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: we embark upon our analysis of the Keystone’s Commerce Clause claim as contained in Count I of the amended complaint. The Board Defendants assert that Count I does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted because, inter alia, Commerce Clause claims cannot be based upon a finding of fact or an analysis of an agency or court. However, as stated above, a reasonable person could read Count I as basing the Commerce Clause claim on the PGCB’s application of the Gaming Act to Keystone. Such “as applied” claims have routinely been deemed cognizable. See Trinova Corp. v. Michigan Dep’t of Treasury, 498 U.S. 358, 111 S.Ct. 818, 112 L.Ed.2d 884 (1991) (rejecting the “as applied” claim on the merits); H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U.S. 525, 545, 69 S.Ct. 657, 93 L.Ed. 865 (1949) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). Consequently, we decline the Options: A. holding that statute which prohibited gun possession near a school zone exceeded congresss authority under the commerce clause because the statute did not regulate activity that had a substantial effect on interstate commerce B. holding that 16913a violates the commerce clause C. holding that the statute as applied violates the commerce clause D. holding 13981 constitutional under the commerce clause E. holding rational basis as standard for commerce clause inquiries

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the statute as applied violates the commerce clause
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 this family[,]” thereby contravening the law’s purported purpose of encouraging “family unity.” Although we have not yet approved the imputation of a parent’s abandonment of LPR status to the parent’s unemancipated child, we now hold that such imputation may be allowed consistent with well-established authority. See Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48, 109 S.Ct. 1597, 104 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989) (“Since most minors are legally incapable of forming the requisite intent to establish a domicile, their domicile is determined by that of their parents.”); Singh v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 400, 409 (6th Cir. 2006) (acknowledging the “BIA’s history of imputing parents’ ... intent to abandon LPR status to their minor children”) ; Senica v. INS, 16 F.3d 1013, 1016 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Nikoi v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 939 F.2d Options: A. holding that the bia correctly imputed a parents knowledge that she and her children were not eligible for entry to the united states to her children B. holding that dss was estopped to argue that the respondent mother was competent to surrender her children when dss had previously argued that she was so mentally ill that she could not care for her children C. holding birth mothers samesex partner was a presumed mother because she received the children into her home and openly held them out as her natural children D. holding wife unreasonably exposed neighbors children to danger because she invited the children over in spite of knowing her husband had molested children in the past E. recognizing fundamental right of parents to care for their children

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the bia correctly imputed a parents knowledge that she and her children were not eligible for entry to the united states to her children
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall pay to the Lender its’ out-of-pocket expenses, if any, determined in accordance with Section 9.2 (a) hereof, payable on the date of execution of this Agreement. Prior to maturity, for each payment of principal or interest not paid when due (subject to applicable grace period), a late fee equal to the greater of one percent (1.00%) of the amount of such payment or twenty five dollars ($25).

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: To the extent applicable, the Participant shall be subject to the provisions of Section 12 of the Plan with respect to any withholding or other tax obligations in connection with the grant, vesting or settlement of the Restricted Shares or otherwise in connection with this Agreement. The Participant also acknowledges that it is his, her or its sole responsibility, and not the Company’s, to file timely and properly any election under Section 83(b) of the Code, and any corresponding provisions of state tax laws, if the Participant wishes to utilize such election.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue in full force and effect until the later of (a) ten (10) years after the Effective Date, or (b) expiration of the last-to-expire Valid Claim within the Licensed Patents (the “ Term ”).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Administrative Agent (or its counsel) shall have received (i) from each of the Borrower, the other Loan Parties, the Required Lenders and the Administrative Agent either (A) a counterpart of the Amendment and Restatement Agreement signed on behalf of such party or (B) written evidence satisfactory to the Administrative Agent (which may include facsimile or other electronic transmission of a signed signature page of the Amendment and Restatement Agreement) that such party has signed a counterpart of the Amendment and Restatement Agreement, (ii) either (A) a counterpart of each other Loan Document signed on behalf of each party thereto or (B) written evidence satisfactory to the Administrative Agent (which may include facsimile or other electronic transmission of a signed signature page thereof) that each such party has signed a counterpart of such Loan Document and (iii) such other certificates, documents, instruments and agreements as the Administrative Agent shall reasonably request in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Agreement and the other Loan Documents, including any promissory notes requested by a Lender pursuant to Section 2.10(f) payable to each such requesting Lender and a written opinion of the Loan Parties’ counsel, addressed to the Administrative Agent, the Issuing Bank and the Lenders in substantially the form of Exhibit B , all in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to the Administrative Agent and its counsel and as further described in the list of closing documents attached as Exhibit E .

assistant: Amendments
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: Not later than five (5) Business Days after receipt thereof by any Loan Party or any Subsidiary thereof, copies of all notices, requests and other documents (including amendments, waivers and other modifications) so received under or pursuant to any instrument, indenture, loan or credit or similar agreement and, from time to time upon request by the Administrative Agent, such information and reports regarding such instruments, indentures and loan and credit and similar agreements as the Administrative Agent may reasonably request.

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: that the trial court may grant a grandparent leave to intervene in a pending suit filed by a party authorized under section 102 of the Family Code to bring an original suit affecting the parent-child relationship. Section 102.004(b), as it existed at the time that Carol and Douglas filed their divorce, provided that: An original suit requesting possessory conservatorship may not be filed by a grandparent or other person. However, the court may grant a grandparent or other person deemed by the court to have had substantial past contact with the child leave to intervene in a pending suit filed by a person authorized to do so under this subchapter. Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 102.004(b) (Vernon Supp.2006) (emphasis added); see In re MAM, 35 S.W.3d 788, 790 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2001, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); McCord, 111 S.W.2d at 812 (“It has been held Options: A. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the state to introduce direct evidence of the controlling nature of defendants relationship with the victim B. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the intervention of biological grandparent under section 102004b C. holding that the trial court did not exceed its discretion under rule 403 by allowing evidence that provided background for the crime charged D. holding trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling based only on affidavits E. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting such a temporary injunction

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the intervention of biological grandparent under section 102004b
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: task of resolving “how much” adherence to NCP regulations is “enough.” The court must instead find a more principled method for deciding whether a party has substantially complied with the public participation requirement. The cases do not always express such a principle. Sometimes, in finding that a party has failed to substantially comply with the public participation requirement, courts have simply emphasized what the party did not do, without explaining why the omitted conduct was necessary. See Reg’l Airport Auth., 460 F.3d at 707 (although acknowledging that compliance with certain NCP provision was only “ ‘potentially’ required,” holding — without explanation — that such compliance was required “under the facts of this case”); Carson Harbor Village, 433 F.3d at 1266 n. 5 (<HOLDING>). Other courts, in finding that a party did Options: A. recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public B. holding that meetings with representatives of various affected parties were insufficient to meet public participation requirement because there was never an opportunity for the public at large to comment on the plan without explaining why such opportunity was necessary C. holding that public participation requirement was satisfied in part because the ncp policy is to allow potentially responsible parties an opportunity to comment before costs are incurred and no prps were denied an opportunity to comment D. holding that public meeting did not satisfy public participation requirement because public did not receive adequate notice E. holding five day public comment period on a portion of an ea insufficient remanding for further public comment

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that meetings with representatives of various affected parties were insufficient to meet public participation requirement because there was never an opportunity for the public at large to comment on the plan without explaining why such opportunity was necessary
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: may be introduced against a co-conspirator under the exception for admissions or statements of party opponent on the theory that one co-conspirator is the agent of another”) (italics added). 25 . See Fed.R.Evid. 803(3) (providing that a “statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind ... (such as intent [or] plan ...)" is not excluded by the hearsay rule). 26 . In light of this disposition, it is unnecessary for us to reach Boyd’s additional arguments that his convictions fail for lack of proof that he constructively possessed the pistol and that the government’s reliance solely on a certificate-of-no-record to prove lack of a license and registration violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause. See Tabaka v. District of Columbia, 976 A.2d 173 (D.C.2009) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). 27 . Walker's challenge is to all of his Options: A. holding the rule of griffith v kentucky 479 us 314 107 sct 708 93 led2d 649 1987 does not require retroactive application to convictions challenged on habeas corpus B. recognizing that references to and descriptions of the jurys verdict as advisory as a recommendation and of the judge as the final sentencing authority are permissible under romano v oklahoma 512 us 1 114 sct 2004 129 led2d 1 1994 C. holding that procedural errors at sentencing are routinely subject to harmlessness review quoting puckett v united states 556 us 129 141 129 sct 1423 173 led2d 266 2009 D. holding that the rule announced in simmons v south carolina 512 us 154 114 sct 2187 129 led2d 133 1994 doesnt apply retroactively on collateral review E. holding on the basis of melendezdiaz v massachusetts us 129 sct 2527 174 led2d 314 2009 that a certificate of norecord is testimonial

assistant: The best answer is E. holding on the basis of melendezdiaz v massachusetts us 129 sct 2527 174 led2d 314 2009 that a certificate of norecord is testimonial
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: by an untimely filing of a grievance if it is accepted and decided on the merits by the appropriate prison authority.” Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 125 (2d Cir.2011); see also Camp v. Brennan, 219 F.3d 279, 281 (3d Cir.2000). Here, however, contrary to Dr. Martinez’s assertion, Spada’s 2013 grievance was neither accepted nor decided on the merits. Cf. Camp, 219 F.3d at 281; see also Riccardo v. Rausch, 375 F.3d 521, 524 (7th Cir.2004) (“[W in circumstances a prisoner is required to attempt exhaustion of a grievance even when that attempt would be untimely. See Bryant v. Rich, 530 F.3d 1368, 1378-79 (11th Cir.2008). However, in those cases a prisoner is generally required to submit a grievance that would otherwise be untimely only if the time limits may be waived. See, e.g., id. (<HOLDING>). In Pennsylvania, however, the grievance Options: A. holding that plaintiff could not look to the courts for relief because he did not exhaust his administrative remedies under the adea B. holding that the prisoner must exhaust his administrative remedies as to each defendant later sued C. holding that a prisoner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies when he did not utilize grievance procedures that permitted waiver of the time limit for good cause D. holding that a prisoner exhausted his administrative remedies even though his grievance was untimely E. holding remedies not available to prisoner where officials failed to respond to his grievance during time period required by regulations

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a prisoner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies when he did not utilize grievance procedures that permitted waiver of the time limit for good cause
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to satisfy Plaintiffs’ pleading burden. See Purchase Real Estate, 2010 WL 3377504, at *8 (“While courts have made an exception to the particularity requirements and have allowed allegations to be based on information and belief when facts are peculiarly within the opposing party’s knowledge, this exception must not be mistaken for license to base claims of fraud on speculation and conclusory allegations, especially in the context of RICO claims.” (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)). Additionally, Plaintiffs have not established open-ended continuity — which requires a threat of ongoing, continuing criminal activity — because they specifically allege that the enterprise ended in 2006. (7km. Compl. ¶¶ 639, 664.) See Purchase Real Estate, 2010 WL 3377504, at *11 (<HOLDING>). Because Plaintiffs have not properly alleged Options: A. holding that the district court did not err in finding the record sufficient to conclude prior conviction qualified as a violent felony for purposes of the acca as the evidence was sufficient to conclude the criminal action charged in one court was the basis for a judgment against the defendant in a different court B. holding that notice of appeal did not divest the district court of jurisdiction at the time it was filed because a motion for reconsideration was pending C. holding that openended continuity was not established where plaintiffs had alleged no basis from which the court could conclude that continuation of the purported racketeering activities was likely at the time the complaint was filed D. holding that a jury could find a nineteen month period of racketeering activity sufficient to satisfy continuity requirement E. holding that where the issue of sanctions was not before the court of appeals when the appeal was filed the district court retained jurisdiction

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that openended continuity was not established where plaintiffs had alleged no basis from which the court could conclude that continuation of the purported racketeering activities was likely at the time the complaint was 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: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of any assignee or successor in interest to PepsiCo, whether by merger, consolidation or the sale of all or substantially all of PepsiCo’s assets. PepsiCo will require any successor (whether direct or indirect, by purchase, merger, consolidation or otherwise) to all or substantially all of the business and/or assets of PepsiCo expressly to assume and agree to perform this Agreement in the same manner and to the same extent that PepsiCo would be required to perform it if no such succession had taken place. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Participant or his or her legal representative and any person to whom the PSUs and LTC Award may be transferred by will or the applicable laws of descent and distribution.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Even if one assumes that the language in the order makes it a “prepare” order, as the Estate argues, it is clear that the nurse did not do that. The Estate argued that the doctor had some further duty to question the nurse and anesthesiologist as to whether the antibiotic had actually been given. But the attending doctor does not administer the antibiotic, as all the hospital’s personnel knew; the anesthesiologist does. She had already told the nurse through her standing order to have it ready “for infusion at the time of cord clamping.” This Court has previously recognized that the operating doctor is not “the captain of the ship” to the extent that he or she is responsible for the duties of other operating room personnel. See Nazar v. Branham, 291 S.W.3d 599, 607-08 (Ky.2009) (<HOLDING>). While it may be true that the doctor could Options: A. holding that a city could not be held vicariously liable for the act of a magistrate who was immune from liability B. holding that absent facts that showed that an agency relationship existed a surgeon may not be presumed to be a principal and therefore was not vicariously liable for the negligent acts of the nurses in the operating room C. holding that agency relationship existed where principal paid plaintiff directly and written agreement stated agent was signing on behalf of principal D. holding that while an agents knowledge is imputed to the principal due to the identity of interests that is presumed when an agent acts within the scope of an agency relation this rule does not operate in the converse and the agent cannot be imputed with the information which its principal has failed to give it E. holding that public entities may be held vicariously hable for the negligent acts of their individual employees

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that absent facts that showed that an agency relationship existed a surgeon may not be presumed to be a principal and therefore was not vicariously liable for the negligent acts of the nurses in the operating room
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: Upon the payment in full of the Obligations and termination of the Security Agreement, the Grantee shall, at the reasonable request of the Grantor, execute, acknowledge, and deliver to the Grantor an instrument in writing in recordable form releasing the collateral pledge, grant, lien and security interest in the Copyrights listed on Schedule I attached hereto.

assistant: Terminations
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: v. Texas Iron Works, 813 S.W.2d 483, 485-86 (Tex.1991) (explaining that Chapter 21 “establishes "a comprehensive administrative review system to carry out the policies embodied in Title VII” and “clearly encourages compliance through voluntary resolution, conference, conciliation, and persuasion — informal processes other than litigation”). •When an employee disclaims any intent to file a charge, the request does not trigger any investigation or attempt at a resolution. Allowing the employee to bring suit against her employer without first exhausting those .administrative remedies would frustrate the intent behind both federal and state statutory schemes. See Patterson, 491 U.S. at 180-81, 109 S.Ct. at 2374-75; Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams, 313 S.W.3d 796, 809, 811-12 (Tex.2010) (<HOLDING>); City of Waco v. Lopez, 259 S.W.3d 147, 154-55 Options: A. recognizing that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to bringing a 1983 action B. holding that claim for sexual harassment exists only under statute which preempts any common law claim based on allegations giving rise to statutory claim plaintiff cannot evade statutory exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement and other unique features of chapter 21 by bringing suit under commonlaw theory C. recognizing that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not required as a prerequisite to bringing an action pursuant to 1983 D. holding exhaustion of administrative remedies not required prior to bringing statutory claim under erisa E. recognizing that issue exhaustion requirement and requirement exhaustion of remedies are different

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that claim for sexual harassment exists only under statute which preempts any common law claim based on allegations giving rise to statutory claim plaintiff cannot evade statutory exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement and other unique features of chapter 21 by bringing suit under commonlaw theory
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: face value, plus value of double indemnity feature, was amount in controversy in suit seeking declaratory relief restoring policy to force); Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America v. Muniz, 101 F.3d 93, 94 (11th Cir.1996) (face value of policy, not loan value, cash surrender value, or paid-up value of polices, was amount in controversy in insurer’s action seeking cancellation of life insurance policies); New York Life Ins. Co. v. Swift, 38 F.2d 175, 176-77 (5th Cir.1930) (same). 14. The Supreme Court had held that each member of a class action must meet the amo . 358, 363 (D.N.J.1996) (same); Vairo Affirm, (observing that plain meaning of section 1367 supports finding that section 1367 overruled Zahn); see also Stromberg Metal Works v. Press Mechanical, Inc., 77 F.3d 928, 930 (7th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Gandolfo v. U-Haul International, Inc., Civ. Options: A. holding that the requirement of an actual case or controversy is a jurisdictional prerequisite under the constitution B. holding that tennessee electric power co v tva 306 us 118 59 sct 366 83 led 543 1939 had improperly conflated the merits question of whether the plaintiff inthat case had a cause of action with the justiciability question of whether the plaintiff had standing to raise a federalism challenge C. holding that a plain reading of section 1367 overrules zahn D. holding that district court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a coplaintiff claim that fails to meet the amount in controversy requirement E. holding that by its plain meaning section 1367 overrules clark v paul gray inc 306 us 583 59 sct 744 83 led 1001 1939 in which the supreme court held in a nonclass action case that each plaintiffs claim must satisfy the amount in controversy requirement

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that by its plain meaning section 1367 overrules clark v paul gray inc 306 us 583 59 sct 744 83 led 1001 1939 in which the supreme court held in a nonclass action case that each plaintiffs claim must satisfy the amount in controversy requirement
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to perform. Section Four of the contract provides that Lowe’s is not obligated to lease the premises if Lowe’s determines that the site is not suitable for its intended purposes. Under Michigan law, mutuality of obligation is an essential element of a valid contract. Thomas v. Leja, 187 Mich.App. 418, 468 N.W.2d 58, 60 (1991). Mutuality of obligation means that both parties to an agreement must be bound by the contract, or neither is bound. Domas v. Rossi, 52 Mich.App. 311, 217 N.W.2d 75, 77 (1974). However, cancellation or termination clauses do not void a contract for lack of mutuality of obligation, so long as both parties are relieved of their respective obligations in the event the contract is cancelled or terminated. Jaye v. Tobin, 42 Mich.App. 756, 202 N.W.2d 712, 714-15 (1972) (<HOLDING>). The language cited by LL in Section Four of Options: A. holding mutuality of obligation is essential to the formation of a bilateral contract B. holding that a contract need not have mutuality of obligation as long as it is supported by consideration C. holding that the consent of both parties is required to annul their contract D. holding a cancellation clause that releases both parties from their obligations does not render contract void for lack of mutuality of obligation E. holding that a contract without a minimum quantity term is unenforceable for lack of consideration and mutuality

assistant: The best answer is D. holding a cancellation clause that releases both parties from their obligations does not render contract void for lack of mutuality of obligation
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: yield of money is approximately two percent); O'Shea v. Riverway Towing Co., 677 F.2d 1194, 1199 (7th Cir.1982) (Posner, J.) ("In periods when no inflation is anticipated, the risk-free interest rate is between one and three percent.”); id. at 1200 (indicating that one-half percent is "lower than most economists believe [the real rate of interest on safe investments] to be for any substantial period of time”); Feldman v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc., 382 F.Supp. 1271, 1293-94 (D.Conn.1974) (explaining that: an inflation-adjusted discount rate should be used; the rate should be about two percent during stable periods of low inflation; and it should be approximately one and one-half percent when inflation is high and/or unpredictable); see also Pfeifer, 462 U.S. at 548-49, 103 S.Ct. at 2556 (<HOLDING>); Culver v. Slater Boat Co., 722 F.2d 114, 122 Options: A. holding that a trial court using a real growth rate of between one and three percent will not be reversed if it explains its choice B. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest at the colorado statutory rate of 8 percent C. holding that a four percent error rate constitutes substantial compliance with a statute D. holding that where the proper rate of interest was eight percent but the court ordered six percent movant had waived right to higher rate by not raising the issue earlier in its petition for review E. holding that a 50 percent error rate would constitute a substantial risk of erroneous deprivation

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a trial court using a real growth rate of between one and three percent will not be reversed if it explains its choice
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 perform, execute, acknowledge and deliver or cause to be performed, executed, acknowledged and delivered all such further and other acts, instruments and assurances as may reasonably be required by the Warrant Agent for the carrying out or performing of the provisions of this Agreement.

assistant: Further Assurances
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: Aug. 14, 2001) (Gottschall, J.); order denying summary judgment, Hyman v. Tate & Kirlin, No. 02-242 (N.D.Ill. Nov. 1, 2002) (Kennelly, J.). But I am persuaded by the reasoning of Judge Lefkow in Bolen v. Bass, No. 97-3944, 2001 WL 1249058, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16964 (N.D.Ill. Oct. 17, 2001). One goal of the Bankruptcy Code, expressed in Cox, is to consolidate related issues in one proceeding. Recognizing a right of action under the FDCPA in cases where the Bankruptcy Court offers an adequate remedy would “interfere with the Bankruptcy Code’s comprehensive bankruptcy scheme.” Bolen, 2001 WL 1249058, at *3, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16964 at *15. See also Wehrheim v. Secrest, No. 00-1328, 2002 WL 31242783, at *6, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19020, at *19 (S.D.Ind. Aug. 16, 2002) (Tinder, J.) (<HOLDING>). Defendant’s motion to dismiss is Options: A. holding that pleadings are initial communication under fdcpa B. holding that cox precludes private suits under the fdcpa that might be pursued in the bankruptcy court C. holding that back rent is debt under the fdcpa D. holding that neither injunctive nor declaratory relief is available to private litigants under the fdcpa E. holding that the cox bankruptcy court struck a balance too harshly against a creditor when it found that credit card debt could not be found nondischargeable under section 523a2a

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that cox precludes private suits under the fdcpa that might be pursued in the bankruptcy 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: time as the enforcement officer files a report under oath stating that such violator is not a prepaid or guaranteed account holder and does not have a valid agreement for the same with the authority for whom they are attempting to enforce this statute. The County Courts of both Seminole and Brevard are hereby ordered to dismiss any action currently pending where such an affidavit has not been filed. The written opinion was issued on April 22, 2008. DOT filed a motion for rehearing arguing that the circuit court’s appellate opinion incorrectly decided issues and ordered relief not raised at the trial court level or on appeal, and improperly relied upon the terms of a “license and use agreement” between Baird and the Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority, e 579 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>). With respect to the law governing a circuit Options: A. recognizing that an injunction cannot bind parties who are not before this court B. recognizing that a court is without jurisdiction to issue an injunction which would interfere with the rights of those who are not parties to the action C. holding that a lower court should not take any action once appeal is filed which would interfere with the appeal process or with the appellate courts jurisdiction D. holding only that although a party cannot interfere with its own contract a supervisor who is not an officer of a plaintiffs employer is not a party to the plaintiffs employment contract and therefore can interfere with it E. holding that trial court erred by entering restraining order against former husbands current wife who was not a party or served with process as a court is without jurisdiction to issue an injunction which would interfere with the rights of those who are not parties to the action

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that a court is without jurisdiction to issue an injunction which would interfere with the rights of those who are not parties to the action
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: google gives you a personal , worldwide , royalty-free , non-assignable and non-exclusive license to use the software provided to you by google as part of the services .

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: by the trial court. The motion in limine precluded plaintiff from: eliciting testimony, through deposition or at trial, of Legion representatives until after a period of time sufficient to allow Legion, as a newly intervening party, a fair and adequate opportunity to prepare for trial. Legion also moves this [c]ourt for an [o]rder in [ljimine precluding the [pjlaintiff in this action from introducing new claims not raised in the complaint or agreed to in the pre-trial order. Defendants contend this motion was violated because plaintiffs counsel only questioned Von Eschen about the method by which defendant Legion processed claims and handled lawsuits and did not ask of him any questions regarding this accident. Defendants assert plaintiff’s strategy in asking these qu d 479 (1999) (<HOLDING>); and Martin v. Benson, 348 N.C. 684, 500 Options: A. holding defendant failed to preserve for appeal the question of admissibility of evidence that was the subject of the motion in limine where defendant failed to object to evidence when offered at trial B. holding motion in limine is insufficient to preserve question of admissibility of evidence if movant fails to further object when it is offered C. recognizing a ruling sustaining a motion in limine merely adds a procedural step to the offer of evidence and that if the evidence is not offered there is nothing preserved to review on appeal D. holding that for error to be preserved on appeal with regard to admission of evidence in violation of a ruling on a motion in limine that the evidence is inadmissible an objection should be made at the time the evidence is offered E. holding that failure to object does not preclude raising the issue on appeal where erroneous evidence is offered in violation of an order in limine

assistant: The best answer is B. holding motion in limine is insufficient to preserve question of admissibility of evidence if movant fails to further object when it is offered
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No Participant shall receive any payment under this Plan unless and until the Committee has certified, by resolution or other appropriate action in writing, that the amount thereof has been accurately determined in accordance with the terms, conditions and limits of this Plan and that the applicable Performance Goals applicable to the Award were in fact satisfied. Bonus payments shall be made in cash; provided, however, that the Committee may provide (at the time of grant of an Award or at any time on or before the Payment Date for that Award) that all or a specified portion of a Bonus payment for that Award will be made in shares of Company common stock of equivalent fair market value as of the applicable Payment Date. Any shares of Company common stock issued or delivered in payment of an Award shall be charged against the applicable share limits of the Performance Incentive Plan. Any fractional share shall be settled in cash. Any Bonus payment for a Performance Period shall be made on the Payment Date for that Performance Period.

assistant: Payments
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 parties agree that failure of any party to perform its agreements and covenants hereunder, including a party’s failure to take all actions as are necessary on such party’s part in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Warrant to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby, will cause irreparable injury to the other party, for which monetary damages, even if available, will not be an adequate remedy. It is agreed that the parties shall be entitled to equitable relief including injunctive relief and specific performance of the terms hereof, without the requirement of posting a bond or other security, and each party hereby consents to the issuance of injunctive relief by any court of competent jurisdiction to compel performance of a party’s obligations and to the granting by any court of the remedy of specific performance of such party’s obligations hereunder, this being in addition to any other remedies to which the parties are entitled at law or equity.

assistant: Specific Performance
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 extend to and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their respective heirs, representatives, successors and assigns. This Agreement may not be assigned by the Executive, but may be assigned by the Company to any person or entity that succeeds to the ownership or operation of the business in which the Executive is primarily employed by the Company.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you agree that you are making use of our services at your own risk , and that they are being provided to you on an `` as is '' and `` as available '' basis .

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: The Investor shall have the right to approve before issuance any press release, SEC filing or any other public disclosure made by or on behalf of the Company whatsoever with respect to, in any manner, the Investor, its purchases hereunder or any aspect of the Transaction Documents or the transactions contemplated thereby; provided, however, that the Company shall be entitled, without the prior approval of the Investor, to make any press release or other public disclosure (including any filings with the SEC) with respect to such transactions as is required by applicable law and regulations (including the regulations of the Principal Market), so long as prior to making any such press release or other public disclosure the Company and its counsel shall have provided the Investor and its counsel with a reasonable opportunity to review and comment upon, and shall have consulted with the Investor and its counsel on the form and substance of, such press release or other public disclosure. The Company agrees and acknowledges that its failure to fully comply with this provision constitutes a Material Adverse Effect. The Company shall have the right to approve before issuance any press release or any other public disclosure made by or on behalf of the Investor whatsoever with respect to, in any manner, the Company or any aspect of the Transaction Documents or the transactions contemplated thereby; provided, however, that the Investor shall be entitled, without the prior approval of the Company, to make any press release or other public disclosure with respect to such transactions as is required by applicable law and regulations, so long as prior to making any such press release or other public disclosure the Investor and its counsel shall have provided the Company and its counsel with a reasonable opportunity to review and comment upon, and shall have consulted with the Company and its counsel on the form and substance of, such press release or other public disclosure.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Participant acknowledges that, regardless of any action taken by the Company, the ultimate liability for all income tax, social insurance, payroll tax, fringe benefits tax, payment on account or other tax-related items related to the Participant’s participation in the Plan and legally applicable to the Participant (“ Tax-Related Items ”) is and remains the Participant’s responsibility and may exceed the amount actually withheld by the Company. The Participant shall pay to the Company or make arrangements satisfactory to the Company for payment of any Tax-Related Items required by law to be withheld on account of the receipt of this Award.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 1. 36 . See Guard v. P & R Enterprises, Inc., 631 P.2d 1068, 1072 (Alaska 1981). 37 . City of Whittier v. Whittier Fuel & Marine Corp., 577 P.2d 216, 223 (Alaska 1978) (quoting Levene v. City of Salem, 191 Or. 182, 229 P.2d 255, 263 (1951)), disapproved of on other grounds by Native Alaskan Reclamation & Pest Control, Inc. v. United Bank Alaska, 685 P.2d 1211 (Alaska 1984). 38 . 631 P.2d at 1072 (first citing Standard Mach. Co. v. Duncan Shaw Corp., 208 F.2d 61, 64-65 (1st Cir. 1953); Leoni v. Bemis Co., 255 N.W.2d 824, 826 (Minn. 1977); El Fredo Pizza, Inc. v. Roto-Flex Oven Co., 199 Neb. 697, 261 N.W.2d 358, 364 (1978)“; then citing Gen. Elec. Supply Co. v. Mt. Wheeler Power, Inc., 94 Nev. 766, 587 P.2d 1312, 1313 (1978)); see also Sisters of Providence in Wash., 81 P.3d at 1007 (<HOLDING>), 39 . Guard, 631 P.2d at 1072 n.4 (citing Options: A. holding that expert testimony accompanied by the testimony of two doctors with similar practices and defendants preliminary revenue estimates supported a finding of lost profits B. holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive C. holding that the admissibility of expert testimony was governed by state law D. holding on similar facts that the evidence supported a finding that the plaintiffs subpoenaed testimony was spoken as a private citizen E. holding expert testimony remedies speculation by the court

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that expert testimony accompanied by the testimony of two doctors with similar practices and defendants preliminary revenue estimates supported a finding of lost profits
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Wherever possible, each provision of the NPA Documents shall be interpreted in such manner as to be effective and valid under applicable law, but if any provision of any NPA Document shall be prohibited by or invalid under applicable law, such provision shall be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition or invalidity, without invalidating the remainder of such provision or the remaining provisions of such NPA Document. Except as otherwise expressly provided for in the NPA Documents, no termination or cancellation (regardless of cause or procedure) of any financing arrangement under the NPA Documents shall in any way affect or impair the Obligations, duties, covenants, representations and warranties, indemnities, and liabilities of Borrowers or any other Credit Party or the rights of Purchaser relating to any unpaid Obligation, (due or not due, liquidated, contingent or unliquidated), or any transaction or event occurring prior to such termination, or any transaction or event, all of which shall not terminate or expire, but rather shall survive such termination or cancellation and shall continue in full force and effect until the Termination Date; provided , that all indemnity obligations of the Credit Parties under the NPA Documents shall survive the Termination Date. The Section titles contained in any NPA Document are and shall be without substantive meaning or content of any kind whatsoever and are not a part of the agreement between the parties thereto.

assistant: Severability