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: see also L. 1979, c. 288, 8; Senate Labor, Industry and Professions Committee, Joint Statement to Senate Committee Substitute for Senate No. 802 and Assembly Committee Substitute for Assembly No. 8h0, at 2 (Nov. 13, 1979). The employee decides whether to negotiate towards a settlement and to the terms of any settlement. It is within the power of the employee either to provide for the payment of outstanding medical bills in a Section 20 settlement or to pursue a hearing to compel an employer to assume responsibility for those payments. The employer and the employee, however, cannot extinguish the rights of those who do not participate, or do not have the opportunity to participate, in a settlement. Cf. Kibble v. Weeks Dredging Constr. Co., 161 N.J. 178, 194-95, 735 A2d 1142 (1999) (<HOLDING>); Hetherington v. Briarwood Coachlight, 253 Options: A. holding that consent of workers dependents must be obtained for section 20 settlement that purports to waive dependency benefits B. holding that the workers compensation offset includes total social security disability benefits received by claimant and his dependents C. holding that section 20 claims are governed by section 1658b bjecause section 20 merely creates a derivative liability for violations of other sections of the act D. holding that carriers consent required if past and future benefits might exceed settlement E. holding that employers insurer who provided workers compensation benefits to employee but did not consent to employees settlement with thirdparty tortfeasor may maintain an action for payments that become payable in the future

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that consent of workers dependents must be obtained for section 20 settlement that purports to waive dependency 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: The Company shall (a) by 9:00 a.m. (New York City time) on the Trading Day immediately following the date hereof, issue a press release disclosing the material terms of the transactions contemplated hereby, and (b) file a Current Report on Form 8-K disclosing the material terms of the transactions contemplated hereby, including the Transaction Documents as exhibits thereto, with the Commission within the time required by the Exchange Act. From and after the issuance of such press release, the Company represents to the Purchasers that it shall have publicly disclosed all material, non-public information delivered to any of the Purchasers by the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, or any of their respective officers, directors, employees or agents in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Documents. In addition, effective upon the issuance of such press release, the Company acknowledges and agrees that any and all confidentiality or similar obligations under any agreement, whether written or oral, between the Company, any of its Subsidiaries or any of their respective officers, directors, agents, employees or Affiliates on the one hand, and any of the Purchasers or any of their Affiliates on the other hand, shall terminate. The Company and each Purchaser shall consult with each other in issuing any other press releases with respect to the transactions contemplated hereby, and neither the Company nor any Purchaser shall issue any such press release nor otherwise make any such public statement without the prior consent of the Company, with respect to any press release of any Purchaser, or without the prior consent of each Purchaser, with respect to any press release of the Company, which consent shall not unreasonably be withheld or delayed, except if such disclosure is required by law, in which case the disclosing party shall promptly provide the other party with prior notice of such public statement or communication. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company shall not publicly disclose the name of any Purchaser, or include the name of any Purchaser in any filing with the Commission or any regulatory agency or Trading Market, without the prior written consent of such Purchaser, except: (a) as required by federal securities law in connection with (i) any registration statement contemplated by the Registration Rights Agreement and (ii) the filing of final Transaction Documents with the Commission and (b) to the extent such disclosure is required by law or Trading Market regulations, in which case the Company shall provide the Purchasers with prior notice of such disclosure permitted under this clause (b).

assistant: Publicity
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: had robbed six businesses that purchased supplies from other states, and/or had employees or customers from other states. 328 F.3d at 711-12. We underscored that “ ‘the cumulative result of many Hobbs Act violations is a substantial effect upon interstate commerce,’ and that substantial effect empowers Congress to regulate pursuant to the Commerce Clause.” Id. at 711 (quoting United States v. Robinson, 119 F.3d 1205, 1215 (5th Cir.1997)). On this record, there was sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Jeanette was running a business that had the requisite nexus to interstate commerce. Although the speakeasy was not a licensed bar, it was selling alcohol and the people playing cards at the time of the robbery were its c (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). There was also evidence here from which a Options: A. holding that the single transaction rule protects a purchaser of stolen goods who by definition must know the goods to be stolen from being made party to the original theft via conspiracy B. holding that a buyer who purchases goods subject to an express warranty that the goods are free from all liens takes free of any unperfected security interest C. holding that a creditors pmsi in goods sold to debtors did not survive consolidation of the original installment contract with a later contract for the purchase of additional goods D. holding that the hobbs act jurisdictional nexus was met by the robbery of a delicatessen that sold goods produced out of state without mentioning whether the goods were purchased from outofstate or instate suppliers E. holding that a statement of conditional sale of goods can be filed with the state auditor before the delivery of goods where statute says the statement must be filed within ten days of delivery of goods

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the hobbs act jurisdictional nexus was met by the robbery of a delicatessen that sold goods produced out of state without mentioning whether the goods were purchased from outofstate or instate suppliers
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: has one year from that date to file a motion. In this case, this means that Dorsey had one year from October 7, 1996, the date on which the Supreme Court denied certiora-ri, in which to file his 2255 motion. Dorsey deposited his 2255 motion in the prison mailbox on October 7, 1997, but the Clerk of this Court did not receive the motion until one week later. The issue therefore remains whether Dorsey timely filed by depositing his 2255 motion in the prison mailbox on October 7,1997. II. The “Mailbox Rule” under § 2255 Dorsey cites to two cases for the proposition that the date a prisoner deposits papers in the prison mailbox should constitute the date of filing, the so-called “mailbox rule.” See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270-76, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 2381-85, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988) (<HOLDING>); Lewis v. Richmond City Police Dep’t, 947 F.2d Options: A. holding that a pro se prisoners notice of appeal is considered filed upon delivery to prison authorities for mailing to the court B. holding that prisoners notice of appeal deemed filed on date he delivered it to prison officials for mailing to court C. holding that pro se prisoners 28 usc 2254 application deemed filed for limitation purposes when deposited with prison officials for mailing D. holding that prisoners notice of appeal is deemed filed on date he delivered it to prison officials for mailing to court E. holding that a pro se prisoners notice of appeal of 2254 motion was filed for purposes of federal rules of appellate procedure 3a and 4a1 when prisoner delivered papers to prison authorities

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a pro se prisoners notice of appeal of 2254 motion was filed for purposes of federal rules of appellate procedure 3a and 4a1 when prisoner delivered papers to prison authorities
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement, the Warrant Agreement and the other agreements and documents referred to herein are intended by the parties as a final expression of their agreement and intended to be a complete and exclusive statement of the agreement and understanding of the parties hereto in respect of the subject matter contained herein and therein. There are no restrictions, promises, warranties or undertakings, other than those set forth or referred to herein or in the Warrant Agreement with respect to the rights granted by the Company or any of its Affiliates or the Purchasers or any of their respective Affiliates set forth herein or therein. This Agreement, the Warrant Agreement and the other agreements and documents referred to herein or therein supersede all prior agreements and understandings between the parties with respect to such subject matter.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to the Commissioner for a more complete evaluation of the evidence relating to the limitation in attending and completing tasks and, after completing this evaluation, whether L.B. is entitled to disability benefits. 1 . We amend our June 14, 2016 Memorandum (ECF Doc. No. 27) only to correct a typographical error in the second paragraph of our Analysis consistent with the remainder of our Memorandum and Order. 2 . Burnett v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 220 F.3d 112, 118 (3d Cir.2000). 3 . Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358; 360 (3d Cir.1999) (quoting Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 564-65, 108 S.Ct. 2541, 101 L.Ed.2d 490 (1988)). 4 . Monsour Med. Ctr. v. Heckler, 806 F.2d 1185, 1190 (3d Cir.1986). 5 . Id. at 1190-91; see also Gilmore v. Barnhart, 356 F.Supp.2d 509, 511 (E.D.Pa.2005) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Schwartz v. Halter, 134 F.Supp.2d Options: A. holding the courts scope of review is limited to determining whether the commissioner applied the correct legal standards and whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support the commissioners findings of fact B. holding that where the board had already made the necessary factual evaluation underlying the legal standard to be applied it then becomes the courts responsibility to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether the boards findings were supported by substantial evidence C. holding that a courts role in reviewing an administrative agency decision is limited to determining if there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the agencys findings and conclusions and to determine if the administrative decision is premised upon an erroneous conclusion of law D. holding that a reviewing courts task is to determine whether there was substantial evidence before the administrative agency on the record as a whole to support the agencys conclusions E. holding that the courts review is limited to ascertaining whether there is clear error on the face of the record

assistant: The best answer is A. holding the courts scope of review is limited to determining whether the commissioner applied the correct legal standards and whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support the commissioners findings of fact
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and scheduling of the services for her special education students clearly falls within the scope of her professional duties”); Stahura-Uhl v. Iroquois Cent. Sch. Dist., 836 F.Supp.2d 132, 142 (W.D.N.Y. 2011) (dismissing First Amendment retaliation claim because the plaintiffs “complaints to co-workers and parents cannot be reasonably categorized as falling outside her official duties. It takes no standardized employee handbook or directive from the School District for this Court to conclude that in addition to instructing her students, a teacher should also advocate on their behalf. This includes communicating with other teachers when concerned about a student’s progress ....”); Massaro v. Dep’t of Educ., No. 08 Civ. 10678 (LTS) (FM), 2011 WL 2207556, at *3 (S.D.N.Y June 3, 2011) (<HOLDING>), aff'd sub nom. Massaro v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Options: A. holding that relative to the threat that she posed physically separating tina cortez from her telephone taking her by the arm escorting her from her home taking the keys to her home and locking the door and placing her in the locked back seat of a patrol car was excessive force as well as an unlawful seizure under the fourth amendment B. holding that working conditions were not intolerable to the point of coercion where supervisors yelled at employee told her she was a poor manager gave her poor performance evaluations chastised her in front of customers and once required her to work with an injured back C. holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment D. holding that a teachers complaint to school authorities that her principal had instructed her to make improper changes in her own students grades was unprotected because it was made pursuant to her official duties E. holding that the plaintiffs complaints regarding the sanitary conditions in her classroom and the health concerns that arose from them were made pursuant to her duties as an employee

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the plaintiffs complaints regarding the sanitary conditions in her classroom and the health concerns that arose from them were made pursuant to her duties as an employee
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 has seven (7) days after that Party signs this Agreement to revoke it. This Agreement will become effective on the eighth (8th) day after Executive signed this Agreement, so long as it has been signed by both Parties.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of action to enforce section 17(a) also exists. The Supreme Court has never answered the question. See Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. v. Berner, 472 U.S. 299, 304 n. 9, 105 S.Ct. 2622, 2625 n. 9, 86 L.Ed.2d 215 (1985). Until today, neither had this court. See Cleary v. Perfectune, Inc., 700 F.2d 774, 779 (1st Cir.l983)(declining to reach this question). This issue has caused confusion because, while neither the language nor the history of section 17(a) clearly indicates a congressional intent to create a private right of action, see Newcome v. Esrey, 862 F.2d 1099, 1103-07 (4th Cir.1988), section 10(b) of the 1934 Act— with substantially similar lang , 867 (2d Cir.1968) (Friendly, J., concurring) (same), with Landry v. All American Assur. Co., 688 F.2d 381, 384-91 (5th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>), and Stephenson v. Calpine Conifers II, Ltd., Options: A. holding that erisa creates no private right of action B. holding that no private right of action exists under any of the provisions of the airport and airway improvement act C. recognizing that no private right of action exists for subsection a violations D. holding that no private right of action exists E. recognizing private right of action

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that no private right of action exists
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 Consultant shall provide the Contract Services in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement during the term commencing on January 2, 2018 (the "Commencement Date") and , except in the case of earlier termination as hereinafter specifically provided for, shall continue for a period of three (3) year s (the "Term") until January 1, 2021 (the "Termination Date") . The Term maybe extended or renewed by mutual agreement upon the within terms, or such other terms, as the parties may agree in writing .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: We will affirm summary judgment if it is correct for any reason. City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., 201 Ariz. 106, 111, ¶ 14, 32 P.3d 31, 36 (App.2001). ¶4 Newman asserts that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment for Cornerstone. She argues that to comply with AR.S. § 20-259.01 the insurer must “make available” and “offer” UIM coverage, which she argues must necessarily include providing definite terms such as a premium quote in the blank space provided on the form approved by the Arizona Department of Insurance. To this end, Newman cites, generally, to Tallent v. National Gen. Ins. Co., 185 Ariz. 266, 915 P.2d 665 (1996) and Ballesteros, 226 Ariz. 345, 248 P.3d 193, and, more specifically, to Melendez v. Hallmark Ins. Co., 232 Ariz. 327, 305 P.3d 392 (App. 2013) (<HOLDING>) (depublished by order of the Arizona Supreme Options: A. holding that no binding insurance contract took effect because the initial premium was not paid B. holding that district judge did not err in declining to apply a control premium where party advocating application of such a premium did not prove existence of prospective buyer who was willing to pay a premium C. holding that wyeth failed to demonstrate that it was impossible for itto comply with both federal and state requirements and reasoning that it offered no such evidence and never argued that it attempted to give a warning but was prohibited from doing so by the fda D. holding funds received by plaintiff from an insurance policy that was procured by the defendant and for which a premium was paid are not a collateral source E. holding insurers uim offer was ineffectual when it offered no premium price and was on a form that failed to comply with department of insurance guidelines

assistant: The best answer is E. holding insurers uim offer was ineffectual when it offered no premium price and was on a form that failed to comply with department of insurance guidelines
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: 5. Recipient may disclose the Confidential Information in the event and to the extent Recipient reasonably believes any Confidential Information is required to be disclosed by Recipient under the terms of: (i) a valid and effective subpoena; (ii) a statute or regulation binding upon Recipient; (iii) an order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction; or (iv) by a demand or information request from an executive, regulatory or administrative agency or other governmental authority. Recipient shall endeavor to promptly notify the Disclosing Party of the existence, terms and circumstances surrounding such potential disclosure unless recipient reasonably believes that applicable law prohibits Recipient from informing the Disclosing Party of the potential disclosure.

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: The Executive agrees and covenants that she will not at any time make, publish or communicate to any person or entity or in any public forum any defamatory or disparaging remarks, comments or statements concerning the Company or its businesses, or any of its employees, officers.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: § 185.] For example, Senator Williams, a sponsor of ERISA, emphasized that the civil enforcement section would enable participants and beneficiaries to bring suit to recover benefits denied contrary to the terms of the plan and that when they did so “[i]t is intended that such actions will be regarded as arising under the laws of the United States, in a similar fashion to those brought under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.” Id. In accord with the guidance set forth in Metropolitan Life, courts have found that the complete preemption doctrine— i.e. preemption under § 502(a) — permits removal of state law causes of action in a multitude of different ERISA-related circumstances. See Dukes, 57 F.3d at 355 (citing Metro. Life Ins. Co., 481 U.S. at 63-67, 107 S.Ct. 1542 (<HOLDING>); Anderson v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 11 F.3d Options: A. holding that 1132a is the exclusive vehicle for actions by erisaplan participants and beneficiaries asserting improper processing of a claim for benefits B. holding negligent misrepresentation claim was not preempted because it neither sought benefits under plan nor alleged improper processing of benefits C. holding a state court complaint alleging a common law breach of contract action to be in fact a claim under erisa and thus removable as a federal question D. holding that state common law causes of action asserting improper processing of a claim for benefits under an employee benefit plan are removable to federal court E. holding that state law causes of action arising from improper processing of a claim for benefits are preempted

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that state common law causes of action asserting improper processing of a claim for benefits under an employee benefit plan are removable to federal court
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the IRS, and for fees and costs incurred in related litigation before the United States Tax Court. PL Mem. Ex. C at 3 (entries include “Filing Fees — (U.S. Tax Court) Pe g out and organizing emails,” and “review and index discovery responses;” that is “purely clerical” and cannot be recovered under I.R.C. § 7430. d.BASR May Not Recover Litigation Costs Incurred In Connection With An Unsuccessful Discovery Motion. Finally, BASR cannot recover for time spent preparing a September 4, 2012 Motion To Compel (ECF No. 22) or for time spent preparing for the court’s September 6, 2012 telephone conference discussing that Motion and the Government’s September 4, 2012 Response, because BASR’s Motion was rendered moot by a subsequent court order. Gov’t Opp. at 39 (citing Miller, 983 F.2d at 871 (<HOLDING>)). C. Plaintiff’s Reply. 1. BASR “Incurred” Options: A. holding that plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys fees for time spent litigating the fees issue on appeal under title viis attorneys fee provision B. holding that applications for attorneys fees must state in detail time spent and the nature of each discrete task before the court can assess the reasonableness of the fees C. holding plaintiff could not recover on nuisance action to recover for alleged damage to property he does not own or rent D. holding that the plaintiff could not recover fees for time spent on unsuccessful motions E. holding that an attorney may recover fees for time spent litigating the award of a 11 usc 1988 fee

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the plaintiff could not recover fees for time spent on unsuccessful motions
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: jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s decision to grant or deny a petition under Rule 27 for an abuse of discretion. See Campbell v. Blodgett, 982 F.2d 1356, 1358 (9th Cir.1993). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lucas’s Rule 27 petition. Lucas failed to establish the threshold requirement of Rule 27 that he expects to be a party to an action but is “presently unable to bring it or cause it to be brought.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 27(a)(1). Moreover, Lucas, as a prospective plaintiff, cannot utilize Rule 27 as a discovery mechanism for a future complaint, and he points to no authority allowing a prospective plaintiff to utilize Rule 27 in the manner he requests. See Nevada v. O’Leary, 63 F.3d 932, 933, 935-36 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Martin v. Reynolds Metals Corp., 297 F.2d 49, Options: A. holding that under section 9543a1 a pcra petitioner is not eligible for relief where the petitioner has completed serving the sentence before final adjudication on the petition B. holding that the state court ruling was objectively unreasonable where prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence that the petitioner murdered a known drug dealer although the state established that the petitioner planned to rob drug dealers for drugs or money the victim was a known drug dealer who kept drugs in his freezer and that freezer was open and empty after the homicide the petitioner and the victim had engaged in drug transactions in the past the petitioner had a motive because he had seen the victim make a pass at the petitioners girlfriend and the petitioner had possessed and once purchased the murder weapon and a similar gun was seen in his home two weeks before the murder evidence placing the petitioner at the scene was conspicuously absent leaving only a reasonable speculation that the petitioner was present C. holding the bia did not abuse its discretion in finding petitioner did not satisfy the procedural requirements for his motion in part because petitioner failed to submit a completed application for relief D. holding that the relevant date is not when petitioner filed for 212c relief E. holding that rule 27 is not appropriate where the petitioner seeks discovery of unknown information that the petitioner hopes will assist it in the future when the petitioner applies for judicial relief

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that rule 27 is not appropriate where the petitioner seeks discovery of unknown information that the petitioner hopes will assist it in the future when the petitioner applies for judicial relief
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: 14-page complaint, App. 16. The only specific allegations Sause makes to that effect are her assertions that Lindsey “[t]hreatened [her] again” sometime in March 2015 and “[l]ectured” her that “ ‘[fjreedom of [s]peech’ means nothing.” App. 15-17. These allegations are insufficient to demonstrate that Sause faces “a good chance of being likewise injured in the future.” Barney, 143 F.3d at 1306 n.3 (quoting Facio, 929 F.2d at 544). That is, Sause fails to establish she “face[s] a real and immediate threat” that (1) the defendants will again enter her home while investigating a crime; (2) she will again kneel and pray; and (3) the defendants will again order her to stand up and stop praying so they can harass her. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 105, 103 S.Ct. 1660; see Barney, 143 F.3d at 1306 & n.3 (<HOLDING>). True, Sause’s complaint indicates she Options: A. holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive relief because they failed to demonstrate any likelihood that they would end up back in jail where alleged constitutional violations occurred B. holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue C. recognizing that plaintiff lacked standing to seek declaratory relief on arbitration provision because she did not file or serve any lawsuit alleging that defendant or anyone representing any of the defendants has informed her that they will seek to invoke the arbitration policy D. holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit under seqraceqr because they failed to allege any property interest in the community gardens at issue E. holding that a class of juveniles had standing to seek injunctive relief in federal court against future interrogations by a police squad because of the strong likelihood that the challenged interrogation methods would be used again

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive relief because they failed to demonstrate any likelihood that they would end up back in jail where alleged constitutional violations occurred
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 and the Guarantors have the corporate power and authority and legal right to execute and deliver the Loan Documents to which they are a party and to perform their obligations thereunder. The execution and delivery by the Borrower and the Guarantors of the Loan Documents to which they are a party and the performance of their obligations thereunder have been duly authorized by proper corporate proceedings, and the Loan Documents to which the Borrower or such Guarantors are a party constitute legal, valid and binding obligations of the Borrower or such Guarantors enforceable against the Borrower or such Guarantors in accordance with their terms, except as enforceability may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency or similar laws affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights generally and general principles of equity.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any notice, request, instruction or other document to be given hereunder by any party to the other shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given (a) if sent by registered or certified mail in the United States return receipt requested, upon receipt, (b) if sent by nationally recognized overnight air courier, one Business Day after mailing, (c) if sent by email or facsimile, with a copy mailed on the same day in the manner provided in clauses (a) or (b) of this Section 17 when transmitted and receipt is confirmed, or (d) if otherwise personally delivered, when delivered. All notices hereunder shall be delivered as set forth below, or pursuant to such other instructions as may be designated in writing by the party to receive such notice.

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: This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which when taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. A signature hereto sent or delivered by facsimile or other electronic transmission shall be as legally binding and enforceable as a signed original for all purposes.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 690 F.Supp. 317 (D.C.N.J.1988) (direct mail solicitation in New Jersey confers personal jurisdiction). In light of CCC’s uncontested affidavit, therefore, the court was justified in denying further discovery. CBS argues that it could not have made more specific allegations without jurisdictional discovery and that it never had the opportunity to take such discovery. Further, CBS points to cases in this circuit suggesting that a district court abuses its discretion w . 308, 312 (S.D.Ind.1997) (citing cases and holding “it is reasonable for a court ... to expect the plaintiff to show a colorable basis for jurisdiction before subjecting the defendant to intrusive and burdensome discovery”); International Terminal Operating Co., Inc., v. Skibs A/S Hidlefjord, 63 F.R.D. 85 (S.D.N.Y.1973) (<HOLDING>). To be sure, CBS had no obligation to make Options: A. holding that section 144 requires both a factual affidavit and a separate certificate that the affidavit was made in good faith B. holding jurisdictional discovery not appropriate when plaintiff merely hopes to find statements in defendants affidavit not accurate but has not made counterallegations in its own affidavit C. holding that because plaintiff has met defendants affidavit evidence with mere speculation plaintiffs request for jurisdictional discovery must be denied D. holding that an affidavit did not provide probable cause sufficient to validate a warrant where the affidavit stated an incorrect date uncontradicted by any other specific fact in the affidavit E. holding affidavit insufficient to support probable cause when one cannot learn from the affidavit when the past activities occurred and when the observations were made

assistant: The best answer is B. holding jurisdictional discovery not appropriate when plaintiff merely hopes to find statements in defendants affidavit not accurate but has not made counterallegations in its own affidavit
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 two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall together constitute one and the same Agreement. Facsimile copies shall be deemed to be originals of the original executed document.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: jurisdictions? Heretofore our joinder rules have been understood to apply when claims have been omitted from proceedings in another jurisdiction. See Giudice v. Drew Chem. Corp., 210 N.J.Super. 32, 509 A.2d 200 (App.Div.) (precluding, under entire controversy doctrine, claims that could have been brought in related New York proceedings), certif. granted and summarily remanded on other grounds, 104 N.J. 465, 517 A.2d 448, 449 (1986). And failure to join parties in an in-state federal court action would preclude later state court proceedings against the omitted parties. Gross v. Cohen DuFour & Assocs., 273 N.J.Super. 617, 642 A.2d 1074 (Law Div.199-3). The precedential value of Kimmins Abatement Corp. v. Conestoga-Rovers & Assocs., Inc., 253 N.J.Super. 162, 601 A.2d 256 (Law Div.1991) (<HOLDING>), is clouded by speculation concerning the Options: A. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his petition for reinstatement where membership in good standing in the state bar was required before attorney could be admitted to the federal bar and applicant had not been readmitted to state bar B. holding that 1997ee did not bar plaintiffs first amendment claims C. holding that claim preclusion did not bar fire insurer from bringing a second action against its coplaintiff in first action D. holding that exception applied where bar counsel was subject to adverse discovery order and another professional conduct board hearing panel had directed a similar order to bar counsel in another matter E. holding that entire controversy doctrine did not bar second lawsuit against defendant who was not party to first lawsuit in another state

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that entire controversy doctrine did not bar second lawsuit against defendant who was not party to first lawsuit in another state
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: Schedule 3.23 sets forth a description of all insurance maintained by or on behalf of the Loan Parties as of the Third Fourth Amendment Effective Date. Each insurance policy listed in Schedule 3.23 is in full force and effect as of the Third Fourth Amendment Effective Date and all premiums in respect thereof that are due and payable as of the Third Fourth Amendment Effective Date have been paid.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: at the beginning of both the discretionary and disposition clauses. We therefore cannot commingle the textually distinct provisions of the two clauses. See Overseas Educ. Ass’n v. FLRA, 876 F.2d 960, 975 (D.C.Cir.1989) (Buckley, J., concurring) (“This court has no authority to engraft restrictions onto the statute that its drafters did not choose to use, and that the members voting it into law never had the chance to consider.”). Our conclusion is further buttressed by the structure of the statute. The “discretion” requirement — which is repeated twice in the discretionary clause' — is conspicuously omitted altogether from the disposition clause. Instead, in order to qualify as a “fiduciary” with respect to a plan’s “assets,” a person must simply exercise “any authority or r.1997) (<HOLDING>); IT Corp. v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 107 F.3d Options: A. holding that a court may not enter an injunction freezing assets in action for damages where there is no equitable interest in frozen assets B. holding that primary shareholders failure to ensure that company employee and employer premiums were paid to erisa plan did not constitute exercise of authority an act of omission fails to satisfy the requirement that the individual exercise discretionary authority over plan assets C. holding that insurance premiums deducted from employees paychecks and commingled with corporate assets were plan assets in accordance with department of labor regulations see 29 cfr 25103102a and therefore that president of employer corporation acted as a fiduciary when he failed to separate those assets for payment to the funds and instead used them to pay company creditors D. holding that the employer created an erisa plan when it 1 paid for the employees insurance 2 contracted with the insurance company for coverage and eligibility requirements and 3 collected and remitted the employees dependents premiums E. recognizing that insolvent corporations officers are directors and may have fiduciary duty to existing creditors not to dissipate corporate assets

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that insurance premiums deducted from employees paychecks and commingled with corporate assets were plan assets in accordance with department of labor regulations see 29 cfr 25103102a and therefore that president of employer corporation acted as a fiduciary when he failed to separate those assets for payment to the funds and instead used them to pay company creditors
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: To the extent not preempted by federal law, this Plan, any Award Agreement, and documents evidencing Awards or rights relating to Awards will be construed, administered and governed in all respects under and by the laws of the State of Alabama, without giving effect to its conflict of laws principles. If any provision of this Plan will be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions hereof will continue to be fully effective. The jurisdiction and venue for any disputes arising under, or any action brought to enforce (or otherwise relating to), this Plan will be exclusively in the courts in the State of Alabama, County of Tuscaloosa, including the Federal Courts located therein (should Federal jurisdiction exist).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: does business as University Medical Center. The Court will refer to this single entity as "Defendant Hospital." 2 . Although Plaintiff had not served Defendant Texas Tech at the time of removal, she eventually did so. The Court recently remanded all claims against Defendant Texas Tech to Texas state court. See Order Granting in Part and Den. in Part Pl.’s First Am. Mot. to Remand, Apr. 12, 2016, ECF No. 88 ["Remand Order”]. 3 . Plaintiff does not specify which intentional torts she is asserting in this lawsuit. 4 . Plaintiff does not make any specific factual allegations against Dr. Laks. See infra part III.C.l. 5 . For municipal immunity, the Fifth Circuit has analyzed counties in the same manner as municipalities, See James v. Harris Cnty., 577 F.3d 612, 619-620 (5th Cir. 2009) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court will refer to Options: A. holding that a county was entitled to summary judgment where the claims against the individual defendants had failed B. holding that a policy for purposes of municipal liability may be established by an officials single decision C. holding that a county was not liable when plaintiff failed to satisfy an element of municipal liability D. holding that county of delaware was not a person for purposes of fca liability E. holding that discrimination against a municipal employee could trigger municipal liability under 1983 through official policy or custom

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a county was not liable when plaintiff failed to satisfy an element of municipal 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: must consider factual inferences tending to show triable issues in the light most favorable to the existence of those issues.”). The court’s function is not to weigh the evidence, but merely to determine whether there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmovant for a finder of fact to return a verdict in that party’s favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505. Essentially, the court performs the threshold inquiry of determining whether a trial is necessary. Id. at 250, 106 e, 930 F.Supp. 493, 498 (D.Colo.1996)(opining IGRA does not contain provisions giving private individuals a cause of action against tribe and state for Tribal-State Compact and Tribal Gaming Ordinance lack of compliance with IGRA); Montgomery v. Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe, 905 F.Supp. 740, 744 (D.S.D.1995)(<HOLDING>). Additionally, violations of a federal statute Options: A. holding that no private right of action exists B. holding that there was no federal subject matter jurisdiction under the private cause of action provision of the act C. holding former employee of tribeowned casino has no private remedy under the ada because of tribal exemption D. holding no private cause of action under igra for family alleging its tribe practiced favoritism in distributing casino profits E. recognizing private right of action

assistant: The best answer is D. holding no private cause of action under igra for family alleging its tribe practiced favoritism in distributing casino profits
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 California State Court of Appeal, which affirmed the trial court’s judgment on September 29, 1989. The California Supreme Court also denied Gray’s appeal on January 18, 1990. Having exhausted his state remedies, Gray filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. The petition was denied, and Gray timely appealed. Gray filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on March 27,1995, which was prior to the effective date of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AED-PA), 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (2003). Pre-AEDPA standards of review govern our consideration of habeas corpus petitions filed prior to AEDPA’s effective date. Mayfield v. Woodford, 270 F.3d 915, 921-22 (9th Cir.2001); see Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 326-27, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997) (<HOLDING>); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484,1494 (9th Options: A. holding generally that new rules of law should not be applied retroactively in habeas corpus cases B. recognizing that aedpa would not apply to a habeas petition that was pending at the time of its enactment C. holding that in general aedpa applies only to habeas petitions filed after the statutes effective date of april 24 1996 and noting that aedpas special procedures for 28 usc 2254 petitions in capital cases apply also to petitions pending on april 24 1996 D. holding the batson rule was not to be applied retroactively to a state conviction on federal habeas review E. holding that aedpa is not applied retroactively to pending habeas petitions

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that aedpa is not applied retroactively to pending habeas petitions
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 will, and will cause each Subsidiary to, execute and deliver, or cause to be executed and delivered, to the Lender such documents, agreements and instruments, and will take or cause to be taken such further actions, which may be required by any Requirement of Law or which the Lender may, from time to time, reasonably request to carry out the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the other Loan Documents, all at the expense of the Borrower.

assistant: Further Assurances