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: 1415(e)(2). The only evidence outside the administrative record the plaintiff proffers is a report from Dr. Daniel Ling. See Pl.’s Resp., Exhibit 27. Thus, the court will decide the defendant’s summary judgment motion based on the administrative record and Dr. Ling’s report. 2 . Shortly after the death of the plaintiff’s mother, Mr. O'Toole began dating Ms. Fulgham. Ms. Fulgham took an active role in the plaintiff's education. In October of 1993, Mr. O’Toole and Ms. Fulgham were married. 3 . The plaintiff controverts this key fact. However, the plaintiff does not refer to anything in the record supporting her contention as required by Fed.RXiv.Pro. 56 and D.Kan. Rule 56.1 and, therefore, the fact is deemed uncontroverted. Gross v. Burggraf Constr. Co., 53 F.3d 1531, 1546 (10th Cir.l995)(<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d Options: A. holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if there is a genuine dispute about a material fact B. holding that when there are no genuine issues of material fact summary judgment is appropriate C. holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment D. holding that in order to withstand summary judgment the nonmovant must identify a genuine issue of material fact by reference to an affidavit a deposition transcript or a specific exhibit incorporated therein and that a court need not search the record to find uncited evidence which controverts a material fact E. holding nonmoving partys affidavit created genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of an employment relationship

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that in order to withstand summary judgment the nonmovant must identify a genuine issue of material fact by reference to an affidavit a deposition transcript or a specific exhibit incorporated therein and that a court need not search the record to find uncited evidence which controverts a material fact
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Transaction Documents, together with the Exhibits and Schedules thereto, contain the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersede all prior agreements, understandings, discussions and representations, oral or written, with respect to such matters, which the parties acknowledge have been merged into such documents, exhibits and schedules. At or after the Closing, and without further consideration, the Company and the Purchasers will execute and deliver to the other such further documents as may be reasonably requested in order to give practical effect to the intention of the parties under the Transaction Documents.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid or unenforceable, the Company and Employee agree that such determination shall not affect the other provisions and that all other provisions shall be enforced as if the invalid provision were not a part of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any of the terms, covenants, or conditions hereof may be waived only by a written instrument executed by or on behalf of the Person waiving compliance. No course of dealing on the part of any Party, or their respective officers, employees, agents, or representatives, nor any failure by a Party to exercise any of its rights under this Agreement shall operate as a waiver thereof or affect in any way the right of such Party at a later time to enforce the performance of such provision. No waiver by any Party of any condition, or any breach of any term or covenant contained in this Agreement, in any one or more instances, shall be deemed to be or construed as a further or continuing waiver of any such condition or breach or a waiver of any other condition or of any breach of any other term or covenant. The rights of Producer and Gatherer under this Agreement shall be cumulative, and the exercise or partial exercise of any such right shall not preclude the exercise of any other right.

assistant: Waivers
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 Employee shall be entitled to annual vacation in the greater of four weeks or in accordance with the policies as periodically established by the Company for other senior executives of the Company. The Employee is also entitled to sick leave (without loss of pay) in accordance with the Company’s policies as in effect from time to time.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Amendment may be executed by one or more of the parties to this Amendment on any number of separate counterparts (including by facsimile or electronic copy), each of which when so executed and delivered shall be deemed an original 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EACH ORIGINATOR AND EACH LESSEE HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVES ANY RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE OR DEFEND ANY RIGHTS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, ANY OTHER TRANSACTION DOCUMENT OR ANY AMENDMENT, INSTRUMENT OR DOCUMENT DELIVERED OR WHICH MAY IN THE FUTURE BE DELIVERED IN CONNECTION HEREWITH OR ARISING FROM ANY BANKING OR OTHER RELATIONSHIP EXISTING IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER TRANSACTION DOCUMENT AND AGREES THAT ANY SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING SHALL BE TRIED BEFORE A COURT AND NOT A JURY.

assistant: Waiver Of Jury Trials
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 judicial action does not “contest the wisdom of broad mili tary policy,” the Feres doctrine requires courts to reject actions which are “the type of claims that, if generally permitted, would involve the judiciary in sensitive military affairs at the expense of military discipline and effectiveness.” Shearer, 473 U.S. at 59, 105 S.Ct. 3039. If a suit requires deep inquiry into military decisions or would strongly impact military discipline, the Feres doctrine will bar it. These considerations that prohibit servicemen’s suits against the government also prompt the extension of the Feres doctrine to prohibit non-servicemen’s suits against the government which are derivative of or ancillary to servicemen’s injuries. See Kendrick v. United States, 877 F.2d 1201, 1206-07 (4th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); Gaspard v. United States, 713 F.2d 1097, 1102 Options: A. holding that burnett and its justification of uniformity is equally applicable to admiralty actions B. holding that the govemment is not liable under the federal tort claims act for injuries to service members where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to military service C. holding that the united states is immune from monetary damages for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service D. holding that feres doctrine is equally applicable to family member claims derivative of a service members injuries E. recognizing doctrine

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that feres doctrine is equally applicable to family member claims derivative of a service members injuries
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 letter (together with the attached Obligations Agreement and Change in Control Agreement) sets forth the entire understanding between the Company and yourself with respect to your employment by the Company. All prior discussions, negotiations, correspondence and other understandings between you and the Company are superseded, and there are no representations, warranties or undertakings by the Company or you with respect to your employment by the Company, which are not set forth in this letter.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All covenants, agreements, representations and warranties made herein shall survive the execution and delivery of the Agreement and the Seller hereby waives the benefit of the applicable statutes of limitations with respect to any of the covenants, agreements, representations and warranties set forth herein. It shall not be a defense in any action by the Purchaser against the Seller arising out of a breach of the Seller’s covenants, agreements, representations and warranties made herein that the Purchaser knew or should have known of the existence of the related breach of such covenants, agreements, representations and warranties.

assistant: Survival
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, for chapter 13 plan purposes, i.e. a $73,906.98 general unsecured claim for Advanta for chapter 13 plan purposes, and a $43,339.19 general unsecured claim for Household for chapter 13 plan purposes. Section 524 does not support Debtors’ request that these unsecured claims be valued at zero for chapter 13 plan purposes, due to the prior chapter 7 discharge. V. Conclusion This opinion constitutes this Court’s findings and fact and conclusions of law with respect to this Court’s Order entered this sa s or partnerships) are not eligible to receive any discharge whatsoever in Chapter 7, though corporations and partnerships may be eligible to receive a discharge in Chapter 11. 16 . See supra, footnotes 12 and 13. 17 . Id. See also, In re Thompson, 182 B.R. 140 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1995) (<HOLDING>). 18 . Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410, 112 S.Ct. Options: A. holding that unless security interest or lien is avoided bankruptcy discharge has little if any impact on creditors ability to proceed in rem against property securing claim B. holding that a party cannot waive in rem jurisdiction under florida law and a court proceeding pursuant to in rem jurisdiction must actually possess in rem jurisdiction over the property that is the subject of the matter C. holding that a state tax lien was not judicial lien arising from judgment such that it could be avoided in bankruptcy by a chapter 13 debtor D. holding that if a debt or had voluntarily granted a security interest that was later avoided the debtor was not entitled to exempt the interest recovered E. holding that section 363f applies only to in rem interests which have attached to the property by way of either the debtors consent to a security interest or the creditors attachment of the property resulting in a lien

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that unless security interest or lien is avoided bankruptcy discharge has little if any impact on creditors ability to proceed in rem against property securing claim
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: Borrower shall have delivered to Bank evidence of insurance coverage on all Borrower's property, in form, substance, amounts, covering risks and issued by companies satisfactory to Bank, and where required by Bank, with loss payable endorsements in favor of Bank.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: state in more than a random, fortuitous, or attenuated way.” ESAB Group, Inc. v. Centricut, Inc., 126 F.3d 617, 625 (4th Cir.1997); see also World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980). In essence, a defendant must have minimum contacts with the forum state, and a court’s exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable. C. While the fact that Aboud’s contacts with Virginia were made on behalf of MBT complicates the traditional due process inquiry, her connection to the Commonwealth is sufficient to support the court’s exercise of jurisdiction. In the typical case, the contacts of a company are not attributed to a corporate agent for jurisdictional purposes. See Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 790, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984) (<HOLDING>). On the other -hand, Aboud is not immune from Options: A. holding that rule 42 did not apply to ex parte contacts with former employees of represented party B. holding that employees contacts with theforum are not to be judged according to their employers activities there C. holding that atwill employees have no contractual relationship with their employers to support a cause of action under section 1981 D. holding that when determining whether a nonresident defendant has continuous and systematic contacts with texas sufficient to support general jurisdiction courts examine the defendants contacts and forumrelated activities only up to the time that suit was filed E. holding that employers are not liable for conduct of ordinary employees because an ordinary employees conduct will normally be so unrelated to the employers business that it cannot be deemed in furtherance thereof

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that employees contacts with theforum are not to be judged according to their employers activities there
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower has disclosed to the Lenders all agreements, instruments, and corporate or other restrictions to which the Borrower or any of its Restricted Subsidiaries is subject, and all other matters known to any of them, that, either individually or in the aggregate, could reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect. No reports, financial statements, certificates or other written information furnished by or on behalf of the Borrower to the Administrative Agent or any Lender in connection with the negotiation of this Agreement or any other Loan Document or delivered hereunder or thereunder (as modified or supplemented by any other information so furnished) contains any material misstatement of fact or omits to state any material fact necessary to make the statements therein, taken as a whole in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not materially misleading; provided that, with respect to projected financial information and forward looking information, the Borrower represents only that such information was prepared in good faith based upon assumptions believed to be reasonable at the time made; it being understood and agreed that such projections are as to future events and are not to be viewed as facts, such projections are subject to significant uncertainties and contingencies and that actual results during the period or periods covered by any such projections may differ significantly from the project results, and that no assurance can be given that the projected results will be realized.

assistant: Disclosures
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 obligations of First Hawaiian under the Plan, with respect to Awards granted hereunder, shall be binding on any successor thereto, whether the existence of such successor is the result of a direct or indirect purchase, merger, consolidation, or otherwise, of all or substantially all of the business and/or assets of First Hawaiian.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the damning nature of her testimony. The information about the threats against Pletcher was essential to explain why she might testify against Simmons even if he was not in fact guilty. 2. Cobaugh’s Firearms Forms Cobaugh’s misrepresentation of her criminal history in attempting to purchase a handgun, and the prosecution’s assistance in helping her to avoid liability for that misrepresentation, were also highly relevant to Simmons’s case. First, Cobaugh made a misstatement under penalty of perjury, a fact that itself could have been used to impeach her testimony. The D.C. Circuit has described such prior perjurious statements as an “infirmity ... that is almost unique in its detrimental effect on a witness’ credibility.” United States v. Cuffie, 80 F.3d 514, 517-18 (D.C.Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, exposing Detective Rok’s and Options: A. holding proponent of a motion for continuance should state what specific discovery is material and show why it is material B. holding that disclosure during discovery of certain kinds of information including privileged material trade secrets attorney work product or material involving a confidential informant could constitute a material injury of an irreparable nature C. holding that any error in excluding impeachment evidence about witnesss drug use in general was harmless when witness was heavily impeached in other ways D. holding that it is proper to refer to evidence of prior acts of misconduct in the closing arguments on the issue of credibility but it is improper to argue about misdeeds for any purpose other than impeachment because the acts were submitted for impeachment purposes only E. holding that undisclosed evidence of witnesss prior perjury was material despite availability of other types of impeachment material

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that undisclosed evidence of witnesss prior perjury was material despite availability of other types of impeachment material
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 summary judgment motion, the district court recognized that Autrey could prevail on his claims of malicious prosecution and his Fourth Amendment claim of wrongful arrest only if the plaintiff could somehow establish that no probable cause for his prosecution had been established. Because a state-court judge had already determined that probable cause existed to bind Autrey over for trial, however, the district court determined that principles of collateral estoppel precluded the plaintiff from pursuing a second time an identical challenge to the quantum of evidence necessary to initiate a criminal prosecution. Additionally concluding that the plaintiff failed to make any showing “that Kennedy an 456 Mich. 365, 572 N.W.2d 603, 610 (1998) (Michigan tort of malicious prosecution) (<HOLDING>). When deciding what role the Michigan state Options: A. holding that malicious prosecution plaintiff must show inter alia that criminal proceeding was initiated without probable cause B. holding that a plaintiff in a retaliatory prosecution action must plead and prove the absence of probable cause for pressing the underlying criminal charge C. holding that a malicious prosecution plaintiff must show inter alia that the criminal proceeding was initiated without probable cause D. holding that the plaintiff must show that the person instituting or maintaining the prosecution lacked probable cause for bringing the action E. holding that the plaintiff must show that there was a lack of probable cause for the criminal prosecution

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the plaintiff must show that the person instituting or maintaining the prosecution lacked probable cause for bringing 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: father of that child. Given that holding, Longoria’s summary judgment motion in this case was in substance merely a motion to abate, see Carter v. Brady, 423 S.W.2d 946, 951 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1967, writ ref'd n.r.e.), the granting of which would merely give Valadez a reasonable opportunity to amend her suit to remove the obstacle to its prosecution. See Texas Highway Dept. v. Jarrell, 418 S.W.2d 486, 488 (Tex.1967). See also, M & M Const. Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 747 S.W.2d 552, 554 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1988, no writ). A summary judgment should not be based on a pleading deficiency that could be cured by amendment. See Dowler v. Delta Inv. Housing, Inc., 834 S.W.2d 127, 129 (Tex.App.—Eastland 1992, no writ). Cf. Massey v. Armco Steel Co., 652 S.W.2d 932, 934 (Tex.1983) (<HOLDING>), citing, Texas Department of Corrections v. Options: A. holding that issue of whether death was proximately caused by intervenihg and superseding cause was not appropriately resolved by summary judgment B. holding that protective features of special exception procedure should not be circumvented by a motion for summary judgment on the pleadings where plaintiffs pleadings fail to state a cause of action C. holding that whether pleadings fail to state a cause of action may not be resolved by summary judgment D. holding that credibility determinations should not be resolved at the summary judgment stage E. holding that pleadings cannot be regarded as summary judgment evidence

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that whether pleadings fail to state a cause of action may not be resolved by summary judgment
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: being under the influence of a drug necessarily poses a threat of concealing (and thereby using or trafficking) additional drugs in jail during the limited time between booking and bail, or booking and placement in the general population. If not, it was unreasonable to assume that Way harbored drugs in some cavity or other. “Reasonable suspicion may be based on such factors as the nature of the offense, the arrestee’s appearance and conduct, and the prior arrest record.” Giles, 746 F.2d at 617. Way was under the control of the arresting officer from the time she was taken into custody at work until booking. The officer perceived no indication that she was carrying drugs or contraband. Compare, e.g., People v. Wade, 208 Cal.App.3d 304, 306-07, 256 Cal.Rptr. 189, 190-91 (Cal.Ct.App.1989) (<HOLDING>). Hanson conducted a pat down search before Options: A. holding that acquiescence to a strip and body cavity search did not extend the scope of defendants consent to search his person because of the highly intrusive nature of the search B. holding that a visual body cavity search requires probable cause and a search warrant C. holding that private physician who conducted cavity search of drug suspect pursuant to facially valid search warrant was entitled to qualified immunity in suspects 1983 action where he did not act on his own initiative or out of selfinterest he was uniquely qualified to perform search procedure and where court found that extending qualified immunity to physicians under the circumstances of this case would benefitf society by effectuating acceptable means to execute body cavity searches pursuant to a warrant issued on probable cause and benefit the party being searched by providing a safe means of conducting the search in a medically approved manner D. holding probable cause to be required for strip and visual body cavity searches E. holding that a body cavity search was justified by the arresting officers observation of the suspect apparently trying to put something beneath his waistband

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a body cavity search was justified by the arresting officers observation of the suspect apparently trying to put something beneath his waistband
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: 22.5 airbnb 's failure to enforce any right or provision in these terms will not constitute a waiver of such right or provision unless acknowledged and agreed to by us in writing .

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 failure of the Company to insist in any one or more instances upon performance of any of the provisions of this Exhibit A or to pursue its rights hereunder shall not be construed as a waiver of any such provisions or the relinquishment of any such rights.

assistant: No Waivers
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 the intent to extort from him either the laptop computer itself if he had possession of it but not on his person, or information about the computer’s whereabouts if he did not have it. On the latter point, Shakir contends that information about an item’s location is not property within the meaning of applicable California law. The California Penal Code defines extortion as the obtaining of property from another with his consent induced by a wrongful use of force or fear. Cal.Penal Code § 518. California courts have held that the term “property,” for purposes of extortion, should be construed broadly and includes intangible property. People v. Kozlowski, 96 Cal.App.4th 853, 866,117 Cal.Rptr.2d 504 (2002); see People v. Kwok, 63 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1251, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 40 (1998) (<HOLDING>). In Kozlowski, the California Court of Appeal Options: A. holding that property includes every intangible benefit and prerogative susceptible of possession or disposition B. holding that the nonmovant need not be given the benefit of every inference but only of every reasonable inference C. holding that a taxpayers interest as an heir to his mothers estate constituted property or a right to property to which federal tax liens attached despite his exercise of the prerogative state law accorded him to disclaim the interest retroactively D. holding that property of a public entity includes having exclusive control and possession of property E. holding where the commonwealth is not in possession of property in question petition for return of property is moot

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that property includes every intangible benefit and prerogative susceptible of possession or disposition
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 constitutes the entire agreement, and supersedes all other prior agreements and understandings, both written and oral, between the parties, or any of them, with respect to the subject matter hereof and is not intended to and shall not confer upon any Person other than the parties hereto any rights or remedies hereunder.

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: benefits from the Tulsa County Employees Retirement Fund and System. The Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County denied Latimer’s application, concluding that he did not meet the minimum eligibility requirements. Latimer appealed the Board’s decision to the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. See Okla. Stat. title 19, § 962. In 1998, the Oklahoma district court allowed Latimer to file a second amended petition wherein he asserted both a federal constitutional claim and a claim implicating the Employee Ret ew of the record, it is clear that Appellees’ motion seeking remand was based on a defect in the removal procedure other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the district court granted the motion on that basis. See Flores v. Long, 110 F.3d 730, 732 (10th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) specifically permits a Options: A. holding this court may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even if different from the district courts grounds B. holding that the decision of the appellate court establishes the law of the case and it must be followed by the trial court on remand C. holding that this court must determine by independent review the actual grounds upon which the remand was based D. holding that to establish grounds for reversal an appellant must challenge all grounds on which the trial court ruled against it E. holding that to preserve an issue for appellate review the specific legal argument or ground upon which it is based must be presented to the trial court

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that this court must determine by independent review the actual grounds upon which the remand was based
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 broker, investment banker, financial advisor or other Person is entitled to any broker’s, finder’s, financial advisor’s or other similar fee or commission in connection with any of the Transactions based upon arrangements made by or on behalf of Parent.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: his desire and ability to proceed pro se on the record, and that a medical expert determined he was competent. The Commonwealth maintains that, based on these factors, the PCRA court properly concluded that Appellant waived counsel under Pa.R.Crim.P. 904(H)(1)(a). The Commonwealth em phasizes that at the May 13, 2013 proceeding, Appellant asserted that he “understands the ramifications and the pitfalls of self[-]representation ...” and “would like to proceed pro se with this case so the Defendant can perfect the record, bring the case before the Court and argue and litigate the proceedings.” N.T., May 13, 2013, at 27-28. Appellant further stated that he was confident that he could represent himself competently. Id., at 28. He acknowledged that if he is not successful, “Atto uper.2005) (<HOLDING>); and United States v. Leggett, 162 F.3d 237, Options: A. holding that the forfeiture of the right to counsel unlike the waiver of such right does not require that the defendant intend to relinquish a right but rather may be the result of the defendants extremely serious misconduct or extremely dilatory conduct B. holding that a defendants unprovoked physical battery of his attorney in the courtroom constituted extremely serious misconduct that amounts to the forfeiture of the right to counsel regardless of whether the defendant intended to relinquish the right C. holding that a defendants unprovoked physical battery of his attorney at a hearing qualifies as the sort of extremely serious misconduct that amounts to the forfeiture of the right to counsel D. holding that treating a defendants failure to appear as a waiver not only of the right to be present but of the right to have a hearing on the motion was error E. recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the forfeiture of the right to counsel unlike the waiver of such right does not require that the defendant intend to relinquish a right but rather may be the result of the defendants extremely serious misconduct or extremely dilatory conduct
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, and all such executed counterparts shall constitute the same agreement. It shall be necessary to account for only one such counterpart in proving this Agreement. A counterpart of this Agreement transmitted by electronic means (including so-called PDF) or facsimile will, if it is executed, be deemed in all respects to be an original document, and any signature on that document shall be deemed to be an original signature with the same binding legal effect as an original executed counterpart of this Agreement.

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: ‘[w]e believe, Your Honor, that there is room in that respect.’” Casas, 425 F.3d at 59. We observed that this objection “by its nature raised Apprendi concerns,” id. at 60 n. 48, which also would have sufficed to raise an Alleyne claim based on the same Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, see Alleyne, 133 S.Ct. at 2163 & n. 5 (noting that “there is no principle or logic to distinguish facts that raise the maximum from those that increase the minimum”). Although Pizarro did not explicitly object on these grounds again at his most recent sentencing hearing (his third), our precedent suggests that, assuming Pizarro did not abandon his original objection, the objection would have preserved the Alleyne claim for our review now. See United States v. Amirault, 224 F.3d 9, 14 (1st Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). We need not resolve whether Pizarro in fact Options: A. holding that claim was preserved for subsequent appeal by objection at original sentencing hearing B. holding that appellant properly preserved booker error claim by citing blakely in his written objection to the psi and reminding the court at sentencing of his blakely objection C. holding that the point on appeal and the objection in the trial court must be the same in order for it to be preserved for appeal D. holding that a claimed violation of the right to a public trial must be preserved for review by a timely objection at trial E. holding that although the defendant had preserved his objection to the constitutionality of a mental state requirement he had not preserved another constitutional objection

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that claim was preserved for subsequent appeal by objection at original sentencing hearing
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Group Member as of the Closing Date will own, or be licensed or be otherwise permitted to use, all Intellectual Property necessary for the conduct of its business as currently conducted. No material claim against a Group Member has been asserted and is pending by any Person challenging or questioning the use by such Group Member of any Intellectual Property or the validity or effectiveness of any Intellectual Property owned or used by such Group Member, nor does MVWC or the Borrower know of any valid basis for any such claim. The use of Intellectual Property by each Group Member does not infringe on, misappropriate or violate the rights of any Person in any material respect.

assistant: Intellectual Property
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: appears in the Court’s discussion of Cohen’s second requirement, that the issues on appeal must be collateral to the merits, it may imply that the Court considered a Blackledge allegation analogous to a double jeopardy claim for purposes of the third Cohen requirement as well. 12 . In Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 13-14, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 2148-2149, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978), the Court asserted that the Double Jeopardy Clause did not prohibit retrial after the defendant had obtained a reversal of his conviction on grounds of a fatally defective indictment. 13 . The Supreme Court has recently implied that post-conviction relief is adequate in a claim of selective prosecution in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Flynt v. Ohio, - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 1958, 68 L.Ed.2d 489 (1981) (<HOLDING>). Vindictive prosecution claims, like those Options: A. holding in context of companion 28 usc 1292b that rjoutine resort to interlocutory appeals would hardly comport with congress design to reserve interlocutory review for exceptional eases while generally retaining for the federal courts a firm final judgment rule internal quotations omitted B. holding that 28 usc 1331 does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity C. holding that 28 usc 1257 does not permit interlocutory federal review of allegedly selective prosecution D. holding that where jurisdiction was based on 28 usc 2201 venue was determined as per 28 usc 1391 E. holding that the bankruptcy courts discoveryrelated order was interlocutory and not subject to review pursuant to the requirements of 28 usc 158a3

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that 28 usc 1257 does not permit interlocutory federal review of allegedly selective prosecution
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: You shall be entitled to participate in all employee benefit plans, practices and programs maintained by the Company, as in effect from time to time. In addition, you shall be eligible to participate in the Company’s deferred compensation plan and the executive supplemental long term disability plan and you shall receive a company car or car allowance not to exceed $700 per month.

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

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 537 U.S. 99 BORDEN RANCH PARTNERSHIP ET AL.v.UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ET AL. No. 01-1243. Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 10, 2002. Decided December 16, 2002. 261 F. 3d 810, affirmed by an equally divided Court. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Timothy S. Bishop argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Arthur F. Coon, Kyriakos Tsakopoulos, and Edmund L. Regalia. Jeffrey P. Minear argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney General Sansonetti, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, David C. Shilton, and Sylvia Quast.* PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court. 2 JUSTICE KENNEDY took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Notes: * Briefs ofamici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of Alabama et al. by William H. Pryor, Jr., Attorney General of Alabama, Nathan A. Forrester, Solicitor General, and Alyce S. Robertson, Deputy Solicitor General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Bruce M. Botelho of Alaska, James E. Ryan of Illinois, Carla J. Stovall of Kansas, Richard P. Ieyoub of Louisiana, Don Stenberg of Nebraska, Betty D. Montgomery of Ohio, D. Michael Fisher of Pennsylvania, John Cornyn of Texas, and Jerry W. Kilgore of Virginia; for the American Farm Bureau Federation et al. by John J. Rademacher; for the American Forest & Paper Association by Steven P. Quarles, J. Michael Klise, Ellen B. Steen, and William R. Murray; for the California Farm Bureau Federation et al. by Robin L. Rivett and M. Reed Hopper; for the National Association of Home Builders by Virginia S. Albrecht, Andrew J. Turner, Duane J. Desiderio, and Thomas Jon Ward; for the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association et al. by Lawrence R. Liebesman; and for Save Our Shoreline by Nancie G. Marzulla, Roger J. Marzulla, Brenda D. Colella, and David L. Powers. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of New Jersey et al. by David Samson, Attorney General of New Jersey, and Patrick DeAlmeida and Rachel J. Horowitz, Deputy Attorneys General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Earl I. Anzai of Hawaii and Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., of West Virginia; for the Association of State Wetlands Managers by Patrick A. Parenteau; for the National Wildlife Federation et al. by Howard I. Fox; and for Dr. Joy Zedler et al. by John D. Echeverria.

assistant: 8
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: us in the investigation, settlement, and defense of any claim or lawsuit. Failure to cooperate with us may result in the denial of the claim.” The letter contains two conclusory statements that the plaintiff provided false information during the presentation of the claim and also states that she breached the cooperation clause of the policy. But all of the facts recited in the letter relate only to the provision of allegedly false information on the topic of where plaintiff was previously licensed. Compare Jertson v. Hartley, 342 Mass. 597, 601-602 (1961) (detailing false information that insurance company pointed to as evidence of noncooperation as provided in connection with claim); Employers’ Liab. Assur. Corp. v. Vella, 366 Mass. 651, 654-655 (1975), quoting from Jertson, supra (<HOLDING>); Sorensen v. Sorensen, 369 Mass. 350, 364 Options: A. holding that erisa preempts claims for breach of contract breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and negligent misrepresentations B. recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract C. recognizing that intentional furnishing of false information of a material nature is breach of cooperation clause and discussing misrepresentations provided during investigation and trial of claim D. holding that economic loss rule barred claim for breach of fiduciary duty where precontract misrepresentations were directly related to alleged breach of contract E. holding that after jury findings of dual breach unchallenged finding that defendants breach was not excused based on prior material breach of plaintiff constituted implicit finding that there was no material breach by plaintiff

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that intentional furnishing of false information of a material nature is breach of cooperation clause and discussing misrepresentations provided during investigation and trial of claim
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: taking. Regulatory takings are governed by the legal standards outlined in Monsanto. In Monsanto, the Supreme Court held that the appropriation of an intellectual property interest by a government action requires just compensation for its use when a federal law deprives the intellectual property owner of virtually all investment-backed expectations in the intellectual property. The Supreme Court’s decision in Monsanto is significant for two reasons. First, the Court makes cleai’ that an intellectual property interest is deserving of protection under the Fifth Amendment tantamount to real property. Second, the Supreme Court found a remedy appropriate under the Tucker Act even though the disclosure of another’s trade secret is a tort. Cf. Schillinger, 155 U.S. at 169, 15 S.Ct. 85 (<HOLDING>). Although the Supreme Court held in Monsanto Options: A. holding that a patent infringement action is essentially a tort B. holding that a consent judgment is essentially a contract C. holding that essentially equivalent is unconstitutionally vague D. holding that a suit for infringement of federal copyright and unfair competition which the court acknowledged was essentially a tort action was outside the scope of subsection b2 even though it related to a contract E. holding without comment that venue in a trademark infringement case is proper where infringement occurred

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a patent infringement action is essentially a tort
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) Notwithstanding the termination of Employee's employment pursuant to any provision of this Agreement, the parties shall be required to carry out any provisions of this Agreement which contemplate performance by them subsequent to such termination.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Wherever possible, each provision of this Note shall be interpreted in such manner as to be effective and valid under applicable law. Any provision of this Note which is prohibited by, unenforceable or invalid in any jurisdiction shall, as to such jurisdiction, be ineffective only to the extent of such prohibition, unenforceability or invalidity, without invalidating the remainder of such provisions of this Note or affecting the validity or enforceability of such provision in any other jurisdiction.

assistant: Severability