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: language is plain, the sole function of the courts ... is to enforce it according to its terms.” Lamie v. U.S. Trustee, 540 U.S. 526, 534, 124 S.Ct. 1023, 157 L.Ed.2d 1024 (2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Section 192(a) prohibits “unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive” practices or devices. Section 192(b) prohibits “undue or unreasonable” preferences, advantages, or disadvantages. Neither section contains language limiting its application to only those acts or devices, which have an adverse effect on competition, such as “restraining commerce.” Under well-settled principles, courts must refrain from reading additional terms, such as those that would require an adverse effect on competition, into these sections. See Lamie, 540 U.S. at 538, 124 S.Ct. 1023 (<HOLDING>); see also Bates v. United States, 522 U.S. 23, Options: A. holding that limitations from the specification should not be read into the claims B. holding that plain meaning of legislation should be conclusive C. holding that if the text evinces a plain nonabsurd meaning then the court should not read an absent word into the statute D. holding that an appellate court must give a statute its clear and plain meaning when the statute is unambiguous E. holding that absent unusual circumstances this court must apply the plain meaning of a statute

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that if the text evinces a plain nonabsurd meaning then the court should not read an absent word into the statute
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: Neither the execution, delivery or performance of this Agreement, or the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, conflicts or will conflict with, or will (with or without notice or lapse of time or both) result in a termination, breach or violation of (i) any instrument, contract or agreement to which Purchaser is a party or by which it is bound; or (ii) any federal, state, local or foreign law, ordinance, judgment, decree, order, statute or regulation, or that of any other governmental body or authority, applicable to Purchaser.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be governed, construed, interpreted and enforced in accordance with the substantive laws of the State of Texas, without reference to the principles of conflicts of law of Texas or any other jurisdiction, and where applicable, the laws of the United States.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: You understand that during the course of your employment, XL may grow and/or expand through merger, acquisition or otherwise. You acknowledge that this Agreement and the rights and obligations of the parties hereto shall bind and inure to the benefit of any successor or successors of XL by reorganization, merger, acquisition or otherwise and any assignee of all or substantially all of XL's business or properties.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: for masquerade users located in the united states or canada , masquerade and you each agree to waive the right to a trial by judge or jury for all disputes , except for the excluded disputes .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: plaintiff nor the' defendants have questioned the Court’s authority here. The Court is issuing legal conclusions on a motion to dismiss; issues of fact are not considered. A review of the Court’s conclusions would thus be de novo. See Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2165, 2175, 189 L.Ed.2d 83 (2014). In the event a superi- or court determines that some or all of the causes of action here are not constitutionally core proceedings or not properly subject of this Court’s authority, the conclusions here are submitted as proposed conclusions. See Stern v. Marshall, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2594, 180 L.Ed.2d 475 (2011) (addressing constitutional authority of bankruptcy court); Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2165, 189 L.Ed.2d 83 (2014) (<HOLDING>); and Galaz v. Galaz (In re Galaz), 765 F.3d Options: A. holding that a proceeding that by its nature could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case is a core matter subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court B. holding that stem does not change bankruptcy courts authority to decide fundamental core procedures of bankruptcy court C. holding that the bankruptcy court has constitutional and implied statutory authority to conduct jury trials in core proceedings D. holding that bankruptcy court may issue proposed findings and conclusions in a core proceeding over which the bankruptcy court does not have constitutional authority E. holding district court may treat bankruptcy courts findings and conclusions as proposed

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that bankruptcy court may issue proposed findings and conclusions in a core proceeding over which the bankruptcy court does not have constitutional authority
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: During the Employment Period, the Executive shall be entitled to receive prompt reimbursement for all reasonable expenses incurred by the Executive in accordance with the policies, practices and procedures of the Company in effect for the Executive at any time during the 120-day period immediately preceding the Change of Control Date.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: period under Section 1446(b).”). But see Davis v. Time Ins. Co., 698 F.Supp. 1317, 1321-22 (S.D.Miss.1988) (“[Tjhis Court perceives no difference between a situation where an amended complaint adds a new federal question and one where a recent United States Supreme Court decision.invigorates a pleading with federal character.”); Smith v. Burroughs Corp., 670 F.Supp. 740, 741 (E.D.Mich.1987) (stating that the “statute on its face indicates that it covers virtually any situation in which an action not initially removable later becomes removable”). Similarly, most courts agree that a change in statutory law regarding removability is not “other paper” for purposes of restarting the clock under § 1446(b). See, e.g., Coman v. Int’l Playtex, Inc., 713 F.Supp. 1324, 1326-27 (N.D.Cal.1989) (<HOLDING>); Phillips v. Allstate Ins. Co., 702 F.Supp. Options: A. holding court cannot change custody without showing that change is in best interests of child B. holding that because there was complete diversity when the action commenced diversity jurisdiction was not defeated by the addition of a nondiverse plaintiff which was not indispensable C. holding that a federal court in diversity jurisdiction must apply state substantive law D. holding that statutory change in diversity requirements is not other paper E. holding that a showing of a change in circumstances that is or is likely to be beneficial to the child may also warrant a change in custody

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that statutory change in diversity requirements is not other paper
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: but has nonetheless achieved the desired result because the lawsuit brought about a voluntary change in the defendant’s conduct. We hold that it does not. Id. at 600,121 S.Ct. 1835. The Court also noted that Congress “has authorized the award of attorney’s fees to the ‘prevailing party’ in numerous statutes in addition to those at issue, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 259, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1975, 89 Stat. 402, 42 U.S.C. § 19731(e), and the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 2641, 42 U.S.C § 1988,” and stated that “we have interpreted these fee-shifting provisions consistently .... ” Id. at 602-603, n. 4, 121 S.Ct. 1835. This statement echoed the Court’s previous statement in a case a 67 (7th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). That being said, the First Circuit has not Options: A. holding that buckhannon applies to the attorneys fees provision of the idea B. holding that the plaintiffs state commonlaw tort claims were preempted by the national motor vehicle safety act 15 usc 1381 et seq C. holding buckhannon applicable to the freedom of information act 5 usc 552 et seq which provides attorneys fees for complainants who have substantially prevailed D. holding buckhannon applicable to the fair credit reporting act 15 usc 1681 et seq which authorizes attorneys fees for prevailing parties E. holding buckhannon applicable to the equal access to justice act 28 usc 2412 et seq which authorizes attorneys fees for prevailing parties

assistant: The best answer is D. holding buckhannon applicable to the fair credit reporting act 15 usc 1681 et seq which authorizes attorneys fees for prevailing parties
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: a “responsible person” under § 6672 in these circumstances. B. Willfulness 1. Standard of Review As with the previous issue, the government asserts that the determination of willfulness under § 6672 is a question of law subject to de novo review, while Bradshaw argues that it is a question of fact on which the district judge’s ruling can not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous. Some circuits have held that the ultimate issue of willfulness is subject to de novo review. United States v. McCombs, 30 F.3d at 320 (noting, however, that this is a difficult question that, in similar contexts, has divided the courts for over a century); Thibodeau v. United States, 828 F.2d at 1505-07. Our prior decisions have, however, treated this as an issue of fact. See Taylor, 69 F.3d at 417-18 (<HOLDING>); Denbo, 988 F.2d at 1033 (reviewing jury Options: A. holding that we review for clear error the bankruptcy courts factual findings B. holding that the district court sitting in review of the decision of the bankruptcy court erred in concluding that plaintiffs failure to pay over taxes was willful because the bankruptcy court had made no findings on willfulness we remanded for bankruptcy court findings C. holding that 28 usc 1961a applies to bankruptcy court judgments because a bankruptcy court is a unit of the district court D. holding that bankruptcy court may issue proposed findings and conclusions in a core proceeding over which the bankruptcy court does not have constitutional authority E. holding that the bankruptcy court has the inherent power to award sanctions for badfaith conduct in a bankruptcy court proceeding

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the district court sitting in review of the decision of the bankruptcy court erred in concluding that plaintiffs failure to pay over taxes was willful because the bankruptcy court had made no findings on willfulness we remanded for bankruptcy court findings
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 agrees to pay to Executive a base salary with respect to the 2016 calendar year at the annual rate of $562,755 or such greater amount as determined by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Compensation Committee”) from time to time (“Base Salary”). Effective as of January 1st of each subsequent calendar year, beginning with January 1, 2017 and ending on the third (3rd) anniversary of the occurrence of a Change of Control (as defined below), the Base Salary shall be automatically increased by three percent (3%) each calendar year, provided that the Compensation Committee may increase Executive’s Salary by additional discretionary amounts but any such additional discretionary amounts shall be disregarded when calculating the amount of any automatic increase in Executive’s Base Salary; provided further that, no such additional discretionary increase shall be implemented prior to the Plan Covenant Termination Date (as defined in the Plan) without the prior written consent of PharmAthene, Inc. Payments of the Base Salary shall be payable in equal installments in accordance with the Company’s standard payroll practices.

assistant: Base Salary
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: Such Party (i) has the power and authority and the legal right to enter into this Agreement and to perform its obligations hereunder, and (ii) has taken all necessary action on its part to authorize the execution and delivery of this Agreement and the performance of its obligations hereunder. This Agreement has been duly executed and delivered on behalf of such Party, and constitutes a legal, valid, binding obligation, enforceable against such Party in accordance with its terms, subject to enforcement of remedies to applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium or similar laws affecting generally the enforcement of creditors’ rights and subject to a court’s discretionary authority with respect to the granting of a decree ordering specific performance or other equitable remedies.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: even if the employee’s disclosure is later found unprotected, so long as the retaliation was taken in response to the disclosure. Here, Messrs. Burton and Kaufman concede knowledge of Ms. Montgomery’s allegations, but neither concedes the legitimacy of her allegations. Messrs. Burton and Kaufman did not perceive Ms. Montgomery as a whistleblower; rather they perceived her allegations as frivolous at best and dishonest at worst. Because her allegations were frivolous, it would be unreasonable for OIG to perceive her as a whistleblower and retaliate against her. Accordingly, absent specific evidence that OIG retaliated against Ms. Montgomery for her frivolous allegations, the perceived whistleblower doctrine does not apply. See Special Counsel v. Spears, 75 M.S.P.R. 639, 654-55 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s order Options: A. holding misrepresentation must at least be partial cause of plaintiffs injury B. holding there must at least be a distinct possibility that a viable fca action could be filed C. holding that the employee must at least provide his employer with enough information for the employer to be put on notice that the fmla is a consideration D. holding that a party must at least have a subjective belief that litigation was a real possibility and that belief must have been objectively reasonable E. holding that the alleged disclosure must at least be reasonable for the perceived whistleblower doctrine to apply

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the alleged disclosure must at least be reasonable for the perceived whistleblower doctrine to apply
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 in all respects be construed in accordance with and governed by the substantive laws of the State of Texas, without reference to its conflicts of law rules. Any right to trial by jury with respect to any action or proceeding arising in connection with this Agreement is hereby waived by the parties hereto.

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: describing the purported side agreement. We have doubts whether such writings would meet even the first requirement: that the “agreement” itself be in writing— not other communications referring to it. 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e)(1)(A). That the agreement be in writing, however, is only one requirement of section 1823(e). The written agreement must also meet the three other non-secrecy requirements. 12 U.S.C. § 1823 (e)(l)(B)-(D). The bank executive does not state that the communication was signed by Heritage and the borrowers, approved by Heritage’s Board of Directors, or continuously kept as an official Heritage record. Nor do the borrowers point to any other evidence supporting these additional statutory requirements. See Resolution Trust Corp. v. MeCrory, 951 F;2d 68, 72 (5th Cir; 1992) (<HOLDING>); Twin Constr., Inc. v. Boca Raton, Inc., 925 Options: A. holding that a bank receiving a check because of a encoding error is not a collecting bank B. holding that a copy of an agreement executed by an insolvent bank found in the draft documents of the banks attorney did not satisfy section 1823es requirements because it was not an official record of the failed bank C. holding that a written form despite outlining the obligations of both parties and existing in the insolvent banks records did not meet section 1823es requirements because it had not been executed by the failed bank D. holding that a bank customer did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in records maintained by the bank E. holding a bank officer who informed a third party that it would be safe to extend 8000 credit to bank customer although customer did not have an open account at the bank could be held liable for the material misrepresentation

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a copy of an agreement executed by an insolvent bank found in the draft documents of the banks attorney did not satisfy section 1823es requirements because it was not an official record of the failed bank
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: you agree that you have had whatever opportunity you deem necessary to investigate the airbnb services , laws , rules , or regulations that may be applicable to your listings and/or host services you are receiving and that you are not relying upon any statement of law or fact made by airbnb relating to a listing .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, all of which shall together constitute one and the same Agreement. One or more counterparts of this Agreement may be delivered by facsimile or photographic copy of the signed counterpart, with the intention that delivery by such means shall have the same effect as delivery of an original counterpart thereof.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be binding upon, enforceable by, and inure to the benefit of EXECUTIVE, COMPANY and each Releasee, and EXECUTIVE’s and COMPANY’s personal or legal representatives, executors, administrators, successors, heirs, distributees, devisees and legatees, but neither this Agreement, nor any rights, payments, or obligations arising hereunder may be assigned, pledged, transferred, or hypothecated by EXECUTIVE or COMPANY.

assistant: Successors
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: Read in this manner, the sentence implies that only the employee is bound to arbitrate. The rules of contract interpretation require the Court to construe the writing as a whole. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 202(2). Reading paragraph 16 as a whole, the Court finds that the first sentence binds both parties to arbitrate their controversies and claims concerning the employment relationship and that the last sentence merely emphasizes that the employee has no other recourse but arbitration. This interpretation, which gives an effective meaning to all the terms, is preferred. Id., § 203(a). The Court finds that both parties provided consideration in that they both agreed to be bound by arbitration and that there is, therefore, mutuality of obligation. Cf. Blair, 283 F.3d at 603 (<HOLDING>). Plaskett claims that the consideration is Options: A. holding that a contract need not have mutuality of obligation as long as it is supported by consideration B. holding a cancellation clause that releases both parties from their obligations does not render contract void for lack of mutuality of obligation C. holding that a contract without a minimum quantity term is unenforceable for lack of consideration and mutuality D. holding mutuality of obligation is essential to the formation of a bilateral contract E. holding that mutuality of obligation is essential for contracts based on mutual promises and that a contract is unenforceable where a party is free to perform or not perform the contract

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a contract need not have mutuality of obligation as long as it is supported by consideration
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: 17.2 to contact skype in relation to the qik software or `` qik '' branded products , please submit a support request to support.qik.com .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Applicant will indemnify and hold harmless each Indemnified Party from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses, damages, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and disbursements) that arise out of or in connection with: (i) this Agreement and the Credit, (ii) any payment or action taken or omitted to be taken in connection with the Credit or this Agreement, (iii) any indemnity or other undertaking that Applicant requests or authorizes Issuer to issue to induce any Beneficiary to issue its own letter of credit or other undertaking in connection with the Credit, or (iv) any act or omission, whether rightful or wrongful, of any present or future de jure or de facto government or governmental authority or any other cause beyond Issuer’s control with respect to this Agreement or the Credit, except in each case to the extent such liability, loss, damage, cost or expense is found in a final, non-appealable judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction to have resulted directly from such Indemnified Party’s bad faith, gross negligence or willful misconduct. Applicant will pay within ten Business Days after demand from time to time all amounts owing under this Section.

assistant: Indemnifications
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: rules carrying the force of law, and that the agency interpretation claiming deference was promulgated in the exercise of that authority.” United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 226-27, 121 S.Ct. 2164, 150 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001) (emphasis added). Here, “[t]he first half of this test is clearly satisfied: Congress has delegated general rulemaking authority with respect to Medicare to the Secretary of HHS, who in turn has delegated that authority to CMS.” Estate of Landers v. Leavitt, 545 F.3d 98, 105 (2d Cir.2008); 42 U.S.C. § 1395hh(a)(l) (“The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the administration of the insurance programs under this subchapter.”); see also Shalala v. Guernsey Mem’l Hosp., 514 U.S. 87, 96, 115 S.Ct. 1232, 131 L.Ed.2d 106 (1995) (<HOLDING>). The Court then “consider[s] whether CMS has Options: A. recognizing the delegation of authority to the united states attorneys B. holding that a delegation of authority by the legislature must be express and provide clear statutory standards to guide the delegee C. holding that a precondition to chevron deference is congressional delegation of administrative authority D. recognizing the municipal authority to regulate traffic implies broad authority E. recognizing the medicare statutes broad delegation of authority

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing the medicare statutes broad delegation of 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: (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). But while we conclude that these arguments were improper, we also conclude that the trial court properly denied Defendants’ motion for mistrial and motion for new trial. We address Comments Number One and Three together, as neither were properly preserved at trial. As to Comment Number One, Defendants are urging, as a basis for reversal, a different objection, than the one they raised at trial. As previously explained, Defendants contend in this' appeal that the argument was a Golden Rule violation; however, the objection actually interposed at trial was “Objection, there’s no evidence of this.” This objection failed to place the trial court on notice of the error that Defendants now assert in this appeal. See Bertolotti v. Dugger, 514 So.2d 1095, 1096 (Fla. 1987) (<HOLDING>); Connolly v. State, 172 So.3d 893, 902 (Fla. Options: A. holding that an issue must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved B. holding a general ruling by the trial court is insufficient to preserve a specific issue for appellate review C. holding that to preserve an issue for appellate review the specific legal argument or ground upon which it is based must be presented to the trial court D. recognizing that the specific argument regarding an issue must be made in the trial court to preserve that issue for appellate review E. holding to preserve an issue for appellate review the issue must have been raised to and ruled upon by trial court and a party may not argue one ground for objection at trial and another ground on appeal

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that to preserve an issue for appellate review the specific legal argument or ground upon which it is based must be presented to the trial court
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the jury could have decided that Howard did not suffer either of the two most lethal heart conduction problems based on Kuban’s testimony that one of those conditions caused immediate death and the other would have rendered Howard so severely weakened that he would be unable to extract himself from his submerged pickup. The jury could also have reasonably believed Kuban’s testimony that none of the other heart conduction problems that could have caused Howard to lose consciousness were lethal and, thus, could not have been a concurrent cause of Howard’s death. After reviewing the record, we hold there was some evidence to support the jury’s verdict. See Nat’l Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Franklin, 506 S.W.2d 765, 767 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1974, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, based on the record in this Options: A. holding as unambiguous under iowa law the insurance policys exclusion of coverage to any obligation of the insured to indemnify another because of damages arising out of a bodily injury to any employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of his employment by the insured B. holding that epileptic seizure causing insured to fall and lose consciousness in bathtub where insured drowned was not a cause of insureds death so as to exclude insurance coverage C. holding that an insurance company which chose not to defend its insured could not later deny coverage by asserting the legally obligated to pay provision in the policy after the insured reached a settlement where the injured party agreed to collect only against insurance proceeds D. holding ambiguous provisions are to be interpreted so as to provide maximum coverage to the insured E. holding a personal profit exclusion applicable to an insured corporation where the purpose of the exclusion was to exclude coverage when the insured received profits to which the insured was not legally entitled

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that epileptic seizure causing insured to fall and lose consciousness in bathtub where insured drowned was not a cause of insureds death so as to exclude insurance coverage
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: Columbia. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth. Compact, Pub.L. No. 89-774, 80 Stat. 1324 (1966). The Compact is codified at D.C.Code § 9-1107.01; Md.Code, Transp. § 10-204; and Va.Code §§ 56-529, - 530. 4 . See, e.g., Jones v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 205 F.3d 428, 432 (D.C.Cir.2000); Beebe v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 129 F.3d 1283, 1287 (D.C.Cir.1997); Sanders v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 819 F.2d 1151, 1154 (D.C.Cir.1987); Morris v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 781 F.2d 218, 224-25 (D.C.Cir.1986). 5 . To “garnish” is to attach property (often wages) of a debtor that is in the possession of a third party in order to satisfy a debt. Black's Law Dictionary 689 (7th ed. 1999). See Knight v. United States, 982 F.2d 1573, 1578 (Fed.Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). 6 . See Grunley Constr. Co. v. District of Options: A. holding that it was not essential to an action by a supplier on a payment bond under the miller act that a demand be made on the general contractor for payment although there was evidence in the case from which it could be found that the materialman looked to the general contractor for payment since the statute does not require a demand for payment but merely requires written notice of the claim B. holding that the fourth amendment does not mandate the payment of money by the united states C. holding that unless the united states has submitted itself to such state law an attorney lien statute like a state garnishment statute has no force or effect against it and places no restraints on the governments payment of its obligations to another including the payment of wages D. holding that when a creditor on multiple debts applies an undesignated partial payment by the debtor to a debt on which the statute of limitations has not yet run the payment tolls the statute of limitations on that debt E. holding it is the payment and not the request which triggers the statute

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that unless the united states has submitted itself to such state law an attorney lien statute like a state garnishment statute has no force or effect against it and places no restraints on the governments payment of its obligations to another including the payment of wages
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: intent to deceive was not established by the prior administrative Re-determination, the preponderance of evidence presented at trial compels the conclusion that the Debtor intended to deceive the UIA when he misrepresented his employment status to the Agency through his MARVIN certifications. The Sixth Circuit has previously held that “a debtor’s intention — or lack thereof — must be determined by the totali ty of the circumstances.” In re Rembert, 141 F.3d at 282. In this case, the Debtor certified for unemployment benefits through MARVIN for 102 weeks. Each time, he was asked if he was working; each time, he answered, “no.” .The repeated and on-going nature of the Debtor’s misrepresentations suggest that he intended to mislead the Agency. See In re Yuppa, 2013 WL 4854479 at *4 (<HOLDING>) (citing In re O’Brien, 110 B.R. at 31-32; Options: A. holding that a rico plaintiff must allege at a minimum the time place and content of the alleged misrepresentations on which he or she relied the fraudulent scheme the fraudulent intent of the defendants and the injury resulting from the fraud B. holding that repeated misrepresentations of employment status when applying for benefits are sufficient to prove fraudulent intent C. holding that if the alleged misrepresentations are material a plaintiff is entitled to recovery whether or not the misrepresentations caused the alleged damage D. holding that isolated remarks are insufficient to prove discriminatory intent E. holding defendant equitably estopped where it made fraudulent misrepresentations to plaintiff that he would receive share of commissions

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that repeated misrepresentations of employment status when applying for benefits are sufficient to prove fraudulent intent
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 he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. At this point he has shown that he intends to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege; any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise. Without the right to cut off questioning, the setting of in-custody interrogation op erates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked.” The court elaborated on this principle in Michigan v. Mosely, 423 U.S. 96, 103-104 (1975) as follows: “Through the exercise of his option to terminate questioning he (the suspect) can control the time at which questioning occurs, the subjects discussed, and the duration of the interrogation. The requireme (1989) (<HOLDING>). In Commonwealth v. Peterson, C.C.P. Lehigh, Options: A. holding that juveniles request for parent is invocation of fifth amendment rights B. holding that defendants invocation of miranda rights is inadmissible to prove defendants sanity C. holding that defendants request to call his mother to get an attorney was an invocation of miranda rights requiring that further questioning must end D. holding that smith who was 15 years old could waive his miranda rights and his right to have an attorney or parent present during questioning by police E. holding police violated edwards when they continued questioning a defendant after his initial invocation of the right to counsel even though he responded to the subsequent questioning

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that defendants request to call his mother to get an attorney was an invocation of miranda rights requiring that further questioning must end
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 the rights and obligations hereunder shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their successors and assigns. Except as expressly provided herein with respect to Third Party Service Providers, the obligations, rights and benefits hereunder are specific to the parties hereto and shall not be delegated or assigned without the prior written consent of the other party, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. As a condition to an assignment of any obligations, rights or benefits hereunder, the assignee of such obligations, rights and benefits must agree to be bound by the terms of this Agreement pursuant to an assignment document executed by such assignee, in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to both Lender and CAB. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to create or grant any right, privilege, or other benefit to or for any person or entity other than the parties hereto. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, the parties acknowledge that Lender can freely assign its rights in and with respect to the Loans (including, without limitation, its rights under Section 5 hereof) without CAB's prior written consent, provided that the assignee satisfies the conditions set forth in this Section 25.

assistant: Successors
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 hereby agrees to employ Employee in the capacity of [•], or in such other position or positions of the same or greater stature as the Board may direct or desire, to the extent reasonably acceptable to Employee, and Employee hereby accepts such employment, on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein.

assistant: Employment
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: (final order has "traditionally been interpreted as including only those orders that grant or deny benefits or penalties.") Where an order neither awards nor denies benefits, it is merely interlocutory and is "not ripe for appellate review." U.S. Fid. & Guar., Inc. v. Kourlis, 868 P.2d 1158, 1163 (Colo.App.1994). Moreover, where the Panel has remanded a matter to the ALJ for determination of an award, the decision is not a final order and "is not subject to review by this court." Oxford Chems., Inc. v. Richardson, 782 P.2d 843, 846 (Colo.App.1989) (dismissing appeal of penalty issue on ground that Panel's order remanding matter to ALJ for determination of penalty was not final, appealable order); see also UPS, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 988 P.2d 1146, 1147 (Colo.App.1999) (<HOLDING>). Here, the Panel remanded the matter to the Options: A. holding panels decision was not final appealable order because the amount of the penalty must be determined here before the ruling as to penalties is final for purposes of judicial review B. holding that a rehearing order was not final or appealable C. holding that there can be only one final appealable order D. holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence E. holding that order awarding attorney fees in amount to be determined at later date was not final appealable order

assistant: The best answer is A. holding panels decision was not final appealable order because the amount of the penalty must be determined here before the ruling as to penalties is final for purposes of judicial review
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: “investigation for, initiation of, testimony for, or assistance in an action filed or to be filed” under the FCA. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) (amended 2009). The Sixth Circuit has held that “protected activity” should be interpreted broadly. United States ex rel. McKenzie v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 123 F.3d 935, 944 (6th Cir.1997) (McKenzie I) (citation omitted). Indeed, Plaintiff need not have actually filed suit under the FCA to receive whistleblower protection accorded by Section 3730(h). Rather, in accordance with other circuits, the Sixth Circuit has interpreted “in furtherance of’ to require that Plaintiff be “investigating matters that reasonably could lead to a viable False Claims Act case.” Id.; see also Dookeran v. Mercy Hosp. of Pittsburgh, 281 F.3d 105, 108 (3d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>) Here, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff “in Options: A. holding that a party must at least have a subjective belief that litigation was a real possibility and that belief must have been objectively reasonable B. holding that a forfeiture action is timely so long as at least an administrative action is filed within the 120day statutory period C. holding misrepresentation must at least be partial cause of plaintiffs injury D. holding there must at least be a distinct possibility that a viable fca action could be filed E. holding that the federal action at issue must be authorized

assistant: The best answer is D. holding there must at least be a distinct possibility that a viable fca action could be filed
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 authorized capital of the Company consists of: (i) 150,000,000 shares of Common Stock of which, as of the date of this Agreement, (x) 34,787,633 shares are issued and outstanding and (y) 9,454,803 shares are reserved for issuance pursuant to the Company’s stock incentive plan, of which (1) 7,427,956 shares are issuable upon the exercise of stock options outstanding and (2) 393,750 shares are issuable upon the vesting of performance restricted stock units on the date hereof and (ii) 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock, par value $0.0001 per share, of which no shares are issued and outstanding as of the date of this Agreement. No Person has any right of first refusal, preemptive right, right of participation, or any similar right to participate in the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. Except as a result of the purchase and sale of the Shares or as set forth in SEC Reports, there are no outstanding options, warrants, scrip rights to subscribe to, calls or commitments of any character whatsoever relating to, or securities, rights or obligations convertible into or exercisable or exchangeable for, or giving any Person any right to subscribe for or acquire any shares of Common Stock, or contracts, commitments, understandings or arrangements by which the Company is or may become bound to issue additional shares of Common Stock or Common Stock Equivalents. The issuance and sale of the Shares will not obligate the Company to issue shares of Common Stock or other securities to any Person (other than the Purchasers) and will not result in a right of any holder of Company securities to adjust the exercise, conversion, exchange or reset price under any of such securities. All of the outstanding shares of capital stock of the Company are validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable, have been issued in compliance with all federal and state securities laws, and none of such outstanding shares was issued in violation of any preemptive rights or similar rights to subscribe for or purchase securities. No further approval or authorization of any stockholder, the Board of Directors or others is required for the issuance and sale of the Shares. Except as set forth in SEC Reports, there are no stockholders agreements, voting agreements or other agreements with respect to the Company’s capital stock to which the Company is a party or, to the knowledge of the Company, between or among any of the Company’s stockholders.

assistant: Capitalization
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: Complete relief can be granted in the absence of Harris. For this reason, Harris is not an indispensable party to this appeal. The trial court ruled, on May 6, 1999, that the Commonwealth lacked authority to unilaterally grant Harris testimonial immunity; therefore, Harris could not be compelled to testify. The privilege against self-incrimination recognizes the danger to a witness forced to give testimony, which may then lead to imposition of punishment for the witness’ role in the offense. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 453, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972). However, the prosecution may enter into an agreement with a defendant, stating that it will not prosecute him in exchange for testimony to be given at trial. Cf. Bray v. Commonwealth, Ky., 703 S.W.2d 478, 479 (1985) (<HOLDING>). Where such a promise has been made, the Options: A. holding that witness immunity does not bar a claim against a retained expert witness for negligence performance of his duty B. holding that a remote tippee must know that original exchange was given in exchange for benefit C. holding that the witness had accepted immunity in exchange for no prosecution D. holding as brady violation prosecutions failure to disclose to defense that prosecution had agreed not to prosecute key witness in exchange for his testimony at trial E. holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the witness had accepted immunity in exchange for no prosecution