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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: manual labor, as well as engaging in such activities as dancing, fighting, and being jailed for public intoxication. We stated that: [an i]njury aggravated or extended in time by the employee’s neglect or disobedience of his physician’s instructions is not com-pensable as to the additional period.... The proposition that one may continue, or even increase, his disability by his willful and unreasonable conduct, and then claim compensation from his employer for his disability so caused, is untenable. Id. at 410, 244 N.W. at 541 (citing Honnold, Workmen’s Compensation, vol.l, § 137, pp. 521, 523). [¶ 11] Courts in other jurisdictions have also recognized the rule in Detling, albeit applying their own states’ standards. See Appleby v. Belden Corp., 22 Ark.App. 243, 738 S.W.2d 807 (1987) (<HOLDING>); Amoco Chemical Corp. v. Hill, 318 A.2d 614, Options: A. holding that new statute which required proof that asbestos exposure was substantial contributing factor to claimants medical condition could be applied to pending cases and did not abrogate claimants vested right because she was still able to pursue her cause of action and recover for injury caused by her husbands exposure to asbestos statute merely affected methods and procedure by which that action was recognized protected and enforced not the cause of action itself B. holding that when a preexisting infirmity is aggravated by repetitive minute trauma as a result of the ordinary and necessary duties of employment the disability resulting from such aggravation is compensable as a personal injury under the workers compensation statute C. holding that if state law provides multiple statutes of limitations for personal injury actions the general or residual statute for personal injury actions should be used for 1983 actions D. holding a claimants injury report to a fellow employee did not satisfy the act because the claimants supervisor did not learn of the injury until six months later E. holding that claimants actions in heavy houseeleaning and house painting in contravention of medical restrictions was so unreasonable as to bar compensation for aggravation of her back injury

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that claimants actions in heavy houseeleaning and house painting in contravention of medical restrictions was so unreasonable as to bar compensation for aggravation of her back injury
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 the civil penalties available under § 6928(g), which provides: Any person who violates any requirement of this subehapter shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $25,000 for each such violation. Each day of such violation shall, for purposes of this subsection, constitute a separate violation. Initially, the district court rejected Sun’s argument that the Davises could not enforce the civil penalty provision as a private party. Indeed, civil penalties payable to the United States may be awarded in a citizen suit brought under § 6972(a). See Clorox Co. v. Chromium Corp., 158 F.R.D. 120, 128 (N.D.Ill.1994); cf. Middlesex County Sewerage Auth. v. National Sea Clammers Ass’n, 453 U.S. 1, 14 n. 25, 101 S.Ct. 2615, 69 L.Ed.2d 435 (1981) (<HOLDING>). The district court then noted Sun’s argument Options: A. holding that the state law of collateral estoppel applies in civil rights actions brought under 42 usc 1983 B. holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the oil pollution act C. recognizing availability of civil penalties in suits brought under 33 usc 1365a the citizensuit provision of the federal water pollution control amendment of 1972 D. holding based on oklahoma compact that tribal immunity was not waived for civil tort suits brought in state or federal court E. recognizing district courts discretion in assessing civil penalties under 21 usc 842c

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing availability of civil penalties in suits brought under 33 usc 1365a the citizensuit provision of the federal water pollution control amendment of 1972
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: See Nev. Stat. Rev. §§ 34.800(2) (laches) & 34.810(2) (abuse of writ). We have held that sections 34.800 and 34.810 constitute “independent and adequate state grounds,” which bar federal habeas review, Moran v. McDaniel, 80 F.3d 1261, 1269 (9th Cir.1996) (§ 34.800); Vang v. Nevada, 329 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir.2003) (§ 34.810), and Davis has not demonstrated that we should reach a different result here. Davis cannot invoke ineffective assistance of counsel as a defense to procedural default, because he failed to raise this defense in state court. Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488-89 (1986). Thus, Davis was not entitled to challenge the procedural default in an evidentiar stitutional jurisprudence. See Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 994-96, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991) (<HOLDING>). The district court did not violate Davis’s Options: A. recognizing that the right to be present can be waived in noncapital felony federal cases B. recognizing constitutional right to be present when sentence is imposed C. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for severance where the allegedly prejudicial evidence would have been admissible in separate trials D. holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire E. holding that defendants in noncapital trials have no constitutional right to present mitigating evidence in a separate penalty proceeding

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that defendants in noncapital trials have no constitutional right to present mitigating evidence in a separate penalty proceeding
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of PMIT, PMC and PennyMac Holdings have heretofore furnished to Buyer a copy of (a) its consolidated balance sheets for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 and the related consolidated statements of income and retained earnings and of cash for such fiscal year, with the opinion thereon of Deloitte & Touche LLP and (b) its consolidated balance sheets for the quarterly fiscal periods ended June 30, 2015 and September 30, 2015 and the related consolidated statements of income and retained earnings and of cash flows for it and its consolidated Subsidiaries for such quarterly fiscal periods. All such financial statements are complete and correct and fairly present, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of PMIT, PMC or PennyMac Holdings and their consolidated Subsidiaries, as applicable and the consolidated results of their operations as at such dates and for such fiscal periods, all in accordance with GAAP (other than monthly financial statements solely with respect to footnotes, year-end adjustments and cash flow statements) applied on a consistent basis. Each of PMIT, PMC, and PennyMac Holdings has, on the date of the statements delivered pursuant to this Section (the “ Statement Date ”) no liabilities, direct or indirect, fixed or contingent, matured or unmatured, known or unknown, or liabilities for taxes, long-term leases or unusual forward or long-term commitments not disclosed by, or reserved against in, said balance sheet and related statements, and at the present time there are no material unrealized or anticipated losses from any loans, advances or other commitments of Sellers except as heretofore disclosed to Buyer in writing.

assistant: Financial Statements
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: concessions because it is a right of transcendent value to the society as a whole, not just to the individual teacher negotiating the contract. Similarly, the conditions or restrictions which may be placed on such speech as conditions of employment are also of concern to society as a whole, and may properly be determined, unlike the case with drug testing, not by reference to the agreement of the parties, but in light of the values of safeguarding robust speech in the marketplace generally, and in the academic setting in particular. Preemption, therefore is not required in all cases of MCRA claims for interference with speech, because it is not a right that necessarily depends upon the agreement of the parties. See Paradis v. United Technologies, 672 F.Supp. 67, 70 (D.Conn.1987) (<HOLDING>). See also Barron v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 704 Options: A. recognizing retaliatory discharge claim where employer prevented employees exercise of workers compensation rights because of employees intention to file claim B. holding that claim under connecticut law for employer discrimination based upon the employees exercise of privacy and free speech rights not preempted C. recognizing that free exercise claims implicating other constitutional protections such as free speech could qualify for strict scrutiny review to the extent the plaintiff could make out a colorable claim that it was denied an exemption from the school districts nondiscrimination claim based on religion or content of speech D. holding that campaign money laundering was in furtherance of political speech but an invalid exercise of free speech rights because it was illegal E. holding that claim of breach of fiduciary duty can be resolved under connecticut law

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that claim under connecticut law for employer discrimination based upon the employees exercise of privacy and free speech rights not preempted
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 Company shall not, and shall use its reasonable best efforts to ensure that no Affiliate of the Company shall, sell, offer for sale or solicit offers to buy or otherwise negotiate in respect of any security (as defined in Section 2 of the Securities Act) that will be integrated with the offer or sale of the Securities in a manner that would require the registration under the Securities Act of the sale of the Securities to Purchaser, or that will be integrated with the offer or sale of the Securities for purposes of the rules and regulations of any Trading Market such that it would require stockholder approval prior to the closing of such other transaction, the transactions contemplated hereby or (other than the Stockholder Approval) the issuance of the Conversion Shares.

assistant: Integration
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: support for their argument. First, although petitioners acknowledge that no Oregon cases recognize a doctrine of “constructive reopening,” they point out several federal cases that do. As a general matter, when the Secretary of the former Department of Health, Education, and Welfare denied a petition to reopen an earlier claim for Social Security benefits, federal courts lacked jurisdiction t 001) (noting that whether a motion will be considered as a motion for a new trial “is controlled by [the motion’s] substance, not its caption”). Petitioners also cite cases in which, they contend, this court stressed the importance of examining the substance, rather than the form, of legal relations and actions. See NW Medical Lab. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield, 310 Or 72, 83, 794 P2d 428 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Baker v. City of Milwaukie, 271 Or 500, Options: A. holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing B. holding that maintenance and enforcement of a patent obtained by fraud on the pto can form the basis for antitrust liability C. holding that an activity which is exempt from the antitrust laws cannot form the basis of an antitrust investigation D. holding that a plaintiff must show antitrust injury in order to bring an antitrust lawsuit E. holding that this court determines whether a joint venture has violated oregon antitrust law by looking at substance not form

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that this court determines whether a joint venture has violated oregon antitrust law by looking at substance not form
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) Each Company owns or is licensed to use, free and clear of all Liens (other than Permitted Liens), all patents and patent applications, trademarks, trade names, service marks, copyrights, domain names and applications for registration thereof, and technology, trade secrets, proprietary information, inventions, know-how and processes, in each case necessary for the conduct of its business as currently conducted and proposed to be conducted (the “ Intellectual Property ”), except for those the failure to own or license which, individually or in the aggregate, could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of a search warrant affidavit. See id.; Jones, 338 S.W.3d at 736 (requiring facts in affidavit to be “closely related to the time of the iss[uance] of the warrant”). In addition, the information provided by the i rring to current activity — namely, that appellant was currently living with an eighteen-year-old male, K.A., and a twenty-one-year-old male, C.S. — -provided neither information regarding appellant’s current possession of child pornography nor information regarding appellant’s current commission of indecency with a child. Moreover, none of the cases relied upon by the majority to support its finding that the information in the affidavit was sufficiently specific and timely to support the search warrant support such a conclusion in this case. See Flores, 319 S.W.3d at 703 (<HOLDING>); McKissick, 209 S.W.3d at 215 (holding that Options: A. holding that january 4 2004 schedules and statement of financial affairs could not be used to infer insolvency as of date of transfers that occurred on march 22 2001 march 26 2001 and december 26 2002 B. holding that magistrate had substantial basis for determining that probable cause existed where affidavit which recited information received from anonymous tip from informer in february 2007 regarding narcotic activity on unspecified date included several details about defendant and residence that were later confirmed officer found residue that fieldtested positive for marihuana in garbage can located on street directly in front of residence on march 1 2007 officer found marihuana stems seeds and residue in garbage can on march 5 and search warrant was issued on march 6 and executed on march 7 C. holding that a magistrate had a substantial basis for determining that probable cause existed where the supporting affidavit elaborated on the crime in detail D. holding that the march of time began for the period in which to file a rule 59e motion on the date the court entered an order that was immediately appealable E. holding the fourteen day provision in rule 35a is jurisdictional and reinstating defendants original sentence when defendant was originally sentenced on march 1st defendant filed a rule 35a motion on march 5th the district court held a hearing on the rule 35 motion on march 29th and resentenced defendant on april 12th

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that magistrate had substantial basis for determining that probable cause existed where affidavit which recited information received from anonymous tip from informer in february 2007 regarding narcotic activity on unspecified date included several details about defendant and residence that were later confirmed officer found residue that fieldtested positive for marihuana in garbage can located on street directly in front of residence on march 1 2007 officer found marihuana stems seeds and residue in garbage can on march 5 and search warrant was issued on march 6 and executed on march 7
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 state court and the Attorney General issues a scope certification, then the Act requires that the case be removed to federal court and the United States be substituted as the party defendant. Id. at 2679(d)(2). However, section 2679(d)(2) goes further than section 2679(d)(1) by stating, “This certification of the Attorney General shall conclusively establish scope of office or employment for purposes of removal.” Whether a federal employee is ultimately immune from suit, therefore, depends entirely upon whether the employee was acting within the scope of his employment when the events which underlie the lawsuit occurred. Previously in the Fourth Circuit this determination was left solely in the hands of the Attorney General. See Johnson v. Carter, 983 F.2d 1316, 1320 (4th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 57, 126 Options: A. holding that intent of parties to choice of law must be given effect B. holding that effect must be given if possible to every clause and word of a statute C. holding that plain meaning of legislation should be conclusive D. holding that the attorney generals scope certification is to be given conclusive effect E. holding to the same effect

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the attorney generals scope certification is to be given conclusive effect
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 Company has all requisite power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement and to perform its obligations hereunder in accordance with the terms hereof. The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by the Company have been duly authorized by all necessary corporate action. This Agreement has been duly executed and delivered by the Company, and this Agreement constitutes the legal, valid and binding obligation of the Company enforceable in accordance with its terms, except as enforceability may be limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, fraudulent transfer, reorganization, moratorium and similar laws relating to or affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights generally and by general equitable principles.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: There are no actions, suits or proceedings (including Environmental Claims) pending or, to the knowledge of any Credit Party, threatened in writing with respect to any Parent Guarantor, the Borrower or any of the Restricted Subsidiaries that could reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Neither the Borrower nor any of its Restricted Subsidiaries and, to the knowledge of the Borrower, none of its Affiliates and none of the respective officers, directors, brokers or agents of the Borrower, such Restricted Subsidiary or such Affiliate acting or benefiting in any capacity in connection with the Loans (i) conducts any business or engages in making or receiving any contribution of funds, goods or services to or for the benefit of any Embargoed Person or in violation of any Anti-Corruption Laws , (ii) deals in, or otherwise engages in any transaction related to, any property or interests in property blocked pursuant to any Anti-Terrorism Law or (iii) engages in or conspires to engage in any transaction that evades or avoids, or has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate, any of the prohibitions set forth in any Anti-Terrorism Law.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Regardless of any action the Company, any Subsidiary of the Company, or the Recipient’s employer takes with respect to any or all income tax, social insurance, payroll tax, payment on account or other tax-related withholding (“Tax”) that the Recipient is required to bear pursuant to all applicable laws upon the vesting or exercise of the Options, the Recipient hereby acknowledges and agrees that the ultimate liability for all Tax is and remains the responsibility of the Recipient.

assistant: Tax Withholdings
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: as securities fraud.” H.R. Rep. No. 104-396, at 47 (1995) (Conf. Rep.). “[C]ourts have applied the RICO bar in § 1964(c) broadly, regardless of whether the plaintiff explicitly relied upon securities fraud as a predicate act or even had standing to pursue a securities fraud claim.” Licht v. Watson, 567 Fed.Appx. 689, 693 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing Bald Eagle Area Sch. Dist. v. Keystone Fin., Inc., 189 F.3d 321, 330 (3d Cir. 1999)). “[A] plaintiff cannot avoid the RICO Amendment’s bar by pleading mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud as predicate offenses in a civil RICO action if the conduct giving rise to those predicate offenses amounts to securities fraud.” Bald Eagle Area Sch. Dist., 189 F.3d at 330. See also MLSMK Inv. Co. v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 651 F.3d 268, 277 (2d Cir. 2011) (<HOLDING>); Howard v. Am. Online, Inc., 208 F.3d 741, 749 Options: A. holding that the rico bar applies even where the plaintiff does not have standing to bring a securities fraud action B. holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid the securities fraud exception by pleading mail fraud or wire fraud if the conduct giving rise to those offenses also amounts to securities fraud C. holding that the pslra bar applies even where a plaintiff cannot itself pursue a securities fraud action against the defendant D. holding that securities fraud claims cannot rest on speculation and conclusory allegations E. holding that an action against a tribal enterprise is an action against the tribe itself

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the pslra bar applies even where a plaintiff cannot itself pursue a securities fraud action against the defendant
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: Upon the consummation of the Corporate Reorganization, the Existing Nominating Agreement shall be deemed to be amended and restated in its entirety and this Agreement shall be deemed to be effective. However, to the extent the Corporate Reorganization is not consummated, the Existing Nominating Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and the provisions of this Agreement shall be without any force or effect.

assistant: Effectiveness
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: (1) general creditors, who should not have the funds available for payment of debts exhausted by an excessive accumulation of taxes for past years; (2) the debtor, whose “fresh start” should likewise not be burdened with such an accumulation; and (3) the tax collector, who should not lose taxes which he has not had reasonable time to collect or which the law has restrained him from collecting. S.Rep. No. 95-989, re Jerauld), 208 B.R. 183, 189 (9th Cir.BAP 1997) (similar); Olson v. United States (In re Olson), 174 B.R. 543, 547-48 (Bankr.D.N.D.1994) (similar), and Blackwell v. Commonwealth of Va. Dep’t of Taxation (In re Blackwell), 115 B.R. 86, 88-89 (Bankr.W.D.Va.1990) (similar), with Blutter v. United States Dep’t of IRS (In re Blutter), 177 B.R. 209, 211-12 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1995) (<HOLDING>). In 2005, Congress, attempting to reduce the Options: A. holding that because the restitution was ordered as part of a state criminal prosecution it was excepted from discharge in bankruptcy B. holding that failure to report a change in federal taxable income as required by state law excepted state tax liability from discharge C. holding that taxpayers failure to follow state requirement that he report change in federal income tax did not except state tax liability from discharge D. holding a state cannot impose an income tax on indians whose income is solely from reservation sources E. holding federal courts are bound by state court determinations of state law

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that failure to report a change in federal taxable income as required by state law excepted state tax liability from 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Upon employment termination due to Disability, the Company shall pay or provide the Executive: (i) any unpaid Base Salary through the date of termination and any accrued vacation; (ii) any unpaid Annual Bonus earned with respect to any calendar year ending on or preceding the date of termination; (iii) reimbursement for any unreimbursed expenses incurred through the date of termination; and (iv) all other payments and benefits to which the Executive may be entitled under the terms of any applicable compensation arrangement or benefit, equity or perquisite plan or program or grant or this Agreement, including but not limited to any applicable insurance benefits (collectively, “ Accrued Amounts ”). In addition, upon the Executive’s termination due to Disability, the Executive shall be entitled to exercise any vested equity award(s) granted to the Executive for a period equal to the shorter of: (i) six months after termination, or (ii) remaining term of the award(s).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any amounts otherwise payable on account of the Employee’s termination of employment under this Agreement which (i) are conditioned in any part on a release of claims and (ii) would otherwise be paid (assuming the release is given) prior to the last day on which the release could become irrevocable assuming the Employee’s latest possible execution and delivery of the release (such last day, the “ Release Deadline ”) shall be paid, if ever, only on the Release Deadline, even if the Employee’s release becomes irrevocable before that date. The Employer may elect to make such payment up to thirty (30) days prior to the Release Deadline, however. If no such last day is specified in this Agreement, then such last day will be the sixtieth (60 th ) day after the Employee’s termination of employment.

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: A defendant has the constitutional right to decline to testify against himself in a criminal proceeding. See U.S. Const, amend. V; art. I, § 9, Fla. Const. Therefore, “[a]ny comment on, or which is fairly susceptible of being interpreted as referring to, a defendant’s failure to testify is error and is strongly discouraged.” State v. Marshall, 476 So.2d 150, 153 (Fla.1985); see also Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.250 (prosecuting attorney prohibited from commenting on the defendant’s failure to testify on his or her behalf). The “fairly susceptible” test is a “very liberal rule.” Dessaure v. State, 891 So.2d 455 (Fla.2004). Defense counsel’s failure to object to an improper comment by the prosecution may serve as a basis for a post-conviction claim. Darling v. State, 966 So.2d 366, 385 (Fla.2007) (<HOLDING>). Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Options: A. holding that it was not deficient for counsel to fail to object to a standard instruction that had not been invalidated by this court B. holding that failure to object to properly admitted evidence was not deficient performance by trial counsel C. holding the defendant had stated an arguable basis for finding counsel deficient for failing to object to improper prosecutorial comments D. holding trial counsel was deficient for failing to object to unadjudicated extraneous offenses in a psi report E. holding that counsel was not deficient for failing to make an objection that lacked merit

assistant: The best answer is C. holding the defendant had stated an arguable basis for finding counsel deficient for failing to object to improper prosecutorial comments
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: Borrower has obtained (or has caused Owner to obtain) and maintains all Policies reflecting and satisfying the insurance coverages, amounts and other requirements set forth in this Agreement and has delivered to Lender certificates evidencing the insurance provided pursuant to the Policies. No material claims are currently pending, outstanding or otherwise remain unsatisfied under any Policy which would reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on Borrower, Leasehold Pledgor, Owner or Operating Lessee and none of Borrower, Leasehold Pledgor, any Individual Owner, any Operating Lessee, or, to Borrower’s and Leasehold Pledgor’s knowledge, any other Person has done, by act or omission, anything which would impair the coverage of any of the Policies.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No change or modification of this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon the parties unless the change or modification is in writing and signed by the parties; provided, however, that the Company may change or modify this Agreement without the Optionee’s consent or signature if the Company determines, in its sole discretion, that such change or modification is necessary for purposes of compliance with or exemption from the requirements of Section 409A of the Code or any regulations or other guidance issued thereunder.

assistant: Modifications
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 award, assumption of risk, contributory negligence, discharge in bankruptcy, duress, estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud, illegality, injury by fellow servant, laches, license, payment, release, res judicata, statute of frauds, statute of limitations, waiver, and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense. 4 . In reaching its conclusion that New York , law subordinated the Roses’ prior assignment, the District Court relied on Salem Trust Co. v. Manufacturers’ Finance, 264 U.S. 182, 44 S.Ct. 266, 68 L.Ed. 628 (1924), and Herman v. Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Co., 218 Mass. 181, 105 N.E. 450 (1914), neither of which takes precedence over New York authorities. See First Investors Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 152 F.3d 162, 165 (2d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>) (internal citations, quotation marks, and Options: A. holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership B. recognizing in a new york diversity action that the job of the federal courts is to give the fullest weight to the pronouncements of the new york court of appeals to have a proper regard to relevant rulings of other courts of the state and where appropriate give limited consideration to relevant cases from other jurisdictions C. recognizing forum selection clause providing that no such claim shall be commenced prosecuted or continued in any forum other than the courts of the state of new york located in the city and county of new york or in the united states district court for the southern district of new york as clear and unambiguous expression of parties selection of exclusive forum in affirming district courts dismissal of action commenced in united states district court for the district of new jersey D. holding that neither the new york location of the terrorist attack giving rise to the policyholders claim nor the new yorkbased claims adjustor rendered new york the locus of operative facts because new york was not the site of the contracts execution E. holding that certification is appropriate if the new york court of appeals has not squarely addressed an issue and other decisions by new york courts are insufficient to predict how the court of appeals would resolve it internal quotation marks omitted

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing in a new york diversity action that the job of the federal courts is to give the fullest weight to the pronouncements of the new york court of appeals to have a proper regard to relevant rulings of other courts of the state and where appropriate give limited consideration to relevant cases from other jurisdictions
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: No. 37 at 3-5); • Cancellations of missed meal breaks by employees are not common because it is HCR’s policy that if the employee gets even a short break to eat, then that employee was considered to have a meal break; employees are also regularly not compensated for interrupted meal breaks (Creely Doc. No. 36 at 5); The case law regarding the weight this Court should attribute to Plaintiffs’ declarations in support of their claims is, at best, mixed. On one hand, some courts have held such declarations, in which the named plaintiffs witnessed or believed other employees worked through their meal breaks without receiving compensation, do not help meet the burden of showing a class of similarly situated employees exists. Landsberg v. Acton Enters., 2006 WL 3742221, at *3 (S.D.Ohio 2006) (<HOLDING>). On the other hand, other courts have held Options: A. holding that mere conjecture or speculation is insufficient under a preponderance standard B. holding that speculation that other employees working under other supervisors were not properly paid is insufficient to justify notice to the class C. holding that mere speculation is insufficient to support a jury verdict D. holding speculation insufficient to avoid summary judgment E. holding that notice of judgment was insufficient

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that speculation that other employees working under other supervisors were not properly paid is insufficient to justify notice to the class
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 and after the Closing, Parent and Seller shall promptly pay or deliver, or cause to be paid or delivered, to Buyer or its designee any monies or checks relating to the Business which have been received by Parent, Seller or any of their Affiliates. Parent and Seller agree that Buyer and its Affiliates have the right and authority to endorse, without recourse, any check or other evidence of indebtedness received by Buyer or any of its Affiliates in respect of any note or account receivable transferred to Buyer or any of its Affiliates pursuant to this Agreement and Parent and Seller shall furnish Buyer or its designee such evidence of this authority as Buyer may request.

assistant: Payments
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 Section 5.13 of the Disclosure Schedule, each of the Company and its Subsidiaries is, and since January 1, 2014 has been, in compliance, in all material respects, with all Laws applicable to the Company, its Subsidiaries and the Business. To the Knowledge of the Company, neither the Company nor any of its Subsidiaries is currently under investigation with respect to the violation of any Laws. No notice has been received by the Company or any of its Subsidiaries alleging a violation of or Liability or potential responsibility under any such Law, which is pending or remains unresolved.

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 district court found that there was “no possibility of confusion by the purchaser at or near the point of sale.” 894 F.Supp. at 1200. The grounds for this conclusion are apparent, but are certainly useful to discuss. Companies in the corn wet milling industry purchase clamshells directly from the manufacturers, after extensive negotiations and discussions. Fluid-Quip held itself out to this limited market as a competitor of Dorr-Oliver and conspicuously marked its elam-shells with its company name. Clearly, any purchasers of clamshells would know from whom they were buying. There is therefore no realistic possibility that anyone would purchase a Fluid-Quip clamshell believing it to be a Dorr-Oliver clamshell. See Versa Prods. Co. v. Bifold Co. Mfg. Ltd., 50 F.3d 189, 212 (3d Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 54, 133 Options: A. holding that even several isolated incidents of actual confusion are insufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion B. holding that most important factors in evaluating confusion in product configuration eases are marketing and labeling of products C. holding that although the district court recognized confusion based on similarity of products it failed to give proper weight to the virtual identity of the parties products D. holding attending and marketing products at national trade show in texas insufficient to confer general jurisdiction E. recognizing that among other factors the location and level of the precedent as well as its age are important factors in a qualified immunity analysis

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that most important factors in evaluating confusion in product configuration eases are marketing and labeling of products
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’s base salary will be set no less than annually by the Board or the Compensation Committee. As of the Effective Date, the Executive’s base salary is CHF 353,632, payable in 12 monthly installments of CHF 29,469 per month.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: In the instant case, Leafland contends that the trial court erred by deciding as a matter of law that the INA policy did not provide coverage for the diminution in value to Montgomery Towers. Leafland argues that the loss of value due to the presence of asbestos should be covered under the property coverage section of the policy because the policy was a comprehensive “all-risk” policy that did not specifically exclude coverage for diminution in value caused by the installation of asbestos. We hold that the diminution in value of Montgomery Towers due to the presence of asbestos installed during construction was not a covered loss within the meaning of the policy’s insuring clause. Cf. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court, 215 Cal.App.3d 1435, 264 Cal.Rptr. 269, 275 (1989) (<HOLDING>). The policy’s property coverage insured Options: A. holding under the policy language that diminution of market value is not a cause of loss but a measure of a loss caused by something else B. holding that measure of restitution is victims loss not defendants gain C. holding that fair market value was proper measure of damages for stock brokers breach of margin agreement caused by sale of plaintiffs shares without authorization noting that generally speaking fair market value is proper measure of damages for breach of contract relating to sale of goods which have an ascertamable value on the market D. holding that where the real value of an anchoring system design is in the idea not in the physical plans that memorialize it any loss in value of the design represents a loss in the value of the idea which is not a loss of use of tangible property E. holding that proof of loss is not evidence of extent of loss and insured is not precluded from showing his damages were greater than shown in proof of loss

assistant: The best answer is A. holding under the policy language that diminution of market value is not a cause of loss but a measure of a loss caused by something else
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: differences between the underlying cartoon characters and the immediately recognizable costumes that ERG has designed and manufactured. Id. at 908-09. This conclusion makes even more sense in view of the fact that ERG’s customers — the companies — wanted costumes replicating their characters. Thus, because ERG followed detailed instructions from its customers regarding exactly how they wanted the costumes to appear, it can not be said that ERG’s artistic contributions were more than merely trivial contributions. ERG cites our decision in North Coast for the proposition that summary judgment is inappropriate here since the issue of whether ERG’s artistic contributions are trivial is a disputed question of fact that should be reserved for the jury. See North Coast, 972 F.2d at 1034-35 (<HOLDING>). North Coast does not establish that summary Options: A. recognizing that in certain circumstances inquiry notice may be determined as a matter of law B. holding state of the law must be determined at time of challenged action C. holding that on appeal a nonmovant need not have answered or responded to the motion for summary judgment to contend that the movants summaiy judgment proof is insufficient as a matter of law to support summary judgment D. holding that the time of discovery of fraud is not a proper matter for summary judgment E. holding that whether the differences between a print for a dress and mondrian paintings were nontrivial could not be determined as a matter of law at summary judgment

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that whether the differences between a print for a dress and mondrian paintings were nontrivial could not be determined as a matter of law at summary judgment
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 you change or deactivate the mobile phone number that you used to create a snapchat account , you must update your account information through settings within 72 hours to prevent us from sending to someone else messages intended for you .

assistant: None
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed severable and the invalidity or unenforceability of any provision shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the other provisions hereof. If any provision of this Agreement, or the application thereof to any person or any circumstance, is invalid or unenforceable: (a) a suitable and equitable provision shall be substituted therefor in order to carry out, so far as may be valid and enforceable, the intent and purpose of such invalid or unenforceable provision and (b) the remainder of this Agreement and the application of such provision to other persons, entities or circumstances shall not be affected by such invalidity or unenforceability.

assistant: Severability