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: (“No evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas, or of the Constitution or laws of the United States of America, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any criminal case.”). The only exception to Texas’s exclusionary rule is “that the evidence was obtained by a law enforcement officer acting in objective good faith reliance upon a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate based' on probable causé,” but Officer White could not have relied on a warrant because he did not obtain one. See id. art. 38.23(b); State v. Munoz, 474 S.W.3d 8, 16 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2015, pet. filed) (collecting cases); State v. Tercero, 467 S.W.3d 1, 10 (TexApp.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. refd) (<HOLDING>). Having concluded that the collection of Options: A. recognizing good faith exception to fourth amendment exclusionary rule B. holding that the defendant did not establish good faith as a matter of law C. holding that good faith exception does not apply because it is inconsistent with text of article 3823 D. holding federal good faith exception incompatible with provisions of state constitution E. holding that there is no good faith exception for failing to comply with texas insurance code article 2155 predecessor to chapter 542

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that good faith exception does not apply because it is inconsistent with text of article 3823
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: with “complete and final discretionary authority to interpret the plans and maintain control over the operation and administration of the plans.” Accordingly, the Chevron Plan, via the Services Agreement and the SPD, delegates authority to Aetna regarding benefit eligibility for the Medical Plan. Moreover, in this situation, Aetna made a factual determination that certain diagnostic testing and IVIG treatments were not medically necessary. “[F]actual determinations made by [an] administrator during the course of a benefits review will be rejected only upon the showing of an abuse of discretion.” Meditrust Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Sterling Chems., Inc., 168 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir.1999); see also Chandler v. Hartford Life, No. 05-50688, 2006 WL 1209363, at *3 (5th Cir. Apr.28, 2006) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Meditrust Fin. Servs. Corp., 168 F.3d Options: A. holding that the admission or exclusion of evidence is within discretion of the trial court and that such determinations will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear abuse of discretion B. holding that a denial of benefits will not be reviewed de novo where the language of an erisa plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan C. holding that arbitrary and capricious standard applies to section 1132a1b denial ofbenefits claims if the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan D. holding that rulings on admissibility of evidence are within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of that discretion E. holding that rjegardless of the administrators ultimate authority to determine benefit eligibility factual determinations made by the administrator during the course of a benefits review will be rejected only upon the showing of an abuse of discretion

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that rjegardless of the administrators ultimate authority to determine benefit eligibility factual determinations made by the administrator during the course of a benefits review will be rejected only upon the showing of an abuse of discretion
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 BIA’s substantive review of the IJ’s decision .was flawed.” Id. At oral argument, Awe’s attorney acknowledged that he had missed the briefing deadline, but argued that “his mistake was not fatal because the Notice of Appeal gave the BIA a ‘fair appraisal’ of the issues to be addressed in Awe’s appeal.” Id. at 513. We held that Awe’s notice argument was waived because he failed to present it to the court prior to oral argument. However, we continued: Even assuming Awe had not waived his right,to challenge the BIA’s procedural dismissal, we note that 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(2)(i)(D) explicitly gives the BIA authority to dismiss procedurally defective appeals, and we have condoned the BIA’s use of this power in cases similar to this one. See Stroe v. INS, 256 F.3d 498, 499 (7th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); accord Rioja v. Ashcroft, 317 F.3d 514, Options: A. holding that reply brief is appropriate forum to rebut new material raised in appellees brief B. holding that a party may pursue an issue not raised in its initial brief where a substantial change in law occurs after the brief was filed C. holding that a party abandons claims that he does not argue in his brief D. holding that appellate counsels admitted failure to timely file the brief constituted good cause to grant motion for belated brief E. holding summary dismissal appropriate where party indicated he would file brief requested and received 30day filing extension and never filed brief nor explained why he had not

assistant: The best answer is E. holding summary dismissal appropriate where party indicated he would file brief requested and received 30day filing extension and never filed brief nor explained why he had not
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: claim, Panaro moved to amend his complaint, claiming that he had new evidence indicating that he had filed a grievance form. The district court denied the motion, because "The 'new' evidence was at all times in the possession of Plaintiff, and can not be considered newly discovered for purposes of Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).” Because Panaro does not appeal the district court’s order denying the motion to amend the complaint, Panaro’s “new” evidence is not before us. The record in this appeal does not indicate that Panaro filed a grievance form. 5 . The Ninth Circuit had not squarely addressed this issue in the context of section 1983 actions at the time Panaro filed this suit. However, shortly before Panaro filed his complaint we decided Lunsford v. Jumao-As, 155 F.3d 1178, 1178 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Because "Actions under § 1983 and those under Options: A. holding that the plra did not require administrative exhaustion in suits for money damages under bivens v six unknown named agents 403 us 388 91 sct 1999 29 led2d 619 1971 when the administrative grievance process only offered injunctive relief B. holding exhaustion is required regardless of the relief offered through administrative procedures C. holding that exhaustion is required even where the relief sought is not available in the administrative process D. holding that bivens plaintiff was not required to exhaust administrative remedies where administrative remedy program provided only for injunctive relief 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 A. holding that the plra did not require administrative exhaustion in suits for money damages under bivens v six unknown named agents 403 us 388 91 sct 1999 29 led2d 619 1971 when the administrative grievance process only offered injunctive relief
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Guarantor shall automatically be released from its obligations hereunder (other than with respect to amounts then due and payable by Guarantor) upon the consummation of any transaction permitted by the Lease, the result of which is that the Lessee ceases to be a Subsidiary of Lessee’s Parent or otherwise ceases to be owned (directly or indirectly) by Lessee’s Parent; provided that the Lessor shall have consented to such transaction to the extent such consent is expressly required by the terms of the Lease; and provided further that Lessor shall have received a replacement guaranty in substantially the same form as this Guaranty to the extent that such guaranty is required to be delivered under the Lease; and provided further that no release of Lessee’s Parent shall be permitted to occur in a Foreclosure COC or Foreclosure Assignment.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Board may, as permitted by law, at any time, amend or terminate the Plan, and may amend any Award Agreement, provided that no amendment or termination (except as provided in Section 2.9, Section 3.4 and Section 6.2) may cause the Award to violate Code Section 409A, may cause the repricing of a Stock Option, or, in the absence of written consent to the change by the affected Participant (or, if the Participant is not then living, the affected beneficiary), adversely impair the rights of any Participant or beneficiary under any Award granted under the Plan prior to the date such amendment is adopted by the Board; provided, however , that, no amendment may: (i) materially increase the benefits accruing to Participants under the Plan; (ii) materially increase the aggregate number of securities which may be issued under the Plan, other than pursuant to Section 3.4; or (iii) materially modify the requirements for participation in the Plan, unless the amendment under (i), (ii) or (iii) above is approved by the Company’s stockholders.

assistant: General
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 execution, delivery and performance by Borrower of this Note and the other Loan Documents do not and will not: (a) contravene or conflict with any provision of any law, statute, rule or regulation having applicability to Borrower; or (b) contravene or conflict with, result in a breach of or constitute a default under any agreement or instrument binding on Borrower.

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: Receipt by the Administrative Agent of a certificate, dated the Closing Date and signed by the chief financial officer of each Loan Party, confirming that the Borrower and its Subsidiaries on a consolidated basis are Solvent before and after giving effect to the funding of the Term Loan A and any Revolving Loans on the Closing Date and the consummation of the other transactions contemplated herein.

assistant: Solvency
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 Court, supra, at 13. Last century's "contempt by publication/freedom of speech” American cases transformed the "tendency to prevent a fair trial” standard into an almost insurmountable elevated "clear and present danger to the administration of justice" standard. It was during this period when the "pending case" issue was relevant in America, as it is yet today in England. Any "pending case" language in the United States law of contempt is limited to these "contempt by publication” cases, which are fait accompli. See Myers v. State (1889), 46 Ohio St. 473, 491, 22 N.E. 43, 44-45 ("The offense consisted in the tendency of his acts to prevent a fair trial of the cause then pending in the court.")) Toledo Newspaper Co. v. United States (1917), 247 U.S. 402, 38 S.Ct. 560, 62 L.Ed. 1186 (<HOLDING>); Near v. Minnesota (1931), 283 U.S. 697, 51 Options: A. holding that a commission is a body with special and limited power and it can only exercise the power expressly or impliedly granted to it and any reasonable doubt of existence of any power must be resolved against the exercise thereof B. holding that no sentence is imposed in the case of a sis C. holding no irreparable harm and thus no jurisdiction where no existing employeeemployer relationship D. holding that the act of 1831 conferred no power not already granted and imposed no limitations not already existing and a publication commenting on a pending case in federal court constitutes a contempt where it has a reasonable tendency to obstruct the administration of justice E. holding that an estate administration begins and the probate court obtains jurisdiction over the administration when the court issues letters of administration

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the act of 1831 conferred no power not already granted and imposed no limitations not already existing and a publication commenting on a pending case in federal court constitutes a contempt where it has a reasonable tendency to obstruct the administration of justice
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 grudge against Bous-man or someone who provided the information in exchange for some concession on charges pending against the informant. The question that now arises is what effect the State’s failure to comply with section 810.5(4) has on the nontestimonial identification order. We think the omission of any facts from which the court could assess the informant’s credibility and the reliability of the informant’s information precluded issuance of the order for statutory and constitutional reasons. The statutory requirement that the affidavit “shall set forth particular facts bearing on the informant’s reliability” and “the means by which the information was obtained” is mandatory. Iowa Code § 810.5(4); see State v. Iowa Dist Ct. for Black Hawk County, 472 N.W.2d 621, 624 (Iowa 1991) (<HOLDING>). This requirement ensures that a Options: A. holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises B. holding that use of the word shall in search warrant statute imposed a duty that was obligatory not optional C. holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant D. holding that an arrest warrant without a search warrant does not permit law enforcement authorities to enter a third partys home to legally search for the subject of the arrest warrant E. holding that because evidence supporting search warrant was illegally obtained evidence recovered by executing warrant was fruit of the illegal search

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that use of the word shall in search warrant statute imposed a duty that was obligatory not optional
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: J.N.’s placement had Dr. Renehan excluded the parents from the communication. (Doc. 12 at 7). The court disagrees that Dr. Renehan intended to send the email to the parents but does not address the merits of plaintiffs’ IDEA claims at this juncture. 11 . To the extent that earlier decisions in this circuit adopted a strict approach to waiver in which inadvertent disclosure to a third party necessarily waives privilege, more recent authority has eschewed that approach. Compare United States v. Rockwell Int’l, 897 F.2d 1255, 1265 (3d Cir.1990) (“The attorney-client privilege does not apply to communications that are intended to be disclosed to third parties or that in fact are so disclosed.”), with Redland Soccer Club, Inc. v. Dep’t of Army of U.S., 55 F.3d 827, 856 (3d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>), and In re Grand Jury (Impounded), 138 F.3d Options: A. holding that district court did not err in concluding after an evidentiary hearing that the immunity agreement between defendant and the government did not extend to the charge being prosecuted B. holding that the district court did not err in determining that inadvertent disclosure did not result in waiver C. holding that district court did not err in finding that similar scheme involved sophisticated means D. holding that trial court did not err E. holding that the inadvertent disclosure of a privileged document does not waive the attorneyclient privilege if attorney took all reasonable steps to avoid disclosure and asserted the privilege as soon as the disclosure became known

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the district court did not err in determining that inadvertent disclosure did not result in waiver
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 determination of the trial court be reinstated. The central issue is not the rigid classification of the informant as an ordinary citizen or a paid informant but, rather, whether the information, taken in its totality, and interpreted not by technical legal rules but by factual and practical commonsense considerations, would lead a reasonable and prudent person to believe that the person stopped had committed an offense. (People v. Tisler (1984), 103 Ill. 2d 226, 236-37.) Thus it matters not by what name the informant is labelled; we look rather to the informant’s reliability as only one of the factors to be considered in the totality of the circumstances approach. Tisler, 103 Ill. 2d at 238; see also Massachusetts v. Upton (1984), 466 U.S. 727, 80 L. Ed. 2d 721, 104 S. Ct. 2085 (<HOLDING>). In the past, trial courts’ reliance on Options: A. holding that court must examine totality of circumstances to determine whether substantial evidence supports issuance of search warrant B. holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant C. holding that the reasonableness inquiry is based upon the totality of the circumstances in determining whether or not a search was reasonable D. holding that a totality of circumstances standard was proper for determining probable cause for issuance of a search warrant based on information from an informant E. holding that an officers account of a controlled buy made by an informant was by itself sufficient to es tablish probable cause for issuance of a search warrant

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a totality of circumstances standard was proper for determining probable cause for issuance of a search warrant based on information from an informant
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as otherwise disclosed by those reports listed on Schedule I attached hereto and made a part hereof in respect of the Properties (referred to below collectively as the “ Environmental Reports ”), copies of which have been provided to Indemnitee, to Indemnitors’ knowledge and except as would not have a material adverse effect individually or in the aggregate on the business or condition (financial or otherwise) of Borrower or any Mortgage Borrower, (a) there are no Hazardous Substances (defined below) or underground storage tanks in, on or under any Individual Property, except those that are both (i) in compliance with all Environmental Laws (defined below) and with any necessary permits issued pursuant thereto and (ii) fully disclosed to Indemnitee in writing pursuant to the Environmental Reports; (b) there are no past, present or threatened Releases (defined below) of Hazardous Substances in, on, under or from any Individual Property which have not been remediated as required under Environmental Laws; (c) there is no threat of any Release of Hazardous Substances migrating to any Individual Property; (d) there is no past or present non-compliance with Environmental Laws, or with permits issued pursuant thereto, in connection with any Individual Property which has not been remediated as required under Environmental Laws; (e) none of the Indemnitors and none of Mortgage Borrowers knows of, or has received, any written or oral notice or other communication from any Person (including, but not limited to, any Governmental Authority) relating to any Release or Remediation (defined below) of any Hazardous Substance, of possible liability of any Indemnitor pursuant to any Environmental Law, any other environmental conditions in connection with any Individual Property, or any actual or potential administrative or judicial proceedings in connection with any of the foregoing; (f) no Toxic Mold (as defined below) is present in the indoor air of any Individual Property at concentrations for which any Legal Requirement applicable to such Individual Property requires removal thereof by remediation professionals, and no Indemnitor or Mortgage Borrower is aware of any conditions at any Individual Property that are likely to result in the presence of Toxic Mold in the indoor air at concentrations for which any Legal Requirement applicable to such Individual Property would require such removal; and (g) Indemnitors have truthfully and fully provided to Indemnitee, in writing, any and all material information relating to conditions in, on, under or from each Individual Property that is actually known to any Indemnitor or Mortgage Borrower and that is contained in the files and records of any Indemnitor, including, but not limited, to any reports relating to Hazardous Substances in, on, under or from each Individual Property and/or to the environmental condition of each Individual Property.

assistant: Warranties
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 by one or more of the parties to this Agreement on any number of separate counterparts (including by telecopy or PDF), and all of said counterparts taken together shall be deemed to constitute one and the same instrument.

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: demonstrate that Qwest was entitled to forbearance in the Phoenix MSA.”). However, the Commission moved the goalpost. It criticized Qwest’s evidentiary showing again, this time because Qwest failed to present evidence that consumers consider wireline voice services and wireless voice services to be substitutes, such that the latter materially constrains the price of the former. Specifically, the Commission observed, “Knowing the percentage of households that rely exclusively upon mobile wireless is insufficient to determine whether mobile wireless services have a price-constraining effect on wireline access services.” Id. at 8654, ¶ 59. This kind of goalpost-moving does not reflect an optimal mode of administrative decisionmaking. ulatory Comm’n, 584 F.2d 1084, 1087-88 (D.C.Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>); Verizon Tel., 570 F.3d at 304 (“[I]t is Options: A. holding that when the agencys decision was based on an erroneous and completely unsupported assumption the decision was arbitrary and capricious B. holding that an agencys sudden shift in the nature of proof required of the regulated party was not sufficiently explained and necessitated remand C. holding that an agencys sudden unexplained shift in the kind of data that a regulated party was required to submit was arbitrary D. holding that judicial review of an administrative agencys decision is limited solely to whether given the relevant standard and facts the agencys decision was arbitrary illegal capricious or unreasonable E. holding that it was not arbitrary and capricious for an agency to change course when one of its basic assumptions in earlier rulemaking was contradicted by new data

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an agencys sudden unexplained shift in the kind of data that a regulated party was required to submit was arbitrary
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: For example, in Armada Supply, a foreign insurer had issued a certificate of insurance to a corporation qualified to do business in New York, for a cargo with the destination of New York. The contract was executed in Brazil. The Second Circuit upheld jurisdiction by applying the “contracts anywhere” wording in § 302(a)(1) in holding that the insurer “transacted business” in New York. Armada Supply, 858 F.2d at 849. The facts of this case clearly support jurisdiction under Armada Supply’s interpretation of the “contracts anywhere” language of § 302(a)(1). By providing insurance for a race horse quartered for nine months of the year within New York, Canadian “contracted to ... supply ... services in [New York],” Id.; cf. A.I. Trade Finance, Inc. v. Petra Bank, 989 F.2d 76 (2d Cir.1993)(<HOLDING>). The Court is not persuaded by Canadian’s Options: A. holding that a divorce granted at a foreign consulate in new york was not valid for immigration purposes because it did not comply with new york law B. holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york C. holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership D. holding that outofstate defendants transmittal into new york of ceaseanddesist letter to new york plaintiff for purported trademark infringement was insufficient to create jurisdiction over defendant in a new york declaratory judgment action E. holding that a financial guaranty payable in new york is a contract to perform services in new york subjecting foreign guarantor to jurisdiction under 302a1

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a financial guaranty payable in new york is a contract to perform services in new york subjecting foreign guarantor to jurisdiction under 302a1
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: 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). However, the non-moving party may not rest on its pleadings, but bears the burden to "make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of every element essential to [the] case, based on the affidavits or by depositions and admissions on file.” See Harter v. GAF Corp., 967 F.2d 846, 852 (3d Cir. 1992). 6 . The court presumes that plaintiffs’ civil rights claims arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, although the complaint does not specifically say so. The civil rights claims appear to be based on allegations of false arrest and malicious prosecution; thus, the court treats these claims as allegations of a violation of Gatter's rights under the Fourth Amendment. See Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271-74, 114 S.Ct. 807, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Hilfirty v. Shipman, 91 F.3d 573, 579 (3d Options: A. recognizing that an alleged deprivation of the right to be free from prosecution without probable cause might be judged under the fourth amendment B. holding fourth amendment protects right to be free from arrest without probable cause C. holding failure of prosecution to disclose evidence that may be favorable to the accused is a violation of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment D. holding that there is no fourteenth amendment substantive due process right to be free from malicious prosecution and suggesting that such a cause of action might lie under the fourth amendment E. holding that the fourth amendment right implicated in a malicious prosecution action is the right to be free of unreasonable seizure of the person

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that there is no fourteenth amendment substantive due process right to be free from malicious prosecution and suggesting that such a cause of action might lie 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of majority). While there may be an extreme case where the delay was so long and so prejudicial that it would violate due process to allow the case to proceed, this case is not close to that line. Delay also works to the disadvantage of a plaintiff, who bears the burden of proof, and loss or destruction of potential evidence, as the defendants allege occurred here, may be addressed through spoliation arguments or instructions where appropriate. See OCGA § 24-4-22; Cotton States Fertilizer Co. v. Childs, 179 Ga. 23, 30-31 (174 SE 708) (1934). Where the General Assembly wishes to put a firm deadline on filing lawsuits, it knows how to enact a statute of repose instead of a statute of limitation. See, e.g., OCGA § 9-3-71 (b), (c); Wright v. Robinson, 262 Ga. 844, 845 (426 SE2d 870) (1993) (<HOLDING>). 3. The trial court also found that Boyd was Options: A. holding that statute of repose was not subject to toiling provision applicable to statute of limitations because among other reasons it would ignore fundamental distinctions between ordinary statutes of limitations and statutes of repose B. holding that when the legislature enacts a statute it is presumed that the legislature is aware of existing statutes C. holding that statute was one of repose because it embodies the most distinctive characteristic of a statute of repose the barring of the right to bring an action rather than the remedy prescribed D. holding that the legislature never intended for the dismissal and renewal statutes to overcome the statute of repose E. holding that provision has the characteristics of a statute of repose

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the legislature never intended for the dismissal and renewal statutes to overcome the statute of repose
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: Other than to other parties to this Letter Agreement or to the Noteholder’s and each Syndicatee’s representatives, including, without limitation, its officers, directors, partners, legal and other advisors, employees, agents and affiliates, the Noteholder and each Syndicatee has maintained the confidentiality of all disclosures made to it in connection with this transaction (including the existence and terms of this transaction). The Noteholder and each Syndicatee acknowledges that, as a result of certain confidential information disclosed to it, the Noteholder and each Syndicatee may be subject to restrictions on its ability to trade in the Company’s securities prior to public announcement of such information.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Your base annual salary commencing October 1, 2016 will be $450,000 per year. You will be paid $18,750 semi-monthly subject to withholding of all applicable taxes and benefit deductions.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Co., 881 F.2d 309, 315 (6th Cir.1989) and Laborers’ Pension Trust Fund v. Weinberger Homes, 872 F.2d 702 (6th Cir.1988)). Ac cordingly, we GRANT Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment with regards to the state and federal age discrimination claims. 2. Plaintiff’s ERISA Violation Claim. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant also fired him to avoid Plaintiffs full pension benefits from vesting. The Defendant has moved to dismiss because the Plaintiff did not exhaust all of his administrative remedies. a. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies. The Plaintiff has brought this action under section 510 of ERISA which provides: [It is unlawful] for any person to discharge ... a participant or beneficiary ... for the purpose of interfering with the attainment , 891 F.2d 842 (11th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Because it appears that when deciding whether Options: A. holding exhaustion of administrative remedies not required prior to bringing statutory claim under erisa B. holding that proper exhaustion of administrative remedies is necessary under section 1997ea C. holding that the decision whether to apply the exhaustion requirement in an erisa case is committed to the district courts sound discretion but that the district court abused its discretion by not dismissing the suit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies D. holding mason did not take away discretion from district court to allow suit without exhaustion of administrative remedies E. recognizing that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to bringing a 1983 action

assistant: The best answer is D. holding mason did not take away discretion from district court to allow suit without exhaustion of administrative remedies
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: is that the 60-day vacancy clause was waived because one of Kelleher’s adjustors advised him that there were no time constraints for repairs of property damaged by Hurricane Katrina and that the 60-day vacancy clause was waived for such properties. According to Dr. Chapital, he was never informed that the 60-day vacancy clause had been reinstated until Citizens denied his fire claim. Dr. Chapital’s sole support for his position is his own affidavit, quoted earlier in this opinion, in which he attests to these facts. Kelleher, joined by Citizens, contends that Dr. Chapital’s affidavit should be disregarded because it is inconsistent with his earlier deposition testimony. See Row v. Pierremont Plaza, LLC, 35,796, p. 15 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/3/02), 814 So.2d 124, 131 (citation omitted) (<HOLDING>). In his deposition, Dr. Chapital testified Options: A. holding that a deposition is the time for the plaintiff to make a record capable of surviving summary judgment not a later filed affidavit B. holding that to have standing under the cfa a private party must plead a claim of ascertainable loss that is capable of surviving a motion for summary judgment C. holding that it is well settled that a plaintiff may not create a factual issue for the purpose of defeating a motion for summary judgment by filing an affidavit contradicting a statement the plaintiff made in a prior deposition D. holding that in order to have standing under the act a private party must plead a claim of ascertainable loss that is capable of surviving a motion for summary judgment E. holding that the court may disregard an affidavit submitted solely for the purpose of opposing a motion for summary judgment when that affidavit is directly contradicted by deposition testimony and the nonmovant does not explain the discrepancies

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a deposition is the time for the plaintiff to make a record capable of surviving summary judgment not a later filed affidavit
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: de Victoria, 66 M.J. 67, 71 (C.A.A.F.2008). To invoke jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3731, the relevant United States Attorney must certify that a federal appeal is taken because the evidence excluded is substantial proof of a material fact. The military justice system includes essentially the same requirement. See R.C.M. 908(b)(3). In addition, the Judge Advocate General’s representative must decide whether to file the appeal. R.C.M. 908(b)(6). Here, we must determine whether the appellee’s statements to SA KS, standing alone, are “substantial proof of ... faet[s] material in the proceeding.” Art. 62(a)(1)(B), UCMJ. We conclude that they are. Admissions of an accused represent a unique source of strong evidentiary weight. See United States v. Wuterich, 67 M.J. 63, 78 (C.A.A.F.2008) (<HOLDING>). While the Government had n o consider this Options: A. recognizing that each ditch system is unique and has individualized needs B. holding that while uniform standards may not exist the unique nature of fingerprints is counterintuitive to the establishment of such a standard C. recognizing the unique nature of an accuseds admissions D. holding that the nature of a psychologistpatient relationship is such that the psychologist is in a unique position to influence the patients emotional wellbeing E. holding that the unique nature of psychotherapistpatient relationship gives rise to a duty of care to the patient

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing the unique nature of an accuseds admissions
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices and other communications under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be given by hand delivery, facsimile or first class mail and shall be deemed to have been duly given upon hand delivery, or three days after mailing or 24 hours after transmission by facsimile. Any notice to be given under the terms of this Agreement to the Company shall be addressed to the Company in care of its Secretary and any notice to be given to the Employee shall be addressed to him at the address given beneath his signature hereto. By a notice given pursuant to this Section 5, either party may hereafter designate a different address for notices to be given to such party. Any notice which is required to be given to the Employee shall, if the Employee is then deceased, be given to the Employee’s personal representative if such representative has previously informed the Company of his status and address by written notice under this Section 5.

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: is common in adversary proceedings for expert witnesses to be present during the presentation of factual testimony so that they have a foundation on which to base their opinions. See, e.g., Federal Rule of Evidence 615. Although that Rule authorizes a district court to sequester witnesses to prevent them from hearing the testimony of other witnesses, it also provides several exceptions, including an exception for “a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of the party’s cause.” Fed.R.Evid. 615(3). The Advisory Committee notes specify that this exception contemplates “an expert needed to advise counsel in the management of the litigation.” Fed.R.Evid. 615(3) Advisory Committee notes. See United States v. Mohney, 949 F.2d 1397, 1404-05 (6th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Morvant v. Construction Aggregates Corp., 570 Options: A. holding that a witness may testify about his subjective interpretation of a conversation in which he is participating as long as his opinion is rationally based on his perception and is helpful either to an understanding of his testimony or to the determination of a fact in issue B. holding that in order to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness to testify the claimant must allege 1 the identity of the potential witness 2 that the witness was available to testify at trial 3 the substance of the witnesss testimony and 4 an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the case C. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiffs expert witness to testify when it also allowed defendants expert witness who disputed the methodology used by plaintiffs expert to testify D. holding that the presence in the courtroom of an expert witness who does not testify to the facts of the case but rather gives his opinion based upon the testimony of others hardly seems suspect and will in most cases be beneficial for he will be more likely to base his expert opinion on a more accurate understanding of the testimony as it evolves before the jury E. holding that an expert witnesss testimony on an ultimate issue was admissible recognizing that the expert did not specifically testify that the defendant was guilty or that as a matter of law the facts satisfied the applicable legal standard

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the presence in the courtroom of an expert witness who does not testify to the facts of the case but rather gives his opinion based upon the testimony of others hardly seems suspect and will in most cases be beneficial for he will be more likely to base his expert opinion on a more accurate understanding of the testimony as it evolves before the 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and, except as expressly provided herein, may not be changed or modified except by an instrument in writing signed by the Seller, the Buyer the Company and the Escrow Agent.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Gibson v. Mendenhall, 203 Okl. 558, 224 P.2d 251 (1950). Under the Oklahoma decisions we think Waugaman’s statement clearly would be regarded as a misrepresentation of law. See First Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. v. Muskogee Discount House, 382 P.2d 137 (Okl.1963). There are exceptions to this rule, however, see id., 382 P.2d at 139, and one arguably applies to this case. If the person making the misrepresentation “has superior means of information, professes a knowledge of the law, and thereby obtains an unconscionable advantage of another who is ignorant and has not been in a situation to become informed, the injured party is entitled to relief . . .” White v. Harrigan, 77 Okl. 123, 186 P. 224, syl. 1 (1919). See Nesbitt v. Home Federal Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 440 P.2d 738, 743 (Okl.1968) (<HOLDING>). Even if we assume that Jane Milburn was Options: A. recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception B. recognizing such an exception C. recognizing the public interest exception D. holding that the court of appeals correctly stated the public policy exception but erroneously concluded that the exception did not apply E. recognizing exception

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: The term “Representatives” means, as to any person, such person’s affiliates (only to the extent that they receive Evaluation Material) and its and their respective directors, officers, employees, managing members, general partners, advisors, agents or representatives (including legal advisors) and, subject to paragraph 5 below, financing sources, but only to the extent that such advisors, agents, representatives or financing sources receive Evaluation Material. 1. You and your Representatives will (ii) keep the Evaluation Material strictly confidential and (except as required by applicable law, regulation or legal process, and only after compliance with paragraph 6 below under the heading “Compelled Disclosure”) will not, without the Company’s prior written consent, disclose any Evaluation Material to any person, except that the Evaluation Material (or portions thereof) may be disclosed to those of your Representatives who need to know such information solely for the purpose of evaluating a possible Transaction (it being understood that prior to such disclosure your Representatives will be informed of the confidential nature of the Evaluation Material and directed that such information is to be kept confidential and not used for any purpose other than the evaluation of the possible Transaction).

assistant: Yes