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: the court acknowledged: [I]t is extraordinary for dischargeability litigation that hinges on a debtor’s medical condition to actually hinge on medical testimony. This is because all dis-chargeability litigation involves real persons who are debtors under the Bankruptcy Code, and cannot afford to hire medical experts to testify to the effect of their disease on their disease on their earning capacity. When medical testimony is offered by the debtor it is to lay skepticism to rest, and in this writer’s experience the medical condition of any debtor has never been the subject of dueling experts in § 523(a)(8) litigation. 219 B.R. 665, 669 (Bankr.W.D.N.Y.1998). Yet despite this awareness, courts often hold that the debtor has failed to sustain his burden of proof. See Lowe, 321 B.R. at 860 (<HOLDING>); Folsom, 315 B.R. at 165 (holding that the Options: A. holding petitioner has the burden of proof under the strickland test B. 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 C. holding without any substantive evidence to corroborate the debtors testimony regarding her medical conditions the court must find that the debtor has failed to sustain her burden under the second prong of the brunner test D. holding that the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact regarding her retaliation claim because she failed to offer any evidence of a causal relationship between her involvement in protected activity and the adverse employment action E. holding victim waived physicianpatient privilege by authorizing her doctor to release her medical records to the department of criminal investigation because the information contained in her medical records was no longer confidential between herself and her physician

assistant: The best answer is C. holding without any substantive evidence to corroborate the debtors testimony regarding her medical conditions the court must find that the debtor has failed to sustain her burden under the second prong of the brunner test
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: his claims during “both the period of time before the ineffective assistance of counsel was or should have been discovered and the period from that point until the motion to reopen is filed.”). In fact, although Zheng stated that he did not learn of the ineffective assistance of his former counsel until he hired an attorney to file his motion to reopen in 2010, he failed to assert that he took any action in his proceedings during the more than seven years between his order of removal and the filing of his motion to reopen. See id. Finally, Zheng does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he failed to establish his prima facie eligibility for relief based on his practice of Falun Gong in the United States. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, the petition for Options: A. recognizing that bia may deny motion to reopen where movant has not established prima facie eligibility for relief sought B. recognizing that failure to offer new previously unavailable evidence establishing a prima facie case for the underlying relief sought is a proper ground on which the bia may deny a motion to reopen C. holding that the bia may deny a motion to reopen on the ground that the movant has not established prima facie eligibility for the underlying relief sought D. recognizing that there are at least three independent grounds on which the bia may deny a motion to reopen 1 failure to establish a prima facie case 2 failure to introduce evidence that was material and previously unavailable and 3 a determination that despite the aliens statutory eligibility for relief he or she is not entitled to a favorable exercise of discretion E. holding that a movants failure to establish a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief is a proper ground for the bia to deny a motion to reopen

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that failure to offer new previously unavailable evidence establishing a prima facie case for the underlying relief sought is a proper ground on which the bia may deny a motion to reopen
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 Restricted Stock shall be subject to the restrictions and other terms and conditions set forth in the Plan, which are hereby incorporated herein by reference, and in this Agreement. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Plan and this Agreement, Participant’s rights in and to the shares of Restricted Stock shall vest on the date .

assistant: Vesting
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 descriptive headings and subheadings in this Agreement are included for convenience and identification only and are in no way intended to describe, interpret, define or limit the scope, extent or intent of this Agreement or any provision hereof.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that only if a plaintiff demonstrates that an employer delegates in order to facilitate discrimination, rather than for legitimate management reasons, should a policy of decentralized decisionmaking provide a sufficient nexus for class certification). Reap does not allege that CNA intended to use its delegation policy to discriminate against women or older women in its work force, that CNA encouraged local managers to discriminate against women or older women, or that CNA condoned such discrimination. In fact, any such discrimination would violate CNA’s written policy of non-discrimination. (See Samuel Aff. ¶ 10 & Ex. 1 Procedure 1500.) Instead, Reap submits self-created statistical evidence purporting to show that CNA’s policy of delegating employment decisions to local supervisors h (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, we conclude that Reap has Options: A. holding that under wilkerson it was error for district court to deny class action certification motion of named plaintiffs whose claims were resolved after filing motion for class certification but before district court decided motion B. holding that an inmates eighth amendment legal claims were straightforward and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to appoint counsel C. holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to give a mere inspection instruction in a firearm possession case D. holding that where named plaintiff was employee of class counsel district court did not abuse its discretion by denying class certification E. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to certify class action when claims were so individualized that certification was improper

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to certify class action when claims were so individualized that certification was improper
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 Individual Borrower has fee simple title to the real property comprising its applicable Individual Property, free and clear of all Liens whatsoever except the Permitted Encumbrances, such other Liens as are permitted pursuant to the Loan Documents and the Liens created by the Loan Documents. The Permitted Encumbrances in the aggregate do not materially and adversely affect the value, operation or use of the Property (as currently used) or Borrower’s ability to repay the Loan. The Security Instruments, when properly recorded in the appropriate records, together with any Uniform Commercial Code financing statements required to be filed in connection therewith, will create (a) a valid, perfected first priority lien on the applicable Individual Property, subject only to Permitted Encumbrances and the Liens created by the Loan Documents and (b) perfected security interests in and to, and perfected collateral assignments of, all personalty (including the Leases), all in accordance with the terms thereof, in each case subject only to any applicable Permitted Encumbrances, such other Liens as are permitted pursuant to the Loan Documents and the Liens created by the Loan Documents. There are no claims for payment for work, labor or materials affecting the Properties which are or may become a Lien prior to, or of equal priority with, the Liens created by the Loan Documents.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of the Lenders and the Issuing Banks hereby irrevocably appoints the entity named as Administrative Agent in the heading of this Agreement and its successors to serve as Administrative Agent under the Loan Documents, and authorizes the Administrative Agent to take such actions on its behalf and to exercise such powers as are delegated to the Administrative Agent by the terms of the Loan Documents, together with such actions and powers as are reasonably incidental thereto. The provisions of this Article (other than Section 8.06, which shall also be for the benefit of the Borrower) are solely for the benefit of the Administrative Agent, the Lenders and the Issuing Banks, and the Borrower shall not have rights as a third-party beneficiary of any of such provisions. It is understood and agreed that the use of the term “agent” herein or in any other Loan Documents (or any other similar term) with reference to the Administrative Agent is not intended to connote any fiduciary or other implied (or express) obligations arising under agency doctrine of any applicable law. Instead such term is used as a matter of market custom, and is intended to create or reflect only an administrative relationship between contracting parties.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of seven months with no threat of continuity into the future was not substantially long enough to be considered a pattern. Finding that “... the predicate acts themselves were concluded in less than seven months”, the c 901, slip op., Kram, J., 1989 WL 146212 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 1989) (activities occurring over ten months do not satisfy the continuity requirement for a closed-ended pattern); Fry v. General Motors Corp., 728 F.Supp. 455 (E.D.Mich.1989) (closed-ended period of one year and seven months was not sufficiently long enough to be considered a pattern.); Hutchinson v. Wickes, 726 F.Supp. 1315 (N.D.Ga.1989) (questioning whether a two year closed-ended period is of sufficient length.); Banks v. Wolk, No. 89-7219, slip op., Broderick, J., 1989 WL 153936 (E.D.Pa. Dec. 15, 1989) (<HOLDING>); Azurite Corp., Ltd. v. Amster & Co., 730 Options: A. holding that a six month closedended period did not satisfy the continuity requirement B. holding that a six month delay was unreasonable C. holding that discharge six months after eeoc settlement and a month after an informal complaint satisfies causation requirement D. holding that a jury could find a nineteen month period of racketeering activity sufficient to satisfy continuity requirement E. holding that a closedended period of less than thirteen months was not sufficiently long to be considered a pattern

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a six month closedended period did not satisfy the continuity requirement
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 Lender may, in connection with any grant to any Person of a participation in any or all of the Obligations or the Commitment, grant to such Person a participation in any or all of its rights and obligations under the Collateral Documents and with respect to the Collateral without the consent of any Pledgor, the Security Agent or any other Secured Party, other than as required by the Credit Agreement.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns. This Agreement shall not be assignable (whether voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly or by operation of law) by any party without (i) in the case of a proposed assignment by an Investor, the written consent of the Company and (ii) in the case of a proposed assignment by the Company, the written consent of the Investors; provided , that no party shall unreasonably withhold its consent to a proposed transfer by another party. Any such purported assignment without such consent shall be void.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement, but this Agreement shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had never been contained therein.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Subject to Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10, each Company, from the date of commercial operation of the 1975 Unit until the date of commercial operation of the 1978 Unit, shall at all times have full ownership of and available to it at the 1975 Unit the portion of the generating capability of the 1975 Unit and the energy associated therewith, corresponding to its Ownership Share as specified in Paragraph 1.

assistant: Powers
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: covenant not to sue the licensee. Hilgraeve Corp. v. Symantec Corp., 265 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed.Cir.2001) (citation omitted). In turn, this court has held that a covenant not to sue deprives a court of declaratory judgment jurisdiction. Amana Refrigeration, Inc. v. Quadlux, Inc., 172 F.3d 852, 855 (Fed.Cir.1999) (citing Super Sack Mfg. Corp. v. Chase Packaging Corp., 57 F.3d 1054, 1060 (Fed.Cir.1995)). Accordingly, a licensor who has implicitly covenanted not to sue a licensee by virtue of the license agreement itself cannot seek a declaratory judgment of infringement. Moreover, in light of LabCorp’s continuing royalty payments on the panel test, Lab-Corp cannot itself challenge the validity of a claim for which it continues to pay royalties. Cf. Gen-Probe Inc., 359 F.3d at 1382 (<HOLDING>). The district court’s opinion concerning the Options: A. holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court B. holding that persons not parties to a contract did not have standing to seek declaratory judgment on contracts validity C. holding that a licensee who continued paying royalties to the licensor did not have sufficient apprehension of suit giving rise to declaratory judgment subject matter jurisdiction D. holding that the declaratory judgment act is remedial only and the party seeking declaratory relief must have an underlying cause of action E. holding that immunity applies to suit for declaratory judgment that plaintiff was entitled to continue paying for mudshell at the price specified in its contract with the government

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a licensee who continued paying royalties to the licensor did not have sufficient apprehension of suit giving rise to declaratory judgment subject matter jurisdiction
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: shareholder standing and only the corporation may bring suit. Seidl v. Am. Century Cos., 427 Fed.Appx. 35, 38 (2d Cir.2011) (applying Maryland law); Waller, 49 A.2d at 452 (stating that corporate malfeasance that reduces or destroys the value of a corporation’s stock is not considered to cause a direct harm to shareholders and the cause of action belongs to the corporation). The alleged direct injury to a shareholder must be independent of any injury to the corporation itself. Tooley v. Donaldson, Lufkin, & Jenrette, Inc., 845 A.2d 1031, 1039 (Del.2004). Courts applying Maryland law have also held that a shareholder may bring a direct action against a corporation’s officers and directors if there is a breach of a duty owed directly to the shareholder. See, e.g. Waller, 49 A.2d at 454 (<HOLDING>); Schettino v. Modanlo, 2005 WL 914376, at Options: A. holding violation of right to testify could not be harmless B. holding that a direct action could not be maintained because the declaration does not allege the violation of any right personal to plaintiff but only violation of rights common to all the stockholders C. holding that where an individual is deprived of liberty or property interests in violation of article of the state declaration of rights he may enforce those rights by a common law action for damages D. holding that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff failed to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right E. holding that one claim was not preempted because it did not allege the violation of duties created by any welfare plan but a violation of duties as a past employer

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a direct action could not be maintained because the declaration does not allege the violation of any right personal to plaintiff but only violation of rights common to all the stockholders
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 one or more counterparts, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original, and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. This Agreement may be executed by facsimile with original signatures to follow.

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: the parole search was not based on probable cause or reasonable suspicion, the jury was properly instructed to examine the motives and intent of [the] Officers .. .to insure that, at the very least, the suspicionless search was not arbitrary, capricious, or harassing.”). As such, this is yet another basis for which the Court cannot grant Defendants summary judgment. As to qualified immunity, Plaintiffs argue “[a] search performed to harass is unconstitutional and no reasonable officer could have believed otherwise in November 2014.” Pis.’ Opp’n at 12. In doing so, they cite both the Supreme Court’s opinion in Samson v. California, as well as the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in United States v. King, both of which condemn harassing searches. Id.; see Samson 547 U.S. at 856, 126 S.Ct. 2193 (<HOLDING>); King, 736 F.3d at 810 (probation may not be Options: A. holding that under the fourth amendment a party may challenge both the constitutionality of the act permitting warrantless searches as well as the conduct of the government officials in a particular case B. holding that fourth amendment applicable in administrative searches for safety inspections C. holding that prisoners have no legitimate expectation of privacy and that the fourth amendments prohibition on unreasonable searches does not apply in prison cells D. recognizing tedder as a significant procedural safeguard E. recognizing californias prohibition on harassing searches as a procedural safeguard under the fourth amendment

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing californias prohibition on harassing searches as a procedural safeguard under the fourth amendment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: A Lender that is a Non-Funding Lender pursuant to clause (a) of the definition of Non-Funding Lender shall not earn and shall not be entitled to receive, and the Borrower shall not be required to pay, such Lender’s portion of the Unused Commitment Fee during the time such Lender is a Non-Funding Lender pursuant to clause (a) thereof. In the event that any reallocation of Letter of Credit Obligations occurs pursuant to subsection 1.11(e)(ii) , during the period of time that such reallocation remains in effect, the Letter of Credit Fee payable with respect to such reallocated portion shall be payable to (A) all Revolving Lenders based on their pro rata share of such reallocation or (B) to the L/C Issuer for any remaining portion not reallocated to any other Revolving Lenders.

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: Interest shall be computed on the unpaid Principal Amount hereunder on the basis of a year composed of three hundred sixty-five (365) days, but shall accrue and be payable for the actual number of days during which the Principal Amount is outstanding and shall be compounded quarterly by capitalizing such interest quarterly. Accrued but unpaid interest shall be payable in accordance with Paragraph 1 .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and all disputes or controversies arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the internal laws of the State of Maryland, without regard to any applicable conflicts of law principles (except that matters relating to the Shareholder’s fiduciary duties as a member of the Board of the Directors of the Company shall be subject to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia).

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: applied in federal court appeals”) (footnote omitted); In re St. Mary Hospital, 120 B.R. 25, 28 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1990) (“The district court may affirm the decision of the bankruptcy court on any basis that finds support in the record.”), aff'd, 931 F.2d 51 (3d Cir.1991) (unpublished disposition). Finally, Beal argues that the bankruptcy court erred in finding that the principles of waiver and estoppel precluded Beal from applying the default interest rate to the matured loans. Because, like the district court, we conclude that the plain language of the contract precluded the default interest rate from applying to the matured loans, we need not reach the issues of waiver and estoppel. AFFIRMED. 1 . See, e.g., Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48, 55, 99 S.Ct. 914, 59 L.Ed.2d 136 (1979) (<HOLDING>). 2 . See NLRB v. Calkins, 187 F.3d 1080, 1089 Options: A. holding state law governs property interests in bankruptcy proceedings unless some federal interest requires a different result B. holding that bankruptcy court is without jurisdiction to control disposition of chapter 13 debtors property that is not property of the bankruptcy estate unless the property is related to the bankruptcy proceedings of the code C. holding that in a bankruptcy proceeding state law governs the rights of the parties with regard to interests in property D. holding that federal law governs the definition of property which embraces both fee and lien interests E. recognizing rule that state law governs the substance of claims in bankruptcy proceedings

assistant: The best answer is A. holding state law governs property interests in bankruptcy proceedings unless some federal interest requires a different result
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: than in Steve Jackson Games and Konop. Defendant’s proemail operated to obtain the e-mails before they were received by its intended recipients. While the e-mail in Steve Jackson Games was retrieved from storage in a computer and the website in Konop was accessed under false pretenses, the e-mails in this case were accessed by the procmail as they were being transmitted and in real time. However, the presence of the words “any temporary, intermediate storage” in 18 U.S.C. § 2510(17) controls. On the facts of this case, it is clear that the electronic communications in this case were in a form of electronic storage. It may well be that the protections of the Wiretap Act have been eviscerated as technology advances. See United States v. Steiger, 318 F.3d 1039, 1047-51 (11th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). As the stipulation reached by the parties Options: A. holding that plaintiff could recover damages under both the lanham act and the copyright act because the profits awarded under the federal trademark statute constitute compensation rather than a penalty while statutory damages are awarded under the copyright act are designed to serve a variety of purposes other than compensation including deterrence and punishment B. holding that acceptance of payments under the louisiana state compensation act does not constitute an election of the remedy under state law precluding recovery under the longshoremens act C. holding intercept did not occur because there was no contemporaneous acquisition but commenting that under the narrow reading of the statute few seizures will constitute interceptions under wiretap act D. holding that there was no federal subject matter jurisdiction under the private cause of action provision of the act E. holding that alleged breach of child abuse reporting act did not amount to negligence per se because analysis of statute indicated no private cause of action could be implied under the act

assistant: The best answer is C. holding intercept did not occur because there was no contemporaneous acquisition but commenting that under the narrow reading of the statute few seizures will constitute interceptions under wiretap act
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: risk management, and health care systems and operations; and the testimony of Dr. Koch. This evidence unquestionably establishes that LMS was the “umbrella” organization over Hospital; that Hospital was to operate as a for-profit, long-term acute care specialty hospital; that per the governing board bylaws, LMS was to “review annual operating and capital budgets” of Hospital; and that per the governing board bylaws, LMS was to oversee Hospital’s budget. Chesser points to no evidence, however, and we have located none in the record, showing how the monies generated by Hospital were allocated or shared between Hospital and LMS. See St. Joseph Hosp., 94 S.W.3d at 531; David L. Smith & Assocs., L.L.P. v. Stealth Detection, Inc., 327 S.W.3d 873, 878-79 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, the record contains no evidence of Options: A. holding legally sufficient evidence of this element existed when written agreement between members of enterprise specifically mentioned investment of substantial sums for mass transit purposes B. holding evidence was legally insufficient on third element of joint enterprise because although both entities of the alleged joint enterprise contemplated economic gain that gain was not shared without special or distinguishing characteristics but instead one entity passed along revenue attributable to work of the other and kept for itself revenue attributable to the work of its own drivers C. holding legally insufficient evidence of joint enterprise between companies existed despite evidence of shared officers directors employees business address logo and assets when no evidence existed of how or whether monetary benefits were shared between the two entities D. holding evidence legally insufficient E. holding evidence legally sufficient

assistant: The best answer is C. holding legally insufficient evidence of joint enterprise between companies existed despite evidence of shared officers directors employees business address logo and assets when no evidence existed of how or whether monetary benefits were shared between the two entities
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 Grantor owns each item of the Collateral free and clear of any and all Liens or claims, including liens arising as a result of such Grantor becoming bound (as a result of merger or otherwise) as grantor under a security agreement or pledge agreement entered into by another Person, except for Permitted Liens.

assistant: Titles
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 court discussed the plans for the trial’s daily schedule; the basics of publicity; security in the courtroom; the jury selection procedure, which had previously been discussed; and the availability of a jury questionnaire. There was also a brief, nonbinding review of pending motions and a discussion of the possibility of a motion to continue. After the trial court recorded what had been discussed at the pretrial hearing, defendant argued his motion to continue, which was denied. This case was called for trial on 7 September 1993. We conclude that since the conference at issue took place on 3 September 1993, prior to the commencement of defendant’s trial, no error, constitutional or otherwise, was committed. See State v. Rannels, 333 N.C. 644, 652, 430 S.E.2d 254, 258 (1993) (<HOLDING>); State v. Cole, 331 N.C. 272, 275, 415 S.E.2d Options: A. holding that it was error though harmless to exclude the defendant from inchamber conferences B. recognizing that a trial court has the authority before accepting a verdict and before discharging a jury to send the jury back to correct a mistake in its verdict but concluding that jury had been discharged because jury was allowed to return to court on following day and was allowed to deliberate same issue it previously had decided C. holding that it was not error to have private unrecorded sidebar conferences with potential jurors where conferences took place before calendar for session was called and before oath administered to jury D. holding that the state could not meet its burden of proving harmless error where the record did not reveal the substance of the trial courts unrecorded conversations with prospective jurors E. holding that we lack jurisdiction when a petitioner fails to argue before the bia that there is no evidence he was under oath during the asylum interview

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that it was not error to have private unrecorded sidebar conferences with potential jurors where conferences took place before calendar for session was called and before oath administered to jury
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: because the time it took to increase the shop’s revenues precluded him from holding weekly meetings with his far-flung technicians and because he could not generate the required number of quotations unless his technicians gave him sufficient leads. Also, Theuerkauf and Ehrnsehwender readily admitted in their depositions that when they pointed to problems in Galambos’s performance in his 1995 performance evaluation and the August 1996 shop audit, they neither warned Galambos that his job was at risk nor discussed putting him on probation. It was only after he, returned from medical leave that he was told he was “on the short list of people that they were looking to get rid of,” put on probation, and then terminated. See O’Bryan v. KTTV Television, 64 F.3d 1188, 1194 (8th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). In view of these circumstances, the Court Options: A. holding that a title vii retaliation claim was not properly before the court because although the plaintiff had not been fired when he filed his complaint the plaintiff never amended his complaint to include a claim of retaliation based on his termination B. holding that plaintiff could not show that he was disabled because he conceded that he could do his job despite his impairment C. holding that plaintiff raised a factual dispute as to his retaliation claim where a few months after his protected activity he was subjected to unprecedented job scrutiny was required to meet brand new job performance guide lines and was given a probationary ultimatum which led directly to his termination D. holding that plaintiffs allegations that he was improperly paid for appearances at arbitration proceedings that he received highly negative performance evaluations that he was harassed by being required to perform tasks outside his job description that he received shorter notice of his termination than other employees and that he was terminated in retaliation for his eeoc complaint each state a claim upon which relief can be granted under 1981 E. holding that the plaintiff failed to show retaliation where there was no evidence that the employees who disciplined him knew of his protected activity

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that plaintiff raised a factual dispute as to his retaliation claim where a few months after his protected activity he was subjected to unprecedented job scrutiny was required to meet brand new job performance guide lines and was given a probationary ultimatum which led directly to his termination
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: such as the privilege against self-incrimination and the attorney-client privilege. Jane, quoting People v. Ianniello, 21 N.Y.2d 418, 288 N.Y.S.2d 462, 235 N.E.2d 439, 443 (1968), notes that “ ‘[f]aced with a confusing variety of rules concerning the existence and scope of his privileges, a witness should not be required to make these choices unaided by his lawyer.’ ” See also People v. Smays, 156 Mise.2d 621, 594 N.Y.S.2d 101, 105 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1993) (discussing Ianniello). Jane argues confidentiality concerns regarding the presence of her counsel during her testimony are misplaced. Jane asserts her counsel will be bound by the same confidentiality requirements as others who attend the hearing. See Op. of the Justices to the Governor, 373 Mass. 915, 371 N.E.2d 422, 424-25 (1977) (<HOLDING>). Jane also notes her counsel would be bound by Options: A. holding that usual rule 6e secrecy protecting identity of witnesses did not apply to the president because it was already widely known that he had testified in front of the grand jury B. holding that governments weak interest in preserving grand jury secrecy did not warrant in camera submission where party seeking access to submission would learn of submission contents as soon as he was called as a grand jury witness C. holding the presence of counsel for a witness did not violate grand jury secrecy D. recognizing the importance of grand jury secrecy E. holding that where witness refused to take the oath and testify his grand jury testimony should not have been admitted because he was not subject to cross examination before the grand jury

assistant: The best answer is C. holding the presence of counsel for a witness did not violate grand jury secrecy
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: A Member or Former Member shall cease to be a Member or Former Member and shall forfeit all rights and benefits under this Nonqualified Plan I when the Compensation Committee determines, in its sole discretion, that such Member or Former Member is employed by, acting as a consultant for or is otherwise directly or indirectly performing services for any person or entity engaged in the (i) manufacture or sale of any product similar to or in competition with any product manufactured or sold by 3M or any of its subsidiaries, or (ii) manufacture or sale of special machinery or equipment, or furnishing of engineering or technical services concerning such machinery or equipment, used in the manufacture or sale of any product similar to or in competition with any product manufactured or sold by 3M or any of its subsidiaries, without the written consent of the Compensation Committee. Before making a determination that a Member or Former Member is covered by the provisions of this Section 2.3, the Compensation Committee shall give the Member or Former Member notice of its intention to invoke this forfeiture provision and an opportunity to discontinue such employment or consulting relationship or the provision of such services within a period of ninety (90) days following the date of such notice.

assistant: Forfeitures
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: our aggregate liability arising out of this statement or facebook will not exceed the greater of one hundred dollars ( $ 100 ) or the amount you have paid us in the past twelve months .

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: that Cardenas was “outstanding and the accident was not at all [his] fault. And of course, [Kalter] fell on a day of totally independent activities.” (See Dobbins Dep. 13-25; see also Garvey Dep. 121:21- 25.) Moreover, even if Grand Circle or Cardenas erred in estimating Kalter’s ability to hike on her own across the uneven terrain at Machu Picchu in rainy weather, “an instructor’s assessment errors — either in making the necessarily subjective judgment of skill level or the equally subjective judgment about the difficulty of conditions — are in no way ‘outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport.’ ” Kane v. Nat’l Ski Patrol, 88 Cal.App.4th 204, 214, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 600 (Cal.Ct.App.2001); see also Andia, 2007 WL 4258634, at *5, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88247, at *16 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs have submitted a declaration by Options: A. holding that tour guides decision to allow plaintiff to return to the rangers station alone during a guided hike to a lava flow at most constituted assessment errors but these subjective judgments about the difficulty of the conditions were in no way so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the activity of lava hiking B. holding that for recovery under the mississippi tort claims act to be barred because of a victims criminal activity at the time of the injury it must beshown that the criminal activity has some causal nexus to the wrongdoing of the tortfeasor C. holding that the fact that employer had knowledge of the employees protected activity was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation where the timing of the discharge was not proximate to the protected activity D. holding that a plaintiffs retaliation claim is cognizable even in the absence of protected activity as long as his employer perceived him to be engaged in such activity E. holding that the plaintiff had to provide direct or circumstantial evidence that the supervisors who took the adverse action against the plaintiff knew about the protected activity prior to taking that action

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that tour guides decision to allow plaintiff to return to the rangers station alone during a guided hike to a lava flow at most constituted assessment errors but these subjective judgments about the difficulty of the conditions were in no way so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the activity of lava hiking
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, demand or request required or permitted to be given by either the Company or the Investor pursuant to the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed given when delivered (i) personally or (ii) on the fifth (5 th ) day after deposit in the U.S. mail, as certified or registered mail, with postage prepaid or the next business day after deposit with a commercial carrier for next day delivery, in each case addressed to such party at the address of such party set forth at the end of this Agreement or such other address as a party may request by notifying the other in writing.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and rightly concluded that the Board’s letter fell on the non-threatening side of the line. HCEA resists this analysis with four arguments, none of which have merit. First, HCEA argues that Stewart’s statements were not protected because they did not express an opinion on the desirability of union presence or joining a union. Appellant Br. 12, 14. In rejecting a similar argument based on § 49-5-606(a)(5)’s structure, the district court correctly found that the language granting protection for empl (2d Cir.1976) (ruling that employer did not interfere with employees’ rights by advising them they could withdraw their union authorization cards and by supplying the address of the union headquarters for that purpose); J.P. Stevens & Co. v. NLRB, 449 F.2d 595, 597-98 (4th Cir.1971) (<HOLDING>); NLRB v. Robinson, 251 F.2d 689, 641 (6th Options: A. holding that 8e protected an employers speech undertaken to correct any misunderstandings informing employees that their signed union cards were not confidential and that the employer retained the right to discharge or discipline employees for cause B. holding that questioning of employees about number of union cards signed placing employees in a position of having to admit or deny union support and participating in antiunion petition were all unfair labor practices C. holding that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties the employees are not speaking as citizens for first amendment purposes and the constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline D. holding that threatening to discipline employees for not reporting union solicitation violated 8a1 E. holding that the fact that employer had knowledge of the employees protected activity was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation where the timing of the discharge was not proximate to the protected activity

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that 8e protected an employers speech undertaken to correct any misunderstandings informing employees that their signed union cards were not confidential and that the employer retained the right to discharge or discipline employees for cause
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: 30 (9th Cir.1983): [T]he wording of the statute does not disclose a congressional intent to provide a damage remedy. The statute does confer on district courts the power to give all “appropriate relief,” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2), but absent legislative history suggesting the contrary, such a phrase is usually construed as a mere grant of jurisdiction to enforce and supplement the administrative procedures for identification, evaluation, and placement of the child, and not of authority to award retrospective damages. See also Taylor v. Honig, 910 F.2d 627, 628 (9th Cir.1990) (stating that “injunctive or other prospective relief is ordinarily the remedy under the [predecessor to the IDEA] and damages are usually inappropriate”); Charlie F. v. Board of Educ., 98 F.3d 989, 991 (7th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Because Plaintiff seeks only monetary Options: A. holding that by its terms the idea does not require exhaustion where the relief sought is unavailable in an administrative proceeding under the idea monetary damages are not available so exhaustion is not required B. holding that damages are not relief that is available under the idea C. holding that exhaustion is not required for plaintiffs seeking money damages because damages are unavailable through the administrative process and because all other relief available to the plaintiffs under the idea had already been provided through a settlement agreement D. holding reimbursement for private tutoring available under the idea E. holding that exhaustion is required under the plra even if the plaintiff seeks only money damages and money damages are not available as relief

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that damages are not relief that is available under the idea