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: which the Commission may specify a sentence at or near the maximum.” United States v. Baker, 16 F.3d 854, 857 (8th Cir.1994). But, § 994(h) “merely declares that the enumerated crimes must be so treated.” Id. Application Note 1 does not provide an exhaustive list of “controlled substance offenses.” The Commission addressed § 841(c)(1) in response to a circuit conflict about whether possession of a listed chemical with intent to manufacture a controlled substance is a “controlled substance offense.” United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, app. C., amend. 568 (2003) (eff. Nov. 1, 1997). The Commission did not address § 841(c)(2) in Application Note 1 because it was not at issue in the circuit cases. Compare United States v. Calverley, 11 F.3d 505, 511-12 (5th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>), aff'd en banc, 37 F.3d 160, 165 (5th Options: A. holding that mens rea required for possession of a controlled substance is knowledge that defendant possessed a controlled substance B. holding that possession of listed chemical with intent to manufacture controlled substance is controlled substance offense C. holding that because some form of intent to manufacture import export distribute or dispense is not involved simple possession of a controlled substance does not constitute a controlled substance offense for purposes of united states sentencing commission guidelines manual 4blla D. holding that quantity of the controlled substance does not have to be measurable to support a conviction for possession of such controlled substance particularly when the immeasurable amount of the substance is found on an implement used to consume the substance E. holding that possession of a controlled substance is a crime only if the defendant knowingly possesses the substance and has knowledge of the nature of that substance

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that possession of listed chemical with intent to manufacture controlled substance is controlled substance offense
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 on the text of § 3501(a), but on the appellate courts’ supervisory authority. Our holding in Renteria is based on the persuasive authority of Powe, as well as our precedent in Gonzalez, which does not directly address whether a hearing may be required without a motion by the defendant. Renteria, 625 F.2d at 1283. Therefore, we need not decide the question whether the hearing requirement of § 3501(a) was abrogated by the Supreme Court’s decision in Dickerson because we are bound by our precedent in Renteria. In sum, when the evidence clearly reflects a question of the voluntariness of a confession, the trial court must raise the issue on its own motion. This rule is consistent with rules stated in other circuits. See N. Mar. I. v. Mendiola, 976 F.2d 475, 483-84 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds by George v. Options: A. 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 B. holding that a jackson v denno hearing is required where there is evidence in the record tending to show involuntariness despite defendants failure to make a pretrial motion to suppress or object on voluntariness grounds C. holding that the trial court need not hold a voluntariness hearing where the defendant did not object and no evidence presented raised the issue D. holding that hearsay is admissible in an evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress evidence citing lara E. holding that it is clear that hearsay evidence is admissible in a hearing on a motion to suppress

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a jackson v denno hearing is required where there is evidence in the record tending to show involuntariness despite defendants failure to make a pretrial motion to suppress or object on voluntariness grounds
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: Oversight Servicer has all requisite organizational power, authority, and capacity to carry on its business as it is now being conducted, to execute and deliver this Agreement, and to perform all of its obligations hereunder. Oversight Servicer does not believe, nor does it have any cause or reason to believe, that it cannot perform each and every covenant of Oversight Servicer contained in this Agreement.

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: THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT. EACH OF BORROWER, COLLATERAL AGENT AND LENDER HEREBY SUBMITS TO THE NON-EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS LOCATED IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT. BORROWER, COLLATERAL AGENT AND LENDER HEREBY WAIVE THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS TO A JURY TRIAL OF ANY CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON OR ARISING OUT OF ANY OF THE LOAN DOCUMENTS OR ANY OF THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED THEREIN, INCLUDING CONTRACT CLAIMS, TORT CLAIMS, BREACH OF DUTY CLAIMS, AND ALL OTHER COMMON LAW OR STATUTORY CLAIMS.

assistant: Venues
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 and each Restricted Subsidiary have timely filed all federal, provincial, state, municipal, foreign and other tax returns and reports required to be filed, and have timely paid all federal, provincial, state, municipal, foreign and other taxes, assessments, fees and other governmental charges levied or imposed upon them or their properties, income or assets otherwise due and payable, except those which are being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings diligently conducted and for which adequate reserves have been provided in accordance with GAAP and, except for failures to file or pay as could not, either individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect. There are no Tax audits, deficiencies, assessments or other claims with respect to the Company or any Restricted Subsidiary that could, either individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

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: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower agrees to pay to KeyBank, the Agent and KCM for their own account certain fees for services rendered or to be rendered in connection with the Loans as provided pursuant to the fee letter among the Borrower, KeyBank and KCM (the “Agreement Regarding Fees”). All such fees shall be fully earned when paid and nonrefundable under any circumstances. The Borrower agrees to pay to Huntington for its own account certain fees for services rendered or to be rendered in connection with the Loans as provided pursuant to the fee letter among the Borrower and Huntington.

assistant: Fees
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’s health insurance benefits (medical, dental and vision) will cease on April 30, 2017, subject to Executive’s right to continue his health insurance under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, as amended. Executive’s participation in all other benefits and incidents of employment, including without limitation, vesting in Awards, and the accrual of bonuses, vacation, and paid time off, ceased as of the Separation Date.

assistant: Benefits
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 failure or delay by the Administrative Agent or any Credit Party in exercising any right or power hereunder or under any other Loan Document shall operate as a waiver thereof, nor shall any single or partial exercise of any such right or power, or any abandonment or discontinuance of steps to enforce such a right or power, preclude any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right or power.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The submission of this Agreement for examination and review does not constitute an option to purchase the Property, an offer to sell the Property or an agreement to purchase and sell the Property. This Agreement shall have no binding effect on the parties unless and until executed by both Seller and Purchaser and will be effective only upon Seller’s execution of the same. The Title Company’s execution of this Agreement shall not be a prerequisite to the effectiveness of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: is supported by substantial evidence. The IJ also reasonably relied on the absence of evidence of country conditions to corroborate Haidar’s individualized claim of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Diallo, 232 F.3d at 288 (stating that corroboration “typically includes both evidence of general country conditions and evidence that substantiates the applicant’s particular claims”). With respect to the country conditions evidence Haidar did submit, the IJ did not err in finding that such evidence did little to corroborate her specific claims of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution because the articles merely detailed general conditions of unrest in the Ivory Coast. See Melgar de Torres v. Reno, 191 F.3d 307, 314 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we find no error in the IJ’s Options: A. holding that absent a pattern of persecution linked to the applicant persecution of family members is insufficient to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of persecution B. holding that the asylum standard for past persecution or wellfounded fear of future persecution is lower than the clear probability standard to show eligibility for withholding of removal C. holding that such a report provided substantial evidence to support the conclusion that petitioner failed to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of future persecution D. holding that general crime conditions are not a stated ground for a wellfounded fear of future persecution E. holding that absent past persecution an alien can demonstrate eligibility for asylum based on a wellfounded fear of future persecution by demonstrating that he or she subjectively fears persecution and that this fear is objectively reasonable

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that general crime conditions are not a stated ground for a wellfounded fear of future persecution
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: while some agents might have labeled calls slightly differently than others, he did not recall any disagreement between agents about whether or not a call should be labeled pertinent. Thus, we conclude that the labeling of calls as pertinent was not arbitrary. Moreover, the fact that only 203 of 4,561 intercepted calls were minimized does not render the DEA’s minimization efforts inadequate. While the record does not indi cate how many of the intercepted calls the DEA labeled pertinent, Defendants do not assert that the DEA intercepted, but failed to minimize, any significant number of non-pertinent calls. Thus, Defendants have not provided a basis for concluding that the DEA’s minimization efforts were unreasonable. Cf. United States v. Bennett, 219 F.3d 1117, 1123-24 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Torres, 908 F.2d at 1423 (holding that Options: A. holding that interception was properly minimized where appellants contended that government failed to minimize only 267 of 7322 intercepted calls B. holding error for chancellor to find that the appellants had tortiously interfered with the appellees business relationships where record failed to disclose a single client who was influenced by the appellants to terminate the appellees services due to the appellants intervention C. holding that the appellants claim that the circuit court failed to make specific findings of fact relating to issues raised at an evidentiary hearing on the appellants postconviction petition was not preserved for review because the appellant did not raise the issue in the circuit court D. holding in a legal malpractice case where defendants allegedly failed to disclose a conflict of interest that incidental events such as the correspondence and calls plaintiff relies on that have only some tangential connection with the dispute in litigation were not enough to support venue where the plaintiff resided E. holding the states comment that the only witness gave uncontradicted and uncontroverted testimony establishing appellants guilt was an impermissible comment on appellants right to remain silent where appellant was the only individual capable of refuting the witnesss testimony

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that interception was properly minimized where appellants contended that government failed to minimize only 267 of 7322 intercepted calls
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 expenses (other than Selling Expenses) incurred by the Company in complying with its obligations pursuant to this Agreement and in connection with the registration and disposition of Registrable Securities shall be paid by the Company, including, without limitation, all (i) registration and filing fees (including, without limitation, any fees relating to filings required to be made with, or the listing of any Registrable Securities on, any securities exchange or over-the-counter trading market on which the Registrable Securities are listed or quoted); (ii) underwriting expenses (other than fees, commissions or discounts); (iii) expenses of any audits incident to or required by any such registration; (iv) fees and expenses of complying with securities and “blue sky” laws (including, without limitation, fees and disbursements of counsel for the Company in connection with “blue sky” qualifications or exemptions of the Registrable Securities); (v) printing expenses; (vi) messenger, telephone and delivery expenses; (vii) fees and expenses of the Company’s counsel and accountants; (viii) Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. filing fees (if any); and (ix) fees and expenses of one counsel for the holders of Registrable Securities participating in such registration as a group (selected by, in the case of a registration under Section 3.1(a) , the holders of a majority of the Registrable Securities initially requesting such registration, and, in the case of all other registrations hereunder, the holders of a majority of the Registrable Securities included in the registration). In addition, the Company shall be responsible for all of its internal expenses incurred in connection with the consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement (including, without limitation, all salaries and expenses of its officers and employees performing legal or accounting duties) and the expense of any annual audits. All Selling Expenses relating to the offer and sale of Registrable Securities registered under the Securities Act pursuant to this Agreement shall be borne and paid by the holders of such Registrable Securities, in proportion to the number of Registrable Securities included in such registration for each such holder.

assistant: Expenses
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: & Van Der Maaten, 630 N.W.2d 818, 823 (Iowa 2001) (also citing these four grounds for common-law indemnity, and agreeing that the first three are based on a relationship existing between the indemnitor and the indemni-tee, while the fourth is “based solely upon a common liability arising from the concurrent negligence of the parties”); Farmers Coop. Co. v. Stockdales’ Corp., 366 N.W.2d 184, 186 (Iowa 1985) (same); Hysell v. Iowa Pub. Serv. Co., 534 F.2d 775, 782-83 (8th Cir.1976) (citing Abild Constr. Co.). Another distinction between the claims is that a contribution claim by a third-party against the employer of the injured person is entirely barred by the “exclusive remedy” provision of the IWCA, currently codified at Iowa Code § 85.20. See Abild Constr. Co., 144 N.W.2d at 306 (<HOLDING>); accord Thompson v. Steams Chem. Corp., 345 Options: A. holding that there can be no common liability upon which to base a contribution claim between a third party and an injured partys employer because the exclusive remedy provision means that the employers liability is not based on negligence so that application of the common liability rule deprives a third party of the opportunity to secure contribution from the injured partys employer B. holding that an insurer which insures a tortfeasor under a liability policy has no obligation of good faith and fair dealing to an injured third party even where the injured third party also carries a separate policy with the insurer C. holding that a contractor had no duty of care to a third party under a premises liability theory because the contractor was not a landowner or occupier but expressing no opinion as to whether the contractor owed a duty to the third party under general negligence principles because the third partys legal theory was restricted to premises liability D. holding that an injured third party does not have the right to bring a direct action against a tortfeasors liability insurer E. holding that thirdparty tortfeasor has right to contribution from employer up to amount of employers workers compensation liability

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that there can be no common liability upon which to base a contribution claim between a third party and an injured partys employer because the exclusive remedy provision means that the employers liability is not based on negligence so that application of the common liability rule deprives a third party of the opportunity to secure contribution from the injured partys employer
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: 342 U.S. 163 72 S.Ct. 196 96 L.Ed. 181 Ex parte COGDELL et al. No. 71 Misc. Distributed Sept. 10, 1951. Decided Dec. 11, 1951. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioners brought suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia to restrain on constitutional grounds the enforcement of certain legislation passed by Congress for the administration of the District of Columbia school system. Petitioners' request that a court of three judges be convened under Section 2282 of the Judicial Code1 was denied. Subsequently, the motion of defendant school officials to dismiss the suit for failure to state a cause of action was granted. 2 Petitioners filed a motion in this Court for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus directing that a court of three judges be convened to hear and determine their constitutional claims. As substantial jurisdictional questions were raised, we granted the motion and issued a rule to show cause why mandamus should not be granted. Cogdell v. McGuire, 342 U.S. 805, 72 S.Ct. 66. In addition to this mandamus action, appeals were taken by petitioners to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and are now pending in that court. 3 One of the jurisdictional questions raised by this case is whether a court of three judges is required by Section 2282 in a suit to enjoin enforcement of congressional enactments affecting only the District of Columbia. The Section uses the words 'any Act of Congress.' As against petitioners' contention that all legislation passed by Congress is embraced within that language, it is urged that a proper interpretation of Section 2282 confines the phrase 'Act of Congress' to laws having general application throughout the United States. Resolution of this issue determines whether this Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction in this class of case,2 or whether the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction. As a result, the same question is necessarily before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in its consideration of petitioners' appeals now pending in that court.3 Because the question is one of general importance to judicial administration within the District of Columbia, we continue this case on our docket to await the views of the Court of Appeals. 4 Cause continued. 5 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS dissents. 1 28 U.S.C. (Supp. IV) § 2282, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2282: 'An interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement, operation or execution of any Act of Congress for repugnance to the Constitution of the United States shall not be granted by any district court or judge thereof unless the application therefor is heard and determined by a district court of three judges under section 2284 of this title.' 2 28 U.S.C.(Supp. IV) § 1253, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1253. 3 Stratton v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co., 1930, 282 U.S. 10, 51 S.Ct. 8, 75 L.Ed. 135.

assistant: 9
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: when you initiate a transaction , you authorize us to store and continue billing you using your payment information and to provide your payment information to our third party payment processors as needed to complete your transactions .

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: subject as provided below , neither deliveroo nor any partner restaurant shall have have any liability to you for any direct , indirect , special or consequential losses or damages arising in contract , tort ( including negligence ) or otherwise arising from your use of or your inability to use our service .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: This rule might be applicable if Patchett's previous landlord was claiming adverse possession of the disputed strip by means of Patchett's tenancy. However, Patchett was not a tenant of the Joneses, and therefore the Joneses cannot rely on Patchett's farming of the disputed strip in order to establish successive possession. Moreover, if the Jonesés were allowed to tack Patchett's farming of the disputed strip, as the trial court concluded, Patchett would effectively be claiming adverse possession against his own landlord. In Reese v. Coffee, 133 Ind. 14, 32 N.E. 720, 721 (1892), our supreme court held that it is an elementary principle of the law that a tenant is estopped from denying the title of his landlord. See also Davey v. Meier, 117 Ind.App. 577, 73 N.E.2d 56, 58 (1947) (<HOLDING>). Here, Patchett was a tenant of the disputed Options: A. recognizing the general rule that the landlord is not liable for dangerous conditions existing once the tenant takes possession of the premises B. holding that where the landlord was aware the tenant had moved out a tenant who attached a lock to the door and accidentally retained the keys to the lock was not a holdover tenant C. recognizing that it is a wellestablished rule that a tenant is estopped from denying the title of his landlord existing at the commencement of the tenancy D. holding that the tenant was not a holdover tenant despite retaining keys because the tenant recognized the termination of the tenancy relinquished possession of the premises and the landlord was able to gain access to the property E. holding the landlord did not trespass when his agent entered the premises for the purpose of showing them to a potential tenant

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that it is a wellestablished rule that a tenant is estopped from denying the title of his landlord existing at the commencement of the tenancy
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 Employee represents and warrants to the Company that: (a) he has the legal authority to execute and perform this Agreement; (b) this Agreement is a valid and binding agreement enforceable against him according to its terms; (c) he has consulted his attorneys and financial advisors with respect to the terms of this Agreement (specifically, including, without limitation, the provisions of Sections 6.2 and 6.3); and (d) he is not a party to or subject to any restrictive covenants, legal restrictions or other agreements in favor of any entity or person which would in any way preclude, inhibit, impair or limit the Employee’s ability to perform his obligations under this Agreement, including, but not limited to, non-competition agreements, non-solicitation agreements or confidentiality agreements. The Employee shall not disclose to the Company or to any of the other Protected Parties, or induce the Company or any of the other Protected Parties to use, any proprietary, secret, or confidential information or material belonging to any other individual or entity, including, without limitation, any former employers.

assistant: Representations
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 the Executive is unable to perform the duties required of him under this Agreement because of illness, incapacity, or physical or mental disability, the Employment Term shall continue and the Company shall pay all compensation required to be paid to the Executive hereunder, unless the Executive is unable to perform the duties required of him under this Agreement for an aggregate of 120 days (whether or not consecutive) during any 12-month period during the term of this Agreement (a “Disability”), in which event the Executive’s employment shall terminate and Executive shall be entitled to receive only the Accrued Compensation pursuant to Section 6(g)(ii) hereof and no other severance compensation. The Executive shall receive those benefits pursuant to Section 3(f) as well.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: standard of review on the ultimate reasonable suspicion inquiry is de novo, the district court is at an institutional advantage, having observed the testimony of the witnesses and understanding local conditions, in making this determination. Accordingly, ‘due weight’ should be given to the inferences drawn from the facts by ‘resident judges.’ ” United States v. Caruthers, 458 F.3d 459, 464 (6th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted). Ill A Before explaining our reasons for affirming the district court, we must briefly dispose of one of the arguments that the government has brought before this Court. The government contends that we need not analyze the broadcasted tip under Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 270-72, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000) (<HOLDING>). In support of its argument, the government Options: A. holding that an anonymous tip lacking indicia of reliability that an individual is carrying a gun is not enough to justify a terry stop B. holding that an anonymous tip must have sufficient indicia of reliability to justify a stop and frisk C. holding that an anonymous callers barebones tip that a young black male wearing a plaid shirt and standing at a particular bus stop was carrying a gun without more was insufficient to justify an officers stop and frisk of the man D. holding that an anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun without any corroborating evidence did not provide reasonable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing justifying the officers stop and frisk of that person E. holding that a mere anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun without any corroborating evidence does not provide a reasonable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing justifying the officers stop and frisk of that person

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an anonymous callers barebones tip that a young black male wearing a plaid shirt and standing at a particular bus stop was carrying a gun without more was insufficient to justify an officers stop and frisk of the man
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 the Executive dies, his employment with the Company and this Agreement shall automatically terminate on the date of his death. The Executive's estate or personal representative shall be entitled to receive that portion of the Annual Salary that the Executive earned through and including the date of the Executive's death, at the rate of the Annual Salary in effect at that time, any Termination Vacation Pay and any bonus earned prior to the date of the Executive's death that remains unpaid. Except as provided herein or required by applicable law, neither the Executive's estate nor his personal representative shall be entitled to any other compensation or benefits.

assistant: Death
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 consideration of the Agent’s and the Required Lenders’ willingness to enter into this Amendment, each of the Loan Parties hereby releases and forever discharges the Agent, the Lenders and each of the Agent’s and the Lenders’ predecessors, successors, assigns, officers, managers, directors, employees, agents, attorneys, representatives, and affiliates (hereinafter all of the above collectively referred to as the “ Lender Group ”), from any and all claims, counterclaims, demands, damages, debts, suits, liabilities, actions and causes of action of any nature whatsoever, in each case to the extent arising in connection with the Loan Documents or any of the negotiations, activities, events or circumstances arising out of or related to the Loan Documents through the date of this Amendment, whether arising at law or in equity, whether known or unknown, whether liability be direct or indirect, liquidated or unliquidated, whether absolute or contingent, foreseen or unforeseen, and whether or not heretofore asserted, which each of the Loan Parties may have or claim to have against any member of the Lender Group.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 3729. d. Post -Stevens FCA Jurisprudence The Supreme Court’s opinion in Stevens did not squarely resolve the question before this Court: whether municipalities and their agencies are immune from suit under the FCA. The federal courts addressing this issue have split once again. The majority of courts have concluded that municipalities, like states, are immune from FCA claims brought by qui tam relators. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Garibaldi v. Orleans Parish Sch. Bd., 244 F.3d 486, 495 (5th Cir.2001) (“The punitive damage regime of the False Claims Act shows a congressional intent that the False Claims Act should not be applied to local governments.”); United States ex rel. Honeywell v. San Francisco Housing Auth., No. C99-1936 TEH, 2001 WL 793300, at *4 (N.D.Cal. July 12, 2001) (<HOLDING>); United States ex rel. Chandler v. Hektoen Options: A. holding that an action naming a state entity as a defendant did not constitute an action against the state because the state entity was sued in its capacity as receiver B. holding that a special relaxing of rule 9b is a qui tam plaintiffs ticket to the discovery process that the statute itself does not contemplate C. holding that rule 9b applies to fca D. holding that discrimination against a municipal employee could trigger municipal liability under 1983 through official policy or custom E. holding that plaintiff could not maintain a qui tam fca action against a municipal entity

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that plaintiff could not maintain a qui tam fca action against a municipal entity
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 covenants, agreements, representations and warranties made by the Borrower herein and in the certificates or other instruments delivered in connection with or pursuant to this Agreement shall be considered to have been relied upon by the other parties hereto and shall survive the execution and delivery of this Agreement and the making of any Loans, regardless of any investigation made by any such other party or on its behalf and notwithstanding that the Administrative Agent, the Fronting Bank, the Several L/C Agent, any L/C Issuer or any Lender may have had notice or knowledge of any Default or Event of Default or incorrect representation or warranty at the time any credit is extended hereunder, and shall continue in full force and effect as long as the principal of or any accrued interest on any Loan or any other Obligation or any fee or any other amount payable under this Agreement is outstanding and unpaid or any Letter of Credit shall remain outstanding and so long as the Aggregate Commitments have not expired or terminated. The provisions of Sections 2.16 , 2.17 , 2.18 and 9.03 and Article VIII shall survive and remain in full force and effect regardless of the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, the repayment of the Loans, and the Aggregate Commitments or the termination of this Agreement or any provision hereof.

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: habeas petition was untimely, it cannot satisfy the requirement of a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and we therefore deny the motion for a COA. 1 . We need not consider whether the interval tolled by the section 440.10 proceeding is the entire time from initial filing of the motion in the State trial court until denial by the Appellate Division of leave to appeal from the denial of reconsideration, or only the time during which proceedings on the section 440.10 motion were actually pending before the State trial court and the Appellate Division. Compare Bennett v. Artuz, 199 F.3d 116, 119-20 (2d Cir.1999) (dictum stating that entire interval tolls AEDPA limitations period), with Robinson v. Ricks, 163 F.Supp.2d 155 (E.D.N.Y. 2001) (<HOLDING>); see also Hizbullahankhamon v. Walker, 255 Options: A. holding that properly filed application for statecourt discretionary review tolls aedpa limitations period B. holding that the aedpa statute of limitations is not jurisdictional C. holding only intervals in which proceeding or appeal is actually pending toll aedpa limitations period D. holding that aedpa is not applied retroactively to pending habeas petitions E. holding that the limitations period is not tolled while a federal habeas petition is pending

assistant: The best answer is C. holding only intervals in which proceeding or appeal is actually pending toll aedpa limitations 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: This Agreement, together with the other agreements and instruments referred to herein, constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties relating to the matters contained herein, superseding as of the Effective Date all prior contracts or agreements (including the Original Omnibus Agreement), whether oral or written, relating to the matters contained herein. For avoidance of doubt the Eleventh Amended and Restated Omnibus Agreement, effective as of January 1, 2015, shall remain in full force and effect with respect to any event, act or omission occurring before January 1, 2015.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Tenant acknowledges that the content of this Lease and any related documents are confidential information. Tenant shall keep such confidential information strictly confidential and shall not disclose such confidential information to any person or entity other than Tenant’s financial, legal, and space planning consultants or otherwise required by Applicable Law.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the District’s sexual harassment policy, and how to handle sexual harassment complaints; and (2) the adequacy of the defendants’ response to plaintiffs complaints of sexual harassment. Accordingly, summary judgment of plaintiffs negligent training and supervision claim must be denied. 2. Vicarious liability “The doctrine of respondeat superi- or renders an employer vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee acting within the scope of the employment.” Judith M. v. Sisters of Charity Hosp., 93 N.Y.2d 932, 933, 715 N.E.2d 95, 96, 693 N.Y.S.2d 67, 68 (1999); Riviello v. Waldron, 47 N.Y.2d 297, 302, 391 N.E.2d 1278, 1281, 418 N.Y.S.2d 300, 302 (1979). School districts may be held vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee. Murray v. Water Y.S.2d 347, 348 (3d Dep’t 1994)(<HOLDING>). Further, for respondeat superior to attach, Options: A. holding that the district was not liable under respondeat superior for a teachers sexual assault of a student even though it occurred on school grounds and during school hours because the criminal misconduct was not within the scope of the teachers employment B. holding that a school district owed the highest degree of care to a student on a school bus such that the district could be liable for the sexual abuse of the student by the school bus driver C. holding the tlo standard governs school searches when school resource officers who although employed by the local police department are primarily responsible to the school district are acting in conjunction with school officials D. holding that a school district was not liable for sexual molestation of plaintiffs daughter by a teacher even though the acts occurred on school property and during school hours E. holding that intraconspiracy doctrine applied to plaintiffs claims against school board teacher school principal and district superintendent

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a school district was not liable for sexual molestation of plaintiffs daughter by a teacher even though the acts occurred on school property and during school hours
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: specifically to Arteaga’s counsel’s argument that the jury “[had] to make a decision whether or not when my client looked at [the photographs] he was viewing them as lewd.” The trial court’s instruction was not improper. Arteaga was allowed to argue and present evidence that others, including appellant, might not view the photographs as lewd. Specifically, Arteaga testified, without objection, that he did not consider the photographs to be child pornography. The argument the jury was instructed to disregard went a step further—informing the jury that the jury’s consideration of lewdness was limited to whether appellant viewed the photographs as lewd. The trial court correctly instructed that it was within the jury’s province to decide whether the photographs were lewd. See id. at 792 (<HOLDING>). We also note the jury charge tracked the Options: A. holding that a conviction for a lascivious act with a child in violation of iowa code 7098 was a crime of violence B. recognizing continuing harm from defendants knowing possession of child pornography C. holding a defendant found in possession of three or more copies of the same article of child pornography during a single episode may only be prosecuted for a single count of possession with intent to promote D. holding that private possession of child pornography is not protected by the first amendment E. holding an appeal from conviction for possession and promotion of child pornography that the defendant was not entitled to instruction that whether the content of a photograph constitutes a lewd or lascivious exhibition of a childs genitals depends on the intent of the photographer

assistant: The best answer is E. holding an appeal from conviction for possession and promotion of child pornography that the defendant was not entitled to instruction that whether the content of a photograph constitutes a lewd or lascivious exhibition of a childs genitals depends on the intent of the photographer
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any Lender may at any time, without the consent of, or notice to, the Borrower or the Administrative Agent, sell participations to any Person (other than a natural Person (or a holding company, investment vehicle or trust for, or owned and operated for the primary benefit of a natural Person), a Disqualified Institution, a Defaulting Lender or the Borrower or any of the Borrower’s Affiliates or Subsidiaries) (each, a “ Participant ”) in all or a portion of such Lender’s rights and/or obligations under this Agreement (including all or a portion of its Commitment and/or the Loans owing to it); provided that (i) such Lender’s obligations under this Agreement shall remain unchanged, (ii) such Lender shall remain solely responsible to the other parties hereto for the performance of such obligations and (iii) the Borrower, the Administrative Agent and the Lenders shall continue to deal solely and directly with such Lender in connection with such Lender’s rights and obligations under this Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, each Lender shall be responsible for the indemnity under Section 11.04(c) without regard to the existence of any participation.

assistant: Participations
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: insurer’s liability is governed by the contract entered into.” American Fam. Mut. Ins. v. Ryan, 330 N.W.2d 113, 115 (Minn.1983). Because the construction of an insurance policy is the process of determining the legal effect of the policy’s terms, and interpretation is the process of ascertaining the meaning of the words used, both construction and interpretation are ordinarily questions of law. See A.Y. McDonald Indus. v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 475 N.W.2d 607, 618 (Iowa 1991) (construction and interpretation are questions of law unless extrinsic evidence is relied upon). Therefore, this court is not bound by and need not give deference to the trial court’s construction and interpretation. See Frost-Benco Elec. Ass’n v. Minnesota Public Utils. Comm’n, 358 N.W.2d 639, 642 (Minn.1984) (<HOLDING>). The insurance policy at issue in this case Options: A. holding issue not properly before the appellate court where appellant fails to demonstrate where in the record an issue was raised in the district court B. holding a party must timely present his legal theories to the trial court so as to give the trial court an opportunity to rule properly C. holding that on review of a motion to suppress the appellate court is to give deference to a trial courts factual findings but legal conclusions are reviewed de novo D. holding that where the issue before the court is legal as opposed to factual an appellate court need not give deference to a trial courts decision E. holding that an appellate court must give deference to the trial judges determination of juror competency

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that where the issue before the court is legal as opposed to factual an appellate court need not give deference to a trial courts decision
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 Period, the Executive shall be entitled to paid vacation in accordance with the plans, policies, programs and practices of the Company applicable to its senior executives but in no event less than four (4) weeks per calendar year; provided , however , that the Executive shall not accrue any vacation time in excess of four (4) weeks (twenty (20) days) (the “ Accrual Limit ”), and shall cease accruing vacation time if the Executive’s accrued vacation reaches the Accrual Limit until such time as the Executive’s accrued vacation time drops below the Accrual Limit.

assistant: Vacations