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: why the court does not find King persuasive in this matter. First, the King decision was partially based on a Third Circuit holding defining hostile work environment claims as a ‘single cause of action’; there is no such analogous holding by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. See id. Second, the improper quid pro quo claim in King was against parties that appear to not have even been mentioned in the plaintiff’s EEOC charge; here Soto alleges quid pro quo harassment at the hands of Tanner, the primary perpetrator mentioned in her charge. Id. at 164. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has found various Title VII claims unexhausted as not ‘reasonably related’ to the allegations in the administrative charge. See, e.g., Russell v. TG Missouri Corp., 340 F.3d 735, 747-48 (8th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Dorsey, 278 F.3d at 838 (finding “claims for Options: A. holding that retaliation claim was reasonably related to prior sex discrimination claim B. holding plaintiff did not exhaust his retaliation claim where his eeoc charge made no mention of retaliation C. holding that a claim of retaliation for filing eeoc charges is cognizable under 1981 D. holding retaliation claim not reasonably related to discrimination charges where eeoc complaint set forth retaliation as a motive for plaintiffs termination and not as a motive for plaintiffs overtime assignments E. holding court did not have jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs retaliation claim where plaintiff did not check the retaliation box or describe anything that indicates such a claim in the eeoc complaint

assistant: The best answer is D. holding retaliation claim not reasonably related to discrimination charges where eeoc complaint set forth retaliation as a motive for plaintiffs termination and not as a motive for plaintiffs overtime 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: interpreter who translated the trial proceedings for Michel’s benefit failed to communicate to Smith that Michel had voiced an intent to exercise his Fifth Amendment right to testify. Michel would have the court believe that he was linguistically incapable of conveying his intent directly to Smith. A number of state courts have recognized that “[t]here is a rebuttable presumption that an interpreter in the course of performing his official duty has acted regularly.” State v. Casipe, 5 Haw.App. 210, 686 P.2d 28, 33 (Haw.Ct.App.1984); see also, e.g., Shaha v. State, 44 Kan.App.2d 334, 236 P.3d 560, 565 (Kan.Ct. App.2010) (“Absent some contrary showing, courts presume that an interpreter exercising his or her official duties has acted properly. , 14-15, 47 S.Ct. 1, 71 L.Ed. 131 (1926) (<HOLDING>); Nibagwire v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 153, 156 (4th Options: A. holding that a state official can be held individually hable under 1983 for acts taken within the scope of his or her official duties B. holding that where a public official takes discretionary action that the official knows will directly benefit a financial interest that the official has concealed in violation of a state criminal law that official has deprived the public of his honest services under 1346 C. holding that private party can assert official immunity if it contracted with a public official to perform governmental duties D. recognizing a presumption of regularity that undergirds the official acts of public officers causing courts to presume that they have properly discharged their official duties E. holding that presumption of regularity is afforded to clerks of court performing their official duties

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing a presumption of regularity that undergirds the official acts of public officers causing courts to presume that they have properly discharged their official duties
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 disgorgement proceeding that a violation of § 328(c) requires restitution of all fees received by the professional firm. But having lost and not appealed the bankruptcy court’s failure to order complete disgorgement, Southmark cannot now ignore the court’s fact-specific ruling. 12 . Coopers did not raise res judicata as a defense once the case was removed to bankruptcy court. Generally speaking, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c), res judicata is an affirmative defense and should not be raised sua sponte. Carbonell v. Louisiana Dept. of Health & Human Resources, 772 F.2d 185, 189 (5th Cir.1985). Without considering whether any exceptions to aive the right to a jury trial by filing a voluntary bankruptcy case. In re Jensen, 946 F.2d 369 (5th Cir.1991); but cf. Billing, 22 F.3d at 1242-54 (<HOLDING>); Id. at 1254-1260 (Sloviter, C.J., Options: A. holding that attorneys fees and costs expended as a result of an attorneys alleged malpractice constitute legallycognizable damages for purposes of stating a claim for such malpractice B. holding claims against attorney for legal malpractice must be asserted by attorneys actual client absent limited exception C. holding that postconfirmation claims against the debtors themselves have a conceivable effect on their estates D. holding that plaintiffs could not sue attorneys for legal malpractice so long as underlying medical malpractice action out of which legal malpractice claim arose was still pending on appeal E. holding that debtors have no right to jury trial on malpractice claims against their attorneys

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that debtors have no right to jury trial on malpractice claims against their attorneys
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: was in its “Supplemental Briefing and Motions for Clarification and Reconsideration in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiffs Greenspoint Dodge and Jack Apple, Jr.,” which was filed after the trial court granted partial summary judgment for Greenspoint and denied Daimler’s motion. We cannot conclude that the trial court erred by rendering summary judgment in favor of Greenspoint when Daimler did not expressly present in its summary judgment response the grounds that it now asserts on appeal. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(c) (“Issues not expressly presented to the trial court by written motion, answer or other response shall not be considered on appeal as grounds for reversal.”); Rayl v. Borger Econ. Dev. Corp., 963 S.W.2d 109, 114 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1998, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). We conclude the broadened garage coverage is Options: A. recognizing appellate court may not reverse a summary judgment on a basis not raised by the appellant on appeal B. holding that a grant of summary judgment in favor of one party creates a final judgment allowing appellate review of denial of opposing partys summary judgment motion C. holding that summary judgment must be affirmed where multiple grounds are asserted and the appellant does not attack all grounds on appeal D. holding that party may not appeal summary judgment in favor of opponent when grounds opposing summary judgment asserted on appeal were not raised before trial court E. holding that the trial court may not grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the motion

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that party may not appeal summary judgment in favor of opponent when grounds opposing summary judgment asserted on appeal were not raised before trial court
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 Notes, the Note Purchase Agreement and the other Transaction Documents contain the entire agreement among the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and thereof and supersede all prior and contemporaneous arrangements and understandings with respect thereto.

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: the defendant’s criminal conduct, as from fraud or embezzlement, See, e.g., Ratliff v. United States, 999 F.2d 1023, 1027 (6th Cir.1993) (collecting cases); United States v. Hand, 863 F.2d 1100, 1103 (3d Cir.1988) (collecting cases). This principle has been applied, and properly so, to cases involving food stamp fraud. See, e.g., United States v. Dudley, 739 F.2d 175, 178 (4th Cir.1984). On the other hand, the federal courts are consentient to the effect that the government is not a “victim” for purposes of VWPA (and may not be awarded restitution) to the extent that it incurs costs in the clandestine provocation of a crime that, if carried to fruition under ordinary circumstances, would not directly harm the government. See, e.g., Gall v. United States, 21 F.3d 107, 111 (6th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Daddato, 996 F.2d 903, 905 Options: A. holding that the cost of capital equipment is not recoverable under the terms of the miller act B. holding that drug buy money advanced by the government is not recoverable under the vwpa C. holding that attorneys fees and costs spent by an insurance company to defend against civil suit filed by defendant are not recoverable under the vwpa D. holding that money used by undercover government agent to purchase false identification documents is not recoverable under the vwpa E. holding that lost profits are not recoverable under the terms of the miller act

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that drug buy money advanced by the government is not recoverable under the vwpa
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: Participant shall receive a payment with respect to the Exercised SARs in an amount determined by (i) subtracting the Exercise Price per SAR from the Fair Market Value of a Share of Common Stock as of the Exercise Date, and (ii) multiplying that amount by the number of SARs exercised. The amount will be paid in a form permitted under the applicable Award Agreement and the terms of the Plan.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the same for a hearing and may thereafter be ruled upon by the court.” First, the wife claims that the letter from her attorney did not constitute express consent to an extension of the 90-day period. Citing Bmun v. Brown, 808 So.2d 40 (Ala.Civ.App.2001), the wife argues that her attorney consented only to extend the date for a hearing on the husband’s motions and not to extend the time for the court to rule. Brown is inapt. In that case, the document that was alleged to have constituted a waiver of the requirement that a post-judgment motion, if not ruled on within 90 days, be denied, “reflected only one party’s express consent to an extension of the time for ruling on the [postjudgment] motion.” 808 So.2d at 41. See also Harrison v. Alabama Power Co., 371 So.2d 19, 20-21 (Ala.l979)(<HOLDING>); Personnel Bd. for Mobile County v. Bronstein, Options: A. holding that because consent is not a statement and a request for consent is not an interrogation giving consent to search is a neutral fact which has no tendency to show that the suspect is guilty of any crime B. recognizing that consent is an exception to the warrant requirement and that voluntariness of consent depends on the totality of the circumstances C. holding that consent or assent to a continuance of a hearing does not satisfy the requirement that the record show the parties express consent to an extension of the 90day period D. holding there is no consent as a matter of law where the consent was given under coercion E. holding that a search exceeded the scope of the initial oral consent and was not validated by a subsequent written consent an allegedly consensual seizure must stand or fall on the basis of the consent preexisting the seizure

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that consent or assent to a continuance of a hearing does not satisfy the requirement that the record show the parties express consent to an extension of the 90day period
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 failure of any party hereto, at any time or times, to require strict performance by the other party hereto of any provision of this Agreement shall not waive, affect or diminish any right of such party thereafter to demand strict compliance and performance herewith. Any suspension or waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall not suspend, waive or affect any other provision of this Agreement whether the same is prior or subsequent thereto. None of the undertakings, agreements and covenants of any party hereto contained in or contemplated by any other provision of this Agreement shall be deemed to have been suspended or waived by any other party hereto, unless such waiver or suspension is by an instrument in writing signed by an officer of or other authorized employee of such party and directed to any other party hereto specifying such suspension or waiver.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that an eligible beneficiary “will receive his/her severance payment in a lump sum.” Compl. Ex. A (“Severance Pay Plan”) § IV. Lump sum payments weigh against finding preemption in part because the amounts to be paid usually are determined by a straightforward calculation based upon the employees’ salaries and years of service with the organization. See, e.g., Fort Halifax, 482 U.S. at 12, 107 S.Ct. 2211; Simas, 6 F.3d at 851. The force of this factor stems in large part from the fact that benefit plans that require only single, lump sum payments tend to demand less of the administrator in terms of rendering judgments of eligibility and managing the program and fund than ourt ruling that ERISA did not preempt where incentive retirement package was at issue); Belanger, 71 F.3d at 452 (<HOLDING>); see also White v. Bell Atlantic Yellow Pages, Options: A. holding em ployers retirement incentive package that mechanically calculated and offered to a broad class of employees indiscriminately did not implicate erisa B. holding that serial offer of retirement plans did not implicate erisa C. holding that federal common law of erisa preempts state law in the interpretation of erisa benefit plans D. holding that a state law requiring benefit plans to include minimum benefits related to erisa plans E. holding that a termination of an erisa plans benefits must be based upon the plans terms and language

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that serial offer of retirement plans did not implicate erisa
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and fired North Bay’s employees, and that Elmar Lee Pettit made the decision that North Bay would be non-union. Nor does appellants’ evidence contradict appellees’ proffer that Elmar Lee Pettit transferred Nor-Cal accounts to North Bay. Elmar Lee Pettit does declare that “I told [customers] I could not help them, that they should call North Bay Plumbing.” (C.R. 229.) But these general denials of involvement in North Bay’s affairs conflict with his sworn statements on North Bay’s business license that he would “supervis[e] and control” North Bay’s plumbers. Such internal inconsistencies in a party’s own testimony fail to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether North Bay was the alter ego of Nor-Cal. See Radobenko v. Automated Equip. Corp., 520 F.2d 540, 544 (9th Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>). 2 Intent Even though the district court Options: A. holding that a plaintiff cannot create an issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment through an affidavit that contradicts prior testimony B. holding that mere speculation does not satisfy the nonmoving partys burden of establishing a dispute of material fact sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment C. holding that the necessity of choosing between the appellants two conflicting versions of a material fact does not defeat summary judgment D. holding that conflicting expert evidence regarding function establishes material issue of fact E. holding that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the necessity of choosing between the appellants two conflicting versions of a material fact does not defeat 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: we do n't exclude or limit our liability to you where it would be illegal to do so -- this includes any liability for dropbox 's or its affiliates ' fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation in providing the services .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may not be terminated by the Company for any reason for as long as the Officer continues to serve as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company. This Agreement shall be enforceable in accordance with its terms for any period following the Officer’s Separation from Service to the Company until all payments and benefits provided hereunder, if any, have been paid or delivered in full, and all other obligations of the parties to this Agreement have been fully discharged (the “ Term ”). If a Change in Control occurs during the Term, the Term shall automatically extend until the second anniversary of the Change in Control (the “ Protection Period ”). At the end of the Term, this Agreement shall terminate without further action by either the Company or the Officer. If no Change in Control occurs prior to expiration of the Term or if the Officer Separates from Service (as defined in Paragraph 5(a) below) before a Change in Control this Agreement shall automatically terminate without any further action; provided, however, that Paragraph 13 (regarding arbitration) shall continue to apply to the extent the Officer disputes the termination of this Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, no Severance Benefits (as defined below) shall be paid or provided by the Company to the Officer under this Agreement if the Officer Separates from Service due to termination of employment (i) by the Company and its subsidiaries for Cause or (ii) by the Officer, including by the Officer’s notification of the Company of the Officer’s intention not to renew the term of the Employment Agreement, absent the occurrence of Constructive Termination.

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: This Guaranty is a continuing and irrevocable guaranty of all Obligations now or hereafter existing and shall remain in full force and effect until all Obligations and any other amounts payable under this Guaranty are indefeasibly paid in full in cash and the Commitments with respect to the Obligations are terminated. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Guaranty shall continue in full force and effect or be revived, as the case may be, if any payment by or on behalf of the Borrower or the Parent is made, or any of the Secured Parties exercises its right of setoff, in respect of the Obligations and such payment or the proceeds of such setoff or any part thereof is subsequently invalidated, declared to be fraudulent or preferential, set aside or required (including pursuant to any settlement entered into by any of the Secured Parties in their discretion) to be repaid to a trustee, receiver or any other party, in connection with any proceeding under any Debtor Relief Laws or otherwise, all as if such payment had not been made or such setoff had not occurred and whether or not the Secured Parties are in possession of or have released this Guaranty and regardless of any prior revocation, rescission, termination or reduction. The obligations of the Parent under this paragraph shall survive termination of this Guaranty.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to severance pay, severance benefits and accelerated vesting (except to the extent any equity agreement specifically provides for terms more favorable to the Employee) in connection with any termination of employment and supersedes in all respects all prior agreements between the parties concerning such subject matter including without limitation any provisions of any offer letter or employment agreement relating to severance pay or benefits in connection with the ending of Employee’s employment relationship with the Company. In the interest of clarity, any (i) agreement relating to confidentiality, noncompetition, non-solicitation or assignment of inventions or (ii) equity acceleration more favorable to the Employee, shall not be affected by the Agreement.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Comply in all material respects with the requirements of all Laws and all orders, writs, injunctions and decrees applicable to it or to its business or property, except in such instances in which (a) such requirement of Law or order, writ, injunction or decree is being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings diligently conducted; or (b) the failure to comply therewith, in the aggregate, could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: There is no action, suit, arbitration, proceeding, inquiry or investigation before or by the Principal Market, any court, public board, other Governmental Entity, self-regulatory organization or body pending or, to the knowledge of the Company, threatened against or affecting the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, the Common Stock or any of the Company’s or its Subsidiaries’ officers or directors, whether of a civil or criminal nature or otherwise, in their capacities as such, except as set forth in Schedule 3(t) . No director, officer or employee of the Company or any of its subsidiaries has willfully violated 18 U.S.C. §1519 or engaged in spoliation in reasonable anticipation of litigation. Without limitation of the foregoing, there has not been, and to the knowledge of the Company, there is not pending or contemplated, any investigation by the SEC involving the Company, any of its Subsidiaries or any current or former director or officer of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries. The SEC has not issued any stop order or other order suspending the effectiveness of any registration statement filed by the Company under the 1933 Act or the 1934 Act. After reasonable inquiry of its employees, the Company is not aware of any fact which might result in or form the basis for any such action, suit, arbitration, investigation, inquiry or other proceeding. Neither the Company nor any of its Subsidiaries is subject to any order, writ, judgment, injunction, decree, determination or award of any Governmental Entity.

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 following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 470 U.S. 904 105 S.Ct. 1858 84 L.Ed.2d 777 Charles FUGATE, petitioner,v.NEW MEXICO No. 83-6663 Supreme Court of the United States March 26, 1985 Rehearing Denied May 13, 1985. See 471 U.S. 1112, 105 S.Ct. 2349. On writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of New Mexico. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court. 2 Justice POWELL took no part in the decision of this case.

assistant: 1
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices to the Company hereunder shall be delivered to the attention of the Administrative Committee. Any notice or filing required or permitted to be given to the Company under this Plan shall be sufficient if in writing and hand delivered, or sent by registered or certified mail, to the Administrative Committee.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: has progressively worsened, such that she is now very likely to develop hypoglycemic attacks. Nor is there evidence that she has suffered any kind of permanent physical damage from her diabetes. And although Plaintiffs doctors have advised her to diet, there is no evidence that Plaintiff observes a restrictive diet or that she experiences extreme mood changes. Thus, the Nawrot case does not support Plaintiff’s argument that she was substantially limited in her ability to think and care for herself. The evidence also is not sufficient to show that Plaintiff was substantially limited in her ability to work, because the record shows only that she could not perform a single job (night casino dealer) as . Machine Shop, Inc., 238 Mich.App. 462, 606 N.W.2d 398, 407-08 (Mich.Ct.App.1999) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis in original; citations omitted). Options: A. holding an employee must be able to perform essential job functions at the time of termination B. holding that the plaintiffs inability to engage in frequent lifting of more than ten pounds would not significantly restrict her ability to perform a broad range of jobs in various classes C. holding that vocational experts testimony that there were jobs claimant could perform constituted substantial evidence D. holding that under pwdcra the inability to perform a particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation instead the impairment must significantly restrict an individuals ability to perform at least a wide range of jobs E. holding that similar impairments do not create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether her impairment rendered the plaintiff unable to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes within a geographical area to which she had reasonable access

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that under pwdcra the inability to perform a particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation instead the impairment must significantly restrict an individuals ability to perform at least a wide range of jobs
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: but it rejected his second argument, holding as follows: “[T]he plain language of the statute provides that the $4 assessment is an amount to be surcharged as an additional penalty; it is considered after the imposition of any basic fines provided for by other legislation. Accordingly, in the present case, after the imposition of the $20 fine, an additional penalty of $4 was surcharged and did not reduce or affect the distribution of the $20 fine. Therefore, the circuit court properly assessed both the $20 fine and the $4 additional penalty.” (Emphasis omitted.) People v. Jamison, 365 Ill. App. 3d 778, 780-81 (2006). Defendant filed a petition for leave to appeal to this court, and that petition was pending when this court filed its opinion in People v. Jones, 223 Ill. 2d 569 (2006) (<HOLDING>). Pursuant to our supervisory authority, we Options: A. holding that jail credit may be granted for presentence custodial period spent under a civil commitment order at state security hospital and observing that denying credit for time relating to probationary conditions is not inconsistent with that holding B. holding that the statutory entitlement to presentence jail credit starts with the initial arrest for a criminal offense C. holding that the 4 penalty of section 5 9lc9 was a fine for purposes of presentence incarceration credit D. recognizing that because a district courts determination of the appropriate fine involves factual issues including the defendants ability to pay the fine imposedthe district courts calculation of the fine is entitled to deference and can be reversed on appeal only for clear error E. holding that the failure to impose a mandatory fine requires that the matter be remanded for imposition of that fine

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the 4 penalty of section 5 9lc9 was a fine for purposes of presentence incarceration credit
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 Loan Party is a party to or has violated any agreement, instrument or other document to which it is a party, or is subject to any corporate or other constitutional restriction, or any restriction (including under its Organizational Documents) to which it is subject, that has resulted, or would reasonably be expected to result, in a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: 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: “caused by the exercise of some right or privilege created by the State or by a rule of conduct imposed by the State or by a person for whom the State is responsible,” and “the party charged with the deprivation must be a person who may fairly be said to be a state actor.” Lugar, 457 U.S. at 937, 102 S.Ct. 2744; see also Hollander v. Copacabana Nightclub, 624 F.3d 30, 33 (2d Cir.2010) (referring to and applying the “two prong” test outlined in Lugar). “Conduct that is formally ‘private’ may become so entwined with governmental policies or so impregnated with a governmental character that it can be regarded as governmental action.” Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 847, 102 S.Ct. 2764, 73 L.Ed.2d 418 (1982) (some internal quotation marks omitted); see also Hollander, 624 F.3d at 34 (<HOLDING>). A private entity, however, does not become a Options: A. recognizing ac tions of nominally private entities are attributable to the state under certain circumstances B. recognizing private right of action C. holding that an agency may not delegate its public duties to private entities D. holding that in certain circumstances fraud can be prosecuted under the statute E. holding in age discrimination case under adea that same considerations are pertinent when deciding single employer issue for public entities as for private entities and applying nlrb test to resolve the question noting that where government entities are concerned court also must keep constitutional separation of powers issues in mind

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing ac tions of nominally private entities are attributable to the state under certain circumstances
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 outstanding principal balance of this Note shall bear interest (computed on the basis of a 360-day year, actual days elapsed) either (i) at a fluctuating rate per annum determined by Bank to be two and one quarter percent (2.25%) above Daily One Month LIBOR in effect from time to time, or (ii) at a fixed rate per annum determined by Bank to be two and one quarter percent (2.25%) above LIBOR in effect on the first day of the applicable LIBOR Period. Bank is hereby authorized to note the date, principal amount and interest rate applicable thereto and any payments made thereon on Bank’s books and records (either manually or by electronic entry) and/or on any schedule attached to this Note, which notations shall be prima facie evidence of the accuracy of the information noted.

assistant: Interests
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: Regarding the subpoenas at issue in this case, the court is not persuaded that the reasoning of In re Grand Jury Proceedings (T.S.) should counsel the same result. First, it is worth noting that the cited case involved a grand jury subpoena seeking blood (evidence at the far end of the posited Fourth Amendment privacy continuum), while the material sought here is saliva (evidence falling more toward the middle of that continuum). Moreover, Supreme Court precedent in this area suggests that when a person’s Fourth Amendment rights are implicated by production demands found in a grand jury subpoena (regardless of the type of evidence sought), the proper remedy is not to require the government (or grand jury) to obtain a search warrant. See, e.g., Dionisio, 410 U.S. at 15, 93 S.Ct. 764 (<HOLDING>). Additionally, requiring the government or Options: A. holding that because a grand jury subpoena issued through normal channels is presumed to be reasonable the burden of showing unreasonableness must be on the subpoena recipient who seeks to avoid compliance but recognizing that a court may be justified under some circumstances in requiring the government to reveal the general subject of the grand jurys investigation before requiring the challenging party to carry its burden of persuasion B. holding that while a grand jury subpoena for the production of books and papers may implicate the fourth amendment when presented with a challenge to such a subpoena a court need only determine whether the request is far too sweeping in its terms to be regarded as reasonable C. holding that the government is not required to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury D. holding that a denial of a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena is not final and therefore not appealable E. holding that a grand jury subpoena seeking a voice exemplar did not implicate fourth amendment rights but suggesting that even if it had at most the government would have been required to demonstrate that the grand jury subpoena was reasonable

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a grand jury subpoena seeking a voice exemplar did not implicate fourth amendment rights but suggesting that even if it had at most the government would have been required to demonstrate that the grand jury subpoena was reasonable
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: or splotches of colors” by ISTS inspectors. Relators contend that because enforcement of the ordinance hinges on the inspector’s subjective state of mind, the rules and ordinance “invite arbitrary enforcement.” But these conclusory statements are insufficient to satisfy relators’ heavy burden of demonstrating that the rules fail to provide adequate standards for enforcement, and the rules are not rendered unconstitutionally vague simply because one expert testified that the interpretation of whether soil mottling constitutes redoximorphic features is “inexact and subjective.” Nor do relators adequately show that the rules are so indefinite that persons of ordinary intelligence must guess at their meaning. See, e.g., State v. Normándole Props., Inc., 420 N.W.2d 259, 262 (Minn.App.1988) (<HOLDING>), review denied (Minn. May 4, 1988). Therefore, Options: A. holding that even when legislature only sought to clarify a statutory ambiguity by defining a term the amendment applied prospectively because the clarified intent was not clearly expressed in original version of the statute B. holding unconstitutional the statute defining the crime of contributing to the delinquency of a minor C. holding that when the legislature enacts a statute it is presumed that the legislature is aware of existing statutes D. holding that the court assumes the legislature acquiesced in our interpretation of the language because the legislature had not amended the language E. holding that the statute defining hazardous waste was not unconstitutional merely because the legislature could have defined hazardous waste more precisely

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the statute defining hazardous waste was not unconstitutional merely because the legislature could have defined hazardous waste more precisely
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: matter illustrates the impossibility of an adequate appellate review. During voir dire, the State inquired whether any of the prospective jurors or members of their families had experienced drug addiction problems, and it appears from the transcript that several answered affirmatively. Unfortunately, they are not identified by name or juror number. This is critical because Mr. McKenzie alleged that the State improperly exercised a peremptory challenge on the sole African-American member of the jury panel. The gist of Mr. McKenzie’s argument was that the reason advanced by the State to sustain its challenge, although appearing race neutral, was pretextual. See Melbourne v. State, 679 So.2d 759 (Fla.1996). The Assistant State Attorney expressed concern that the juror seemed d 1994) (<HOLDING>). As did the Florida Supreme Court in Delap v. Options: A. holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire B. holding that when the purpose of the request is to compare the testimony of jurors but no such comparison was made at the trial level a court need not provide a free voir dire transcript C. holding that trial minutes were not sufficient substitute for transcript of voir dire and could not afford meaningful review when both sides exercised peremptory challenges D. holding that the selection of the jury constitutes part of a public trial E. holding that missing portions of transcript of voir dire did not entitle the defendant to a new trial for murder because the alleged errors in jury selection were harmless as a matter of law

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that missing portions of transcript of voir dire did not entitle the defendant to a new trial for murder because the alleged errors in jury selection were harmless as a matter of law
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: Sections 4.7, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 7.5, 8.3, 8.4, Article 10, Article 11, Article 12, Sections 14.2, 14.4, 14.7, and 14.10 shall survive termination of this Agreement for any reason pursuant to Section 8.2 and Expiration pursuant to Section 8.2.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: interpreted as a factual assertion, we must examine the “totality of the circumstances in which it was made.” Underwager, 69 F.3d at 366. First, we look at the statement in its broad context, which includes the general tenor of the entire work, the subject of the statements, the setting, and the format of the work. Next we turn to the specific context and content of the statements, analyzing the extent of figurative or hyperbolic language used and the reasonable expectations of the audience in that particular situation. Finally, we inquire whether the statement itself is sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false. Id. The context in which the statement appears is paramount in our analysis, and in some cases it can be dispositive. See Dworkin, 867 F.2d at 1193(<HOLDING>); Koch v. Goldway, 817 F.2d 507, 509 (9th Options: A. holding that courts must examine the facts surrounding the publication the context in which the statements were made and the nature of the language used B. holding that to determine whether a statement was voluntary the court must consider the totality of all the surrounding circumstances both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation and decide whether a defendants will was overborne by the circumstances surrounding the giving of a confession C. holding that under the probate exception to federal diversity jurisdiction a court must examine the substance of the relief that plaintiffs are seeking and not the labels that they have used D. holding that the government must prove the facts used in sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence E. holding that the level of force the defendants used against one plaintiff was unreasonable in relation to the threat that she presented and the surrounding circumstances and finding that the law was clearly established

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that courts must examine the facts surrounding the publication the context in which the statements were made and the nature of the language used
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 an official’s actions.” Id. at 571. Because the facts establish the officers’ use of deadly force was reasonable, a reasonable fact finder could not conclude the officers’ conduct was willful or malicious. Here, the facts reflect the officers had every reason to believe they and the public were in danger, and that using deadly force against Jeilani to protect themselves and bystanders was reasonable. Thus, the officers are entitled to a dismissal of Hassan’s wrongful death claim. Furthermore, because hiring, supervising, and training police officers are policy-level activities, the City, by statute, has discretionary immunity from any tort liability based on negligence. Minn.Stat. § 466.03, subd. 6; Fear v. Indep. Sch. Dist., 911, 634 N.W.2d 204, 212 (Minn.Ct.App.2001) (<HOLDING>); Watson by Hanson v. Metropolitan Transit Options: A. holding that protected activities include making complaints to management B. holding that as a general rule interlocutory trial court orders rejecting defenses of common law sovereign immunity governmental immunity public official immunity statutory immunity or any other type of immunity are not appealable under the maryland collateral order doctrine C. holding that decisions of hiring supervising training and retaining are considered policylevel activities protected by statutory immunity D. holding that a defendant may be seen as supervising the four drivers he used in his criminal activities E. holding that the prosecutors activities in preparing and filing an information and motion for an arrest warrant were protected by absolute immunity

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that decisions of hiring supervising training and retaining are considered policylevel activities protected by statutory immunity
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In addition to any obligations of confidentiality pursuant to other agreements between or among the Parties, or any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, the Provider shall, and shall cause its affiliates and subsidiaries to, hold in confidence and, without the prior written consent the Recipient, not disclose to any Person, or exploit for their own purposes, any information received by or made available to them from the Recipient hereto (or any of the Recipient’s affiliates or subsidiaries) during the provision of the Services or related to the subject matter or performance of this Agreement. The Provider further agrees that it shall use the information received by or made available to it from the Recipient (or the Recipient’s affiliates or subsidiaries) only in connection with the provision of the Services and for no other purpose whatsoever. For purposes of this Agreement, the foregoing provisions shall not apply to information (i) that is or becomes part of the public domain other than through breach of this Agreement or through the fault of the Provider (or the Provider’s affiliates or subsidiaries), (ii) that is or becomes available to the Provider from a source other than the Recipient (or the Recipient’s affiliates or subsidiaries), which source has no obligation of confidentiality to the Recipient (or the Recipient’s affiliates or subsidiaries), or (iii) to the extent required by a court of competent jurisdiction or other governmental agency or otherwise as required by applicable laws, provided that reasonable notice of said disclosure is provided to the Recipient by the Provider.

assistant: Confidentiality