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: income. 2. The statutory child support guidelines provide that a trial court may deviate from the presumptive amount of child support in the event of special expenses incurred for child rearing, including school-sponsored extracurricular activities. OCGA § 19-6-15 (i) (2) (J) (ii). However, a trial court is free to reject a claim for a deviation from the presumptive child support amount. Turner v. Turner, 285 Ga. 866 (2) (684 SE2d 596) (2009). Here, the trial court “adhered to the child support obligation table (OCGA § 19-6-15 (o)) and enforced the presumptive amount of child support” and, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in declining to add the child’s cheerleading expenses to the child support calculations. See Johnson v. Johnson, 284 Ga. 366, 367 (1) (667 SE2d 350) (2008) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the trial court did not err in Options: A. holding that a tuition waiver is not the same as income for child support purposes B. holding that trial court did not err C. holding that a students private school tuition should be reimbursed where parent did not unilaterally place student in private school because the school district tacitly consented to the private school attendance before proposing a different placement D. holding trial court did not err in declining to apply the childrens private school tuition in child support calculations E. holding that district court did not clearly err in declining to credit prisoners testimony about exhaustion

assistant: The best answer is D. holding trial court did not err in declining to apply the childrens private school tuition in child support calculations
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: relationship of that conduct to the performance of his official duties.” David v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 101 F.3d 1344, 1353 (10th Cir.1996) (internal citations omitted)(quoting Martinez v. Colon, 54 F.3d 980, 986 (1st Cir.1995)). See Griffin v. City of Opa-Locka, 261 F.3d 1295, 1303 (11th Cir.2001) (“Whether a government employee is acting under color of law is not always an easy call, and the color of law analysis inevitably requires that we engage in line drawing.”). Tenth Circuit precedent makes clear that, where a person without state authority or employment could have undertaken the same alleged unconstitutional conduct as that of which the plaintiff complains, the alleged unconstitutional conduct is not under color of state law. See, e.g., Beedle v. Wilson, 422 F.3d at 1074-75 (<HOLDING>); D.T. ex rel. M.T. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 16 Options: A. holding that sanction of removal for nursing home attendant who was found to have hit patient suffering from dementia should be reduced to penalty of sixmonth suspension because act of hitting patient was isolated instance in which patient was aggressor B. holding that a nurses aide who sexually assaulted a patient while under heavy sedation was not acting under color of state law because as there was no allegation it was the aide who sedated the patient the sexual assault conduct could have been done by anyone who wandered into the patients room C. holding that a psychiatrist who sexually assaulted a patient while he was performing the services for which he was employed such as counseling and therapy did so in the course of his employment D. holding that fault may not be assessed against a patient in a medical malpractice action in which a patients negligent conduct provides only the occasion for the medical attention care or treatment which is the basis for the action where the defendant doctor was treating the plaintiff patient for injuries sustained in a car accident negligently caused by the plaintiff who was driving while intoxicated E. holding that a psychiatrist had no duty to detain a patient who killed himself and injured his wife because the patient was outside of the scope of the facilitys range of observation and control even when the psychiatrist agreed to treat the patient the patient had suicidal tendencies and the psychologist took the patient into custody but then later permitted him to leave

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a nurses aide who sexually assaulted a patient while under heavy sedation was not acting under color of state law because as there was no allegation it was the aide who sedated the patient the sexual assault conduct could have been done by anyone who wandered into the patients room
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: 535 Pa. 77, 82, 634 A.2d 192, 195 (1993). When defense counsel attempted to cross-examine Ms. Robinson regarding her being “on the run” with her fugitive husband, the trial court ruled the evidence inadmissible as Ms. Robinson was never convicted of a crime. Commonwealth v. Fuller, 336 Pa.Super. 507, 509, 485 A.2d 1197, 1198 (1984) (a witness’s credibility may not be impeached by prior acts of misconduct which have not led to convictions). Consequently, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting appellants’ cross examination. Nolen, supra. Appellants next argue that the trial court erred in failing to properly instruct the jury pursuant to Commonwealth v. Kloiber, 378 Pa. 412, 106 A.2d 820 (1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 875, 75 S.Ct. 112, 99 L.Ed. 688 (1954) (<HOLDING>). Here, as part of its charge, the trial judge Options: A. holding that where the opportunity for positive identification is good and not weakened by prior failure to identify and the witness is positive in his identification even after crossexamination identification need not be received with caution B. holding that witness had an independent basis to support incourt identification where the description made prior to any pretrial identification was substantially an accurate description of the defendant C. holding that prior identification is not hearsay when the declarant is available at trial for crossexamination and that it makes no difference whether the witness admits or denies or fails to recall making the prior identification D. holding that trial court erred when it admitted outofcourt identification of defendant when the witness who made the identification was never asked about defendants identity at trial E. holding that admission of a witness prior identification statement where the witness could not remember the basis for the identification did not violate the confrontation clause or fedrevid 802

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that where the opportunity for positive identification is good and not weakened by prior failure to identify and the witness is positive in his identification even after crossexamination identification need not be received with caution
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in any number of and by different parties hereto on separate counterparts, all of which, when so executed, shall be deemed an original, but all such counterparts shall constitute one and the same agreement. Any signature delivered by a party by facsimile transmission shall be deemed to be an original signature hereto.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: During the Employment Term or thereafter as specified herein, Employee agrees that he shall not divulge to others, nor shall he use to the detriment of the Company or in any business or process of manufacture competitive with or similar to any business or process of manufacture engaged in by the Company, or any subsidiary or affiliated company, any Confidential Information (as defined below in Section 7.2 ) obtained by him during the course of his employment with the Company relating to sales, salesmen, sales volume or strategy, customers, formulas, processes, methods, machines, manufactures, compositions, ideas, improvements or inventions belonging to or relating to the business of the Company, or its subsidiary or affiliated company.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: while we strive to make our applications available on many platforms , we ca n't guarantee that our applications are compatible with your device ( though please let customer support know if you have a question or problem ; we want to help ) .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: be restricted. The stated goal of the newly-created easement is to “limit the non-commercial use of the roadway by the public.” Although the easement purports to allow access to residences, Minto Grain has reserved the right to close Kilowatt Drive for specified periods at its discretion. We hold the trial court erred in concluding the Tiberts’ case was moot. Ill [¶ 12] The Tiberts argue the trial court erred in determining there was no clear and convincing evidence of BNSF and its predecessors’ common-law dedication of Kilowatt Drive. The Tiberts argue a public roadway was established by BNSF and its predecessors’ actions, which amounted to an implied dedication, resting on or including and incorporating the principles of estoppel in pais. [¶ 13] “In a dedication, W.2d 606, 609 (1949) (<HOLDING>); General Auto Serv. Station v. Maniatis, 328 Options: A. holding the effect of a commonlaw dedication is to create only such an estate or right in the public as is necessary to enable it to enjoy the uses for which the dedication is made and to reserve the fee to the dedicator B. holding that the borough of deals dedication of a portion of a beach for use by its residents only was immaterial given the public trust doctrines requirement that the public be afforded the right to enjoy all dry sand beaches owned by a municipality C. holding because dedication is a theory premised on estoppel the owner can be precluded from resuming rights over the property if the public acts upon the owners manifestations D. holding the effect of a common law dedication is that the public acquires an easement to use the property for the purposes specified while the fee remains with the dedicator E. holding a common law dedication keeps the fee vested in the donor burdened with an easement over the way in question and subject to the acceptance of the easement by the public

assistant: The best answer is A. holding the effect of a commonlaw dedication is to create only such an estate or right in the public as is necessary to enable it to enjoy the uses for which the dedication is made and to reserve the fee to the dedicator
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: privacy interest protected by Exemption 7(C) against an asserted public interest in disclosing information alleged to show that “responsible officials acted negligently or otherwise improperly in performing their duties.” Nat’l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 124 S.Ct. 1570, 158 L.Ed.2d 319 (2004). “To obtain private information under the Favish-test, the requester must at a minimum ‘produce evidence that would warrant a belief by a reasonable person that the alleged Government impropriety might have occurred.” Blackwell, 646 F.3d at 41 (quoting Favish, 541 U.S. at 174, 124 S.Ct. 1570). Therefore, courts require a meaningful evidentiary showing when a FOlA requester alleges a public interest rooted in government wrongdoing. See Favish, 541 U.S. at 174, 124 S.Ct. 1570 (<HOLDING>). This Court concludes that the plaintiff has Options: A. holding that plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to allege affirmative misconduct on the part of the government B. recognizing that allegations of government misconduct are easy to allege and hard to disprove C. holding that because the allegations purportedly suppressed by the government were not material an evidentiary hearing further exploring the allegations themselves and the governments knowledge of the allegations is unnecessary D. holding that two instances of misconduct do not indicate a persistent and widespread pattern of misconduct that amounts to a city custom or policy of overlooking police misconduct E. holding that plaintiff failed to establish pretext where plaintiff was terminated after the employer conducted an investigation into a subordinates allegations of misconduct on the part of the plaintiff and believed the allegations to be true even though plaintiff presented evidence in the lawsuit that the allegations may have been false

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that allegations of government misconduct are easy to allege and hard to disprove
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 Assignment may be executed in any number of counterparts, and each counterpart hereof shall be effective as to each Party that executes the same whether or not all of such Parties execute the same counterpart. If counterparts of this Assignment are executed, the signature pages from various counterparts may be combined into one composite instrument for all purposes. All counterparts together shall constitute only one (1) Assignment, but each counterpart shall be considered an original.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: d. engaging in any activity that disrupts or interferes with our resources , including the servers and/or networks to which our resources are located or connected , is strictly prohibited .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: WL 1810149 (Cal.App.2007) (same); Daniels v. Riley’s Health & Fitness Centers, 310 Ark. 756, 840 S.W.2d 177 (1992) (same); Evans v. Webster, 832 P.2d 951 (Colo. App. 1991) (same); Crespo v. BAGL, LLC, No. FBTCV095021661S, 2009 WL 5322400 (Conn.Super. Dec. 15, 2009) (same); USA Waste of Md., Inc. v. Love, 954 A.2d 1027 (D.C.2008) (same); American Engineering & Development Corp. v. Sanchez, 932 So.2d 1241 (Fla.App. 3 Dist.2006) (same); Frank v. Hawaii Planing Mill Foundation, 88 Hawai'i 140, 963 P.2d 349 (1998) (same); Fletcher v. Apache Hose & Belting Co., Inc., 519 N.W.2d 83 53) (assent to directions as to where and how to pile sheet metal indicated that vendee became the special employer of the driver for the vendor.); Smieja v. City of Browerville, 406 N.W.2d 325 (Minn.Ct. App.1987) (<HOLDING>); Thompson v. Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 Options: A. holding that complete performance of contract constituted acceptance B. holding that a valid contract requires acceptance of an offer C. holding owner of company qualified as an employer due to inter alia his authority to hire and fire employees and overall financial control of company D. holding that a lent employees acceptance of his special employment status could be implied from his acquiescence to the control and direction of the special employer E. holding that smiejas consent to a contract of hire could be implied from his acceptance of the districts control and direction of his work

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that smiejas consent to a contract of hire could be implied from his acceptance of the districts control and direction of his work
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: Company will not sell, offer for sale or solicit offers to buy or otherwise negotiate in respect of any security, as defined in Section 2 of the Act, that would be integrated with the offer or sale of the Note, Warrant or Shares to Investor 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 unless stockholder approval is obtained before the closing of such subsequent transaction.

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: named as defendants and because Nieto did not file a certificate of review. These assertions misinterpret the concept of immunity. A person or entity is not “immune” from suit merely because that person or entity asserts a successful • affirmative defense. See Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158, 167 n. 2, 112 S.Ct. 1827, 118 L.Ed.2d 504 (1992) (noting that while a defense entitles an individual to some protection from liability, he is not entitled to immunity from suit). Rather, immunity from suit means that a plaintiff cannot legally file a lawsuit naming that person or entity as a defendant. See § 24-10-108, 7 C.R.S. (1999) (providing that sovereign immunity shall be a bar to any action against a public entity); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (<HOLDING>). Immunity means that the person or entity is Options: A. recognizing that under texas law governmental immunity embraces two principles immunity from liability and immunity from suit B. holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit C. recognizing that an entitlement not to stand trial or face other burdens of litigation is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability D. holding bjecause immunity from liability constitutes an affirmative defense not a jurisdictional bar only immunity from suit is properly before us today E. holding immunity from liability is not jurisdictional

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that an entitlement not to stand trial or face other burdens of litigation is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: “reasonable collection and legal costs” to DLL in the event of a breach by Dr. Rozentsvit. DLL claimed it had incurred $6,898.00 in counsel fees in pursuing its breach of contract and collection action against Dr. Rozent-svit. DLL also attached an affidavit from counsel and the appropriate billing records to support its claim. In conclusion, DLL requested the court to assess costs in the amount of $6,898.00 to Dr. Rozentsvit. ¶23 In substance, DLL’s “petition to assess collection and legal costs” was intended to perform the same function as a motion pursuant to Rule 227.1. Had DLL simply labeled its petition as a “motion for post-trial relief,” Dr. Rozentsvit could not dispute its validity. See Gemini Equipment Co. v. Pennsy Supply Inc., 407 Pa.Super. 404, 595 A.2d 1211, 1214 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, DLL timely filed its petition on Options: A. holding reasonable an agency determination that a request for an investigative file did not include the employment file B. holding that even where postconviction petitioner reserved the option to file an amended petition in his opening petition simply filing an amended petition is insufficient to request leave to file an amended petition a motion for leave to file an amended petition was required before it was necessary for the district judge to consider the amended petition C. holding that argument was not preserved where defendant did not file a pretrial motion to suppress and did not object or make a motion to exclude the evidence until his motion to dismiss at the close of all of the evidence D. holding defendants argument the court erroneously denied his motion to suppress was reviewable as a constitutional issue even though defendant failed to raise the issue in a written posttrial motion E. holding defendant did not waive issues by failing to file posttrial motions where defendant did file petition for reconsideration which was intended to function as posttrial motion

assistant: The best answer is E. holding defendant did not waive issues by failing to file posttrial motions where defendant did file petition for reconsideration which was intended to function as posttrial motion
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: In the event that the Disclosee or any of its Representatives becomes legally compelled to disclose any of the Confidential Information to a regulatory authority or to any other entity or third party, the Disclosee shall immediately notify the Sellers before disclosing such Confidential Information, so that the Sellers may seek a protective order or other appropriate remedy, without prejudice to the Disclosee’s remedies under this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Debtor agrees that it will without further consideration execute and deliver such other documents and take such other action, as may be reasonably requested by Secured Party to consummate more effectively the transactions contemplated hereby.

assistant: Further Assurances
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: unless otherwise stated herein , there are no refunds where the account is terminated prior to the end of a subscription period ; the service will be available for your use until such time that the then-current subscription period expires .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If, and solely to the extent that, any provision of this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be excessively broad, the term shall be construed in a manner to enable it to be enforced to the extent compatible with applicable law. If, and solely to the extent that, any provision of this Agreement shall be invalid or unenforceable, or shall render this entire Agreement to be unenforceable or invalid, such offending provision shall be of no effect and shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement; provided, however, the Parties shall use their respective reasonable efforts to renegotiate the offending provisions to best accomplish the original intentions of the Parties.

assistant: Severability
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: 784.07 is a reclassification statute, and thus creates a substantive crime of attempted battery on a law enforcement officer, citing to Mills v. State, 822 So.2d 1284 (Fla.2002). However, a close reading of Mitts reveals that the supreme court reiterated its position that section 784.07 of the Florida Statutes is an enhancement statute which reclassified enumerated offenses committed against law enforcement officers rather than a statute creating new criminal offenses. See Mills, 822 So.2d at 1286-1287. Other recent cases have also held that attempted assault, battery or aggravated assault on one of the enumerated individuals set forth in section 784.07 of the Florida Statutes are non-existent crimes. See Moore v. State, 924 So.2d 840, 2006 WL 12960 (Fla. 4th DCA January 4, 2006)(<HOLDING>); W.T.D. v. State, 906 So.2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA Options: A. holding that the crime of attempted felony murder no longer existed in florida B. holding attempted aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer is not a crime in florida C. holding that where evidence was sufficient for attempted murder it was necessarily sufficient for aggravated assault which is a lesser included offense D. holding that there is no crime of attempted felony murder in florida E. holding reclassification impermissible where underlying felony of attempted thirddegree murder with a firearm was aggravated assault and aggravated assault includes the use of a deadly weapon as a necessary element

assistant: The best answer is B. holding attempted aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer is not a crime in florida
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: processing of claims. Cf., e.g., De Buono v. NYSA-ILA Medical and Clinical Services Fund, 520 U.S. 806, -, 117 S.Ct. 1747, 1751-1754, 138 L.Ed.2d 21 (1997) (limiting scope of § 514(a) in context of taxation of medical facilities but leaving intact prior preemption cases). The expansiveness of ERISA’s preemption provision has prompted one court to liken it to a “ ‘Pac Man’ that runs around the legal landscape ... eating up other claims.” Andrews-Clarke v. Travelers Ins. Co., 984 F.Supp. 49, 57 n. 31 (D.Mass.1997) (Young, J.) (citation omittedXgranting motion to dismiss state wrongful death, contract and medical malpractice claims based on ERISA preemption where plaintiff claimed her husband died because a utilization rev il, 223 A.D.2d 245, 646 N.Y.S.2d 799, 802 (N.Y.App.Div.1996) (<HOLDING>). The Court is not swayed by the Dancas’ Options: A. holding union members state law claims for defamation against union preempted B. holding that erisa does not preempt the plaintiffs claim that the erisa plan administrator is liable for medical malpractice where the plaintiff premised the claim solely on state law and did not invoke the erisa plan C. holding that a malpractice claim against a treating medical provider at an hmo was not preempted D. holding that no expert reports specifically addressing conduct of professional corporation and professional association were required when plaintiffs alleged only vicarious liability based on medical negligence of entities physicians explaining that the entities conduct is not measured by a medical standard of care but rather their liability was solely vicarious E. holding that vicarious liability claim against union based on medical malpractice of treating physician is not preempted by erisa

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that vicarious liability claim against union based on medical malpractice of treating physician is not preempted by 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except to the extent set forth and amended expressly herein, each of the Parties hereto acknowledges and agrees that all terms and provisions, covenants and conditions of the Purchase Agreement and all documents executed in conjunction therewith shall be and remain in full force and effect. Further, each of the Parties hereto acknowledges and agrees that the Purchase Agreement as amended hereby, shall constitute its legal, valid, and biding obligation, in each case, enforceable in accordance with its terms.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each party hereby waives, and agrees to cause each of its Affiliates to waive, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable Law, any right it may have to a trial by jury in respect of any litigation directly or indirectly arising out of, under or in connection with this Agreement, the Related Agreements or any transaction contemplated hereby or thereby. Each party (i) certifies that no representative of any other party has represented, expressly or otherwise, that such other party would not, in the event of litigation, seek to enforce the foregoing waiver and (ii) acknowledges that it and the other parties hereto and thereto have been induced to enter into this Agreement and the Related Agreements by, among other things, the mutual waivers and certifications in this Section 6.4 .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in part by the use of the non-employee spouse’s separate property interest in the fund. The enti 552 (N.Y.App.Div.2006) (reversing the provisions of the QDRO that deviated from the judgment of divorce and the parties’ stipulation with respect to death and survivor benefits, early retire ment subsidy benefits and restraints on plaintiffs conduct as a participant in the pension plan). The better view, which is in accord with our Iowa case law contemplating economic protection of both parties in retirement, is to value the pension upon maturity. See In re Marriage of McLaughlin, 526 N.W.2d 342, 344 (Iowa Ct.App.1994) (awarding proportionate shares of a pension if and when payable, while striving to assure similar retirement security for both spouses.) See also Duggan, 659 N.W.2d at 561 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, to exclude Cassandra from Options: A. holding veterans administration disability payments are separate property after dissolution of marriage B. holding that post dissolution costofliving increases are marital property as they stemmed from employment during the marriage C. holding that costofliving increases are not the result of any postdivorce labor but rather are a means of offsetting the otherwise declining value of retirement benefits after they become fixed D. holding that retirement benefits are marital property because they would be a form of deferred compensation funded by money earned during the parties marriage E. holding that money invested in voluntary investment plan during marriage was marital property because it was property acquired during marriage

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that post dissolution costofliving increases are marital property as they stemmed from employment during the marriage
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: .... ” (emphasis added)). Nor does the child have a vested right in utilizing the Family Law Article paternity provisions to seek support. “[N]o person has a vested right in a particular remedy for enforcement of a right, or in particular modes of procedure, or rules of evidence. The legislature may pass retroactive acts changing, eliminating, or adding remedies, so long as efficacious remedies exist after passage of the act.” 2 Norman J. Singer, Sutherland’s Statutory Construction, supra, § 41.16, at 429 (footnotes omitted). Our holding does not apply to the support already paid by putative fathers and to the arrears they owe in support. Those property rights are already accrued. It would clearly raise problems, particularly in the areas of takings and due 2d 95, 98-101 (Alaska 1999) (<HOLDING>). B. Entitlement to Scientific Testing in Options: A. holding that a child was not barred by a former statute of limitations applicable to actions to establish the existence of a father and child relationship when the current action was to establish the nonexistence of a father and child relationship and the presumed father no longer persisted in maintaining paternity B. holding that although a putative father had standing to bring a paternity action the action could not proceed and the blood tests could not be ordered unless the trial court determined that the paternity action would serve the best interest of the child C. holding that a putative father proven not to be the father by blood tests was entitled only to prospective relief under alaskas revisory rule and thus was still liable for child support arrearages D. holding that the presumption of legitimacy shifts the burden of persuasion to the putative father to establish that he did not father the child E. holding that the trial court must specifically consider whether it would be in the best interest of the child for the case to proceed before a putative father may be permitted to seek blood tests in an attempt to rebut the presumption of paternity

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a putative father proven not to be the father by blood tests was entitled only to prospective relief under alaskas revisory rule and thus was still liable for child support arrearages
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 the statute is rationally related to its goal because it requires that a reasonable person could be deceived. Therefore, the statute prevents individuals from posing as law enforcement officers and prevents citizens from mistakenly relying on individuals who look like law enforcement officers. We hold that section 843.085(1) is rationally related to a legitimate government interest and thus does not violate substantive due process. We note that even if an intermediate scrutiny test were used because of an incidental effect on speech, we would hold that preventing crimes by persons wearing or displaying law enforcement items is an important governmental objective, and section 843.085 is substantially related to that objective. See TM. v. State, 784 So.2d 442, 444 n. 1 (Fla.2001) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we hold that section 843.085 is not Options: A. holding that a gender classification must serve important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives B. recognizing an intermediate level of scrutiny in which the governmental objective must be important and the challenged law must be substantially related to that objective C. holding that a state law that allowed the state to assume only partial jurisdiction over indians and indian territory did not require strict scrutiny and was rationally related to a valid state objective D. holding state of the law must be determined at time of challenged action E. holding classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing an intermediate level of scrutiny in which the governmental objective must be important and the challenged law must be substantially related to that objective
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, requests, consents and other communications hereunder which are required to be provided, or which the sender elects to provide, in writing, will be addressed to the receiving party’s address set forth above or to such other address as a party may designate by notice hereunder, and will be either (i) delivered by hand, (ii) sent by overnight courier, or (iii) sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid. All notices, requests, consents and other communications hereunder will be deemed to have been given either (i) if by hand, at the time of the delivery thereof to the receiving party at the address of such party set forth above, (ii) if sent by overnight courier, on the next business day following the day such notice is delivered to the courier service, or (iii) if sent by registered or certified mail, on the 5th business day following the day such mailing is made.

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: not find that Plaintiff has demonstrated the existence of any material issue of fact with regard to Defendants’ safety reasons for the denial of Mr. Satawa’s permit application such that the safety reasons given by Mr. Hoepfner should be discredited. “As a general matter, it is clear that a State’s interest in protecting the ‘safety and convenience’ of persons using a public forum is a valid governmental objective.” Heffron v. Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640, 650, 101 S.Ct. 2559, 2565, 69 L.Ed.2d 298 (1981); Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of W.N.Y., 519 U.S. 357, 376, 117 S.Ct. 855, 866, 137 L.Ed.2d 1 (1997); Long Beach Area Peace Network v. City of Long Beach, 574 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir.2009), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 1569, 176 L.Ed.2d 110 (2010) (<HOLDING>). As this Court previously observed, “even Options: A. holding a state has a substantial interest in regulating the practice of law within the state B. recognizing the public interest exception C. holding pennsylvania statute regulating subrogation is a law regulating insurance D. recognizing a somewhat greater governmental interest in regulating expressive activity on city streets because of the public safety concerns raised by vehicular traffic E. recognizing governmental interest in rehabilitation

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing a somewhat greater governmental interest in regulating expressive activity on city streets because of the public safety concerns raised by vehicular traffic
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”) is made and entered into as of the 22 day of February, 2017 (the “Execution Date”), by and between WYNN RESORTS, LIMITED (“Employer”) and STEPHEN COOTEY (“Employee”).

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In addition to any amounts otherwise payable by Service Recipient pursuant to this Agreement, Service Recipient shall be responsible, and promptly pay or reimburse Service Provider, for any sales, use, value added, goods and services, excise, transfer, recording or similar taxes, including any interest, penalties or additional amounts imposed with respect thereto, imposed with respect to, or in connection with, the provision of Services or payment of any fees hereunder.

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

user: 7. If the recipient is forced to expose the confidential information due to a legal regulation, a legally valid judgement or a non-disputable official decision or decree in part or in whole, it shall immediately inform the owner of the confidential information in writing so that the owner can take measures to protect the confidential information.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Upon the Borrower obtaining knowledge thereof, the Borrower will give written notice to the Administrative Agent within ten days of (i) the occurrence of a Default or Event of Default, specifying the nature and extent thereof and what action the Borrower proposes to take with respect thereto and (ii) the occurrence of any of the following with respect to the Borrower or any of its Subsidiaries (A) the pendency or commencement of any litigation, arbitration or governmental proceeding against the Borrower or any of its Subsidiaries which, if adversely determined, would have or would reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, (B) one or more judgments, orders, or decrees shall be entered against the Borrower or any of its Subsidiaries involving a liability of $20,000,000 or more, in the aggregate or (C) the institution of any proceedings against the Borrower or any of its Subsidiaries with respect to, or the receipt of notice by such Person of potential liability or responsibility for violation or alleged violation of, any federal, state or local law, rule or regulation (including, without limitation, any Environmental Law), the violation of which would have or would reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company has all necessary power and authority to execute, deliver and perform its obligations under the Transaction Documents and to consummate the Transaction, and no stockholder actions are necessary for the Company’s execution, delivery and performance of its obligations under the Transaction Documents and to consummate the Transaction.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Executive agree s not to make negative comments or otherwise disparage the Company or its officers, directors, employees, shareholders, agents or products, in any manner likely to be harmful to them or their business, business reputation or personal reputation. The foregoing shall not be violated by truthful statements in response to legal process, required governmental testimony or filings, or administrative or arbitral proceedings (including, without limitation, depositions in connection with such proceedings). Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Agreement shall limit Executive’s right to discuss his employment with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, United States Department of Labor, the National Labor Relations Board, other federal government agency or similar state or local agency or to discuss the terms and conditions of his employment with others to the extent expressly permitted by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.

assistant: Non-Disparagement
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 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 would be integrated with the offer or sale of the Purchased Shares in a manner that would require the registration under the Securities Act of the sale of the Purchased Shares or that would be integrated with the offer or sale of the Purchased Shares for purposes of the rules and regulations of any Trading Market such that it would require shareholder approval prior to the closing of such other transaction unless shareholder approval is obtained before the closing of such subsequent transaction.

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: proposal for settlement of the property damage claims, but was served before Beekie executed releases for those claims. The final judgment awarded to Beekie was twenty-five percent greater than any of Beekie’s proposals for settlement. In regard to the final proposal for settlement, the request for fees was denied because it included the ambiguous condition that proof was required demonstrating an ability to pay the amount demanded. We agree with the trial court that the last proposal cannot be a basis for an award of attorney’s fees because it was both ambiguous and failed to make it clear that it was solely for personal injuries when the settlement of the property damage claim had not yet been fully consummated. See, e.g., Nichols v. State Farm Mut., 851 So.2d 742 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>), rev. granted, 03-01653 (Fla. Sept. 11, 2003). Options: A. holding patent policy incorporated by reference into patent agreement B. holding that an ambiguity in the proposal for settlement affected the offerees decisionmaking therefore rendering the proposal unenforceable C. recognizing the lack of logic in requiring ambiguity which may be fortuitous to prove the true terms of an agreement D. recognizing a latent ambiguity in a lease agreement E. recognizing that terms and conditions of a proposal for settlement should be devoid of ambiguity patent or latent

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that terms and conditions of a proposal for settlement should be devoid of ambiguity patent or latent