asserted against such Agent Indemnitee in any way relating to or arising out of, the Commitments, this Agreement, any of the other Loan Documents or any documents contemplated by or referred to herein or therein or the transactions contemplated hereby or thereby or any action taken or omitted by such Agent Indemnitee under or in connection with any of the foregoing; provided that no Lender shall be liable for the payment of any portion of such liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, actions, judgments, suits, costs, expenses or disbursements that are found by a final and nonappealable decision of a court of competent jurisdiction to have resulted from such Agent Indemnitee’s gross negligence, bad faith or willful misconduct. The agreements in this Section 8.7 shall survive the termination of this Agreement and the payment of the Loans and all other amounts payable hereunder.

assistant: Indemnifications
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, the schedules and exhibits attached hereto, and any other documents or agreements executed in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby, contain the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersede all prior agreements and understandings, oral or written, with respect to such matters, which the parties acknowledge have been merged into such documents, exhibits and schedules.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 1206-07 — we are also unpersuaded. As the record shows, the advisory guidelines range that is applicable in the instant case was the 10-year mandatory minimum sentence, not the range of 57 to 71 months that would have applied without the mandatory minimum sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 5Gl.l(b) (providing that when a statutorily required minimum sentence is greater than the maximum of the applicable guidelines range, the statutorily required minimum sentence shall be the guidelines sentence). Thus, the government would have requested an improper sentence had it requested a sentence within the range of 57 to 71 months because the district court was not permitted to enter a sentence below the statutory mandatory minimum. See United States v. Castaing-Sosa, 530 F.3d 1358, 1360 (11th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Further, although the government did not Options: A. holding that a motion under 5k11 permitted a downward departure from the guideline range but that the departure could not extend below the statutory minimum sentence absent an additional motion by the government under 3553e B. holding that a sentencing court is required by 18 usc 3583g to revoke the defendants term of supervised release unless defendant could come under the exception in 18 usc 3583d C. holding that a district court lacks authority to pierce a statutory minimum sentence under ussg 5k11 D. holding that a district court is not authorized to sentence a defendant below the statutory minimum unless the government filed a substantial assistance motion pursuant to 18 usc 3553e and ussg 5k11 or the defendant falls within the safetyvalve of 18 usc 3553f E. holding that district court did not have authority to depart any further below the statutory minimum after granting the 3553e motion and therefore need not consider the 3553a factors

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a district court is not authorized to sentence a defendant below the statutory minimum unless the government filed a substantial assistance motion pursuant to 18 usc 3553e and ussg 5k11 or the defendant falls within the safetyvalve of 18 usc 3553f
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: contract, evidence of surrounding circumstances, or the payment of additional consideration”); Eales v. Tanana Valley Medical-Surgical Group, Inc., 663 P.2d 958, 959-960 (Alaska 1983) (stating that the rule that contract for permanent employment is at will unless supported by additional consideration is based on an unsound foundation); Coelho v. Posi-Seal Int'l, Inc., 208 Conn. 106, 544 A.2d 170, 176 (1988) (adopting position that absence of additional consideration does not invalidate a contract expressing intention that employment not be terminable at will); Shah v. American Synthetic Rubber Corp., 655 S.W.2d 489, 492, (Ky. 1983) (joining “a number of other jurisdictions” in following the rationale of Littell)-, Larrabee v. Penobscot Frozen Foods, Inc., 486 A.2d 97, 99-100 (Me.1984) (<HOLDING>); Pine River State Bank v. Mettille, 333 N.W.2d Options: A. holding that employee handbook did not give rise to implied contract where it stated that it was not a contract and that employment was terminable at will B. holding that a contract of an indefinite duration is terminable at will C. holding that the terms arbitration or arbitrate need not be used as long as binding review by a third party is clearly the intention of the parties D. holding that an employment contract of an indefinite duration is terminable at will E. holding parties may create employment contract terminable only pursuant to its express terms by clearly stating intention to do so

assistant: The best answer is E. holding parties may create employment contract terminable only pursuant to its express terms by clearly stating intention 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: law — we have already resolved the conflict — but rather to prevent what we perceive as a single unjust ruling. The people of Florida have not charged us with that narrower responsibility. We should resist the temptation to undertake it, even if we can find a pretext for doing so. III. Conclusion For these reasons, I would discharge review as improvidently granted. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to review and quash the decision below. WELLS and BELL, JJ., concur. 1 . I also note that the district court's opinion in Goldberg cited Martinez v. Florida Power & Light Co., 785 So.2d 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), and mentioned that the case was pending in this Court. Thus, we had independent jurisdiction to review the case under Jollie v. State, 405 So.2d 418, 420 (Fla.1981) (<HOLDING>). 2 . When we have based our jurisdiction on Options: A. holding that the court does not have jurisdiction to review per curiam decisions of the district courts of appeal that merely affirm with citations to cases not pending review in this court B. holding that district court opinion which cites controlling authority that is pending review in florida supreme court allows supreme court to exercise jurisdiction C. holding that a district court opinion which cites as controlling authority a decision that is either pending review in or has been reversed by this court continues to constitute prima facie express conflict and allows this court to exercise its jurisdiction D. holding that this court has inherent as well as express statutory authority to punish for contempt E. holding that this court lacked preliminary authority to review the district courts jurisdiction because there was no immediately appealable order before the court

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a district court opinion which cites as controlling authority a decision that is either pending review in or has been reversed by this court continues to constitute prima facie express conflict and allows this court to exercise its jurisdiction