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: Question No. 2 in the negative. IV. Certified Question No. 8 asks whether Conwed’s suit against Union Carbide may predate the workers’ compensation claims of former employees who have developed asbestos-related illnesses but have not yet sought workers’ compensation benefits. Conwed argues that it has a presently actionable legal claim based on the language in section 176.061, subdivision 7 and this court’s precedent discussing “compensation payable” in the future. See Minn. Stat. § 176.061, subd. 7 (“[T]he employer * * * has a separate additional cause of action against the third party to recover any amounts paid for medical treatment or for other compensation payable under this section resulting from the negligence of the third party ⅜ * (Emphasis added)); Allstate, 410 N.W.2d at 327 (<HOLDING>). As the most direct support for its argument, Options: A. recognizing that section 176061 subdivision 7 which accords the employer a separate cause of action also extends that action to compensation not yet payable B. recognizing cause of action C. holding that notwithstanding fact that employer brought suit in its own name pursuant to ocga 349111 c only for the liquidated amount that had been paid to the employee in workers compensation benefits after employee failed to file his own tort action within one year of injury employee was not precluded from bringing his own separate action to recover for personal injuries and loss of consortium but noting that employee received notice of employers suit only after filing his own action suggesting that court in which employers action was pending had wrongly denied the employees motion to intervene to which motion employer had objected noting that if employee had not moved to intervene in other action employees separate action would have been barred by laches and holding that thirdparty tortfeasor could move for mandatory joinder of the employer in the employees action D. holding that section 319s mandate that the employer is subrogated to the extent of compensation payable does not mean that the sole right to recover from the tortfeasor is in the employer rather the right of action against the tortfeasor remains in the injured employee and suit is to be commenced in his name E. recognizing the cause of action

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that section 176061 subdivision 7 which accords the employer a separate cause of action also extends that action to compensation not yet payable
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 is issued, and the Options are granted, in Rye Brook, New York and will be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, excluding any conflicts or choice of law rule or principle that might otherwise refer construction or interpretation of this Agreement to the substantive law of another jurisdiction.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement was negotiated between the parties. The rule that a contract will be construed against the draftsman in the event of ambiguity shall not be applied and no inference of intent shall be drawn from the physical preparation of the Agreement.

assistant: Construction
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 not preempted by federal law, the provisions of this Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois, notwithstanding any state’s choice-of-law or conflicts-of-law rules to the contrary. The Company and Executive further acknowledge and agree that this Agreement is intended, among other things, to supplement the provisions of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, as amended from time to time, and the duties Executive owes to the Company under the common law, including, but not limited to, the duty of loyalty. The parties agree that any legal action relating to this Agreement shall be commenced and maintained exclusively before any appropriate state court of record in Cook County, Illinois, or in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and the parties hereby submit to the personal jurisdiction and venue of such courts and waive any right to challenge or otherwise object to personal jurisdiction or venue in any action commenced or maintained in such courts.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Steams’ only desire was essentially to make a copy of the document to be used in his name. By being brought in his name, any defect relating to the Board’s standing is irrelevant; Steams had standing under the Act and timely filed his Petition. The fact that Steams did not act as a scribe, copying the arguments of the Board’s Petition, does not mean that his Petition is automatically void due to the Board’s lack of standing. Rule 1:4(0, as cited by the Commission, allows any “accompanying exhibit” to be a part of a pleading by reference; nothing more is required. If the Board had no standing to file its Petition, then the Petition would have no “legal effect,” meaning that its efficiency as a “pleading” would be negated. See e.g., Jordan v. Liggan, 95 Va. 616, 29 S.E. 330 (1898) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, the mere words of the Petition Options: A. holding that an insufficient pleading in equity is a nullity B. holding that the formula in section 522f2a creates equity for purposes of lien avoidance even if debtors otherwise have no equity in the property C. holding that pleading rules are substantive D. holding he who seeks equity must do equity E. holding that an action for specific performance lies in equity

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that an insufficient pleading in equity is a nullity
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: Lender hereby consents and agrees to Borrower’s proposed spin-out transaction of its subsidiary Prohibition Products Inc. into a separate company (the “ Spin-Out ”). Borrower also hereby waives any of its rights under the Note to prevent the Spin-Out or call an event of default related to the Spin-Out. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the consent and waiver set forth above shall only be effective if no material assets of Borrower are included in the Spin-Out.

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 undersigned Authorized Officer certifies that the Borrower, Guarantors and Unencumbered Property Subsidiaries are and will be in compliance with all covenants under the Loan Documents after giving effect to the making of the Loan requested hereby and no Default or Event of Default has occurred and is continuing. Attached hereto is a Unencumbered Asset Certificate setting forth a calculation of the Unencumbered Asset Availability after giving effect to the Loan requested hereby. No condemnation proceedings are pending or, to the undersigned knowledge, threatened against any Subject Property.

assistant: No Defaults
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: personal injury and to consider the full range of tort-type damages to compensate for the injury. I cannot conceive that the Legislature intended that the Commission act as a separate forum for the collection of personal injury damages, presumably after hearing from expert medical witnesses on both sides as to the nature and extent of the injury. To vest such extraordinary and indeed unbridled authority in the Commission is quite at odds with the statutory purpose. The Commission, as an administrative agency created by statute, has no inherent powers; its authority cannot reach beyond the warrant provided for it by the statute. See Holy Cross Hosp. v. Health Services, 283 Md. 677, 393 A.2d 181 (1978). See also Gutwein v. Easton Publishing Co., 272 Md. 563, 575-77, 325 A.2d 740 (1974) (<HOLDING>). It is no answer to say, as the Court does, Options: A. holding that the domestic relations exception is irrelevant where the plaintiff seeks monetary damages and does not seek a domestic relations award or reinstatement of his parental rights B. holding fouryear statute of limitations in section 95113f applies to claims under florida civil rights act when commission on human relations fails to make reasonable cause determination within 180 days C. recognizing that commission is not bound by statutory or common law rules of evidence D. holding that the commission on remand can set the effective date of a rate to be the effective date of the original commission activity E. holding that the statute creating the maryland human relations commission did not grant the commission power to make monetary awards for compensatory or other damages particularly in the absence of any statutory guidelines or limitations

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the statute creating the maryland human relations commission did not grant the commission power to make monetary awards for compensatory or other damages particularly in the absence of any statutory guidelines or limitations
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 issued and outstanding shares of capital stock of the Company have been validly issued, are fully paid and non-assessable and, other than as disclosed in the Registration Statement or the Prospectus, are not subject to any preemptive rights, rights of first refusal or similar rights. The Company has an authorized, issued and outstanding capitalization as set forth in the Registration Statement and the Prospectus as of the dates referred to therein (other than (i) the grant of additional options or awards under the Company’s existing stock option plans, stock incentive plans or stock purchase plan (ii) changes in the number of outstanding Common Stock of the Company due to the issuance of shares upon the exercise or conversion of securities exercisable for, or convertible into, Common Stock outstanding on the date hereof, (iii) as a result of the issuance of Placement Shares, or (iv) any repurchases of capital stock of the Company) and such authorized capital stock conforms to the description thereof set forth in the Registration Statement and the Prospectus. The description of the Common Stock in the Registration Statement and the Prospectus is complete and accurate in all material respects. As of the date referred to therein, the Company did not have outstanding any options to purchase, or any rights or warrants to subscribe for, or any securities or obligations convertible into, or exchangeable for, or any contracts or commitments to issue or sell, any shares of capital stock or other securities.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As of the Transfer Date, no litigation, claim, demand, administrative or regulatory proceeding or governmental investigation shall be pending or threatened and no order, injunction, or decree shall have been entered that either (i) would reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect with respect to the Servicing Rights or the Seller, or (ii) which is brought by a bona fide party in interest or a governmental authority with applicable jurisdiction and which enjoins, restrains or prohibits or seeks to enjoin, restrain or prohibit this Agreement or consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. As of the Transfer Date, no settlement or agreement shall have been entered into by the Seller that would reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect with respect to the Servicing Rights or the Seller.

assistant: Litigations
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: Lender shall not disclose any Confidential Information to any Person without the prior written consent of Borrower, other than (a) to Lender’s Affiliates, head office, branches and representative offices, and their officers, directors, employees, agents and advisors; (b) to actual or prospective transferees of Lender’s interest in the Loan, provided that the Persons to whom such disclosure is made pursuant to this clause (b) will agree to be informed of the confidential nature of such Confidential Information and shall have agreed in writing to keep such Confidential Information confidential in accordance with the provisions of this Section 12.26 ; (c) as required by any law, rule or regulation or judicial process; (d) as requested or required by any state, Federal or foreign authority or examiner regulating such Lender; (e) to any service provider of Lender (excluding Lender’s inside or outside legal counsel), provided that the Persons to whom such disclosure is made pursuant to this clause (e) will be informed of the confidential nature of such Confidential Information and shall have agreed in writing to keep such Confidential Information confidential in accordance with the provisions of this Section 12.26 ; and (f) in connection with the exercise of any remedies under this Agreement or under any other Loan Document or any action or proceeding relating to this Agreement or any other Loan Document or the enforcement of rights hereunder or thereunder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Lender shall not have any liability hereunder or otherwise to Borrower for any failure of any Person to whom Lender discloses Confidential Information in accordance with this Section 12.26 to maintain the confidentiality thereof.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall become effective as of the date first written above upon delivery to the Administrative Agent of (i) counterparts of this Agreement duly executed by each of the parties hereto (ii) a fully executed copy of that certain Fee Letter dated as of the date hereof and (iii) payment of the legal fees of counsel to the Administrative Agent accrued on or prior to the date of this Agreement in connection with the preparation, negotiation and execution of this Agreement and all other instruments, documents and agreements executed and delivered in connection with this Agreement.

assistant: Effectiveness
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 will, and will cause each of the Subsidiary Borrowers and the Guarantors and its and their respective Subsidiaries to, cooperate with the Administrative Agent and the Lenders and execute such further instruments and documents as the Lenders or the Administrative Agent shall reasonably request to carry out the transactions contemplated by this Agreement and the other Loan Documents.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Borrower and its Subsidiaries is in compliance with all Requirements of Law applicable to it or its property, except, in each case, where the failure to do so, individually or in the aggregate, would not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 41 S.W.3d 118, 121 (Tex.2001); Willis v. Maverick, 760 S.W.2d 642, 646 (Tex.1988); see also Little v. Smith, 943 S.W.2d 414, 420 (Tex.1997) (statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty claim does not begin to run until claimant "knew or should have known of facts that in the exercise of reasonable diligence would have led to the discovery of the wrongful act”). In this case, the "claimant” may be either the decedent or the personal representative of the decedent’s estate. 6 . See Stanley L. & Carolyn M. Watkins Trust v. Lacosta, 321 Mont. 432, 92 P.3d 620, 625 (2004) (citing Espinosa v. Sparber, Shevin, Shapo, Rosen & Heilbronner, 612 So.2d 1378, 1380 (1993)); Hosfeltv. Miller, No. 97-JE-50, 2000 WL 1741909, at *6, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 5506, at *17 (Ohio Ct.App. Nov. 22, 2000) (<HOLDING>); Sizemore, 719 P.2d at 503 (administrator of Options: A. holding that the decedents estate had standing because the traditional requirement that the plaintiff show an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the conduct of the defendant is met by the allegation in the complaint that the defendants actions resulted in the diminishment of the assets of the estate B. holding that a legal malpractice claim arising from errors by an attorney in rendering estateplanning services is properly brought by the personal representative of the estate when excess estate taxes are paid by the estate in contravention of the decedents intended estate plan C. holding single coexecutors release of mortgage debt paid to estate was valid and binding on estate because acts of any coexecutor in respect to the administration of the effects of the estate are deemed to be the acts of all as where one releases a debt or settles an account of a person with the deceased or surrenders a term or sells the goods and chattels of the estate his act binds the others characterizing conversion of decedents personal property into cash as act in due course of administration of estate D. holding a decedents estate is not a legal entity and only individuals administering the estate can be sued on estates behalf E. holding that for estate tax purposes property is to be valued as it exists in the hands of the estate

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a legal malpractice claim arising from errors by an attorney in rendering estateplanning services is properly brought by the personal representative of the estate when excess estate taxes are paid by the estate in contravention of the decedents intended estate plan
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: within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) set forth in the request that relate to statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact____” The purpose of Rule 36 requests for admissions “is to allow for the narrowing of issues, to permit facilitation in presenting cases to the factfin-der and, at a minimum, to provide notification as to those facts, or opinions, that remain in dispute.” Lakehead Pipe Line Co. v. American Home Assurance Co., 177 F.R.D. 454, 457-58 (D.Minn.1997). As such, requests for admissions are similar to stipulations in the pretrial order. See Revlon Consumer Prods. Corp. v. Estee Lauder Co., No. 00CIV.5960(RMB), 2001 WL 521832 (S.D.N.Y. May 16, 2001); O’Neill v. Medad, 166 F.R.D. 19 (E.D.Mich.1996). Rule 36, strictly speaking, may not (W.D.Tenn.1989) (<HOLDING>). A substantial number of other courts, Options: A. holding that rule 36 requests for admissions are not included within the parameters of a general cutoff for discovery in a scheduling order B. holding trial courts general charge concerning requests for admissions was a correct statement of law C. holding that any general deadline for completion of discovery facially applies to requests for admissions D. holding that requests for admissions are subject to discovery cutoff dates E. holding that plaintiff need not have submitted requests for admissions by the august 15 discovery motion cutoff date or by the discovery cutoff date of september 15 because requests for admissions are distinct from other general discovery devices and are not subject to discovery cutoff dates

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that rule 36 requests for admissions are not included within the parameters of a general cutoff for discovery in a scheduling order
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 and all notices, elections and communications required or permitted by this Agreement shall be made or given in writing and shall be delivered in person or sent by postage, pre-paid, United States Mail, certified or registered, return receipt requested, or by a recognized overnight courier such as FedEx or UPS, or by facsimile or e-mail, to the other parties at the addresses set forth below, or such other address as may be furnished by notice in accordance with this paragraph. The date of notice given by personal delivery shall be the date of such delivery. The effective date of notice by mail, facsimile, email or overnight courier shall be the date such notice is mailed, faxed, emailed or deposited with such overnight courier. In the event that the last day for giving notice hereunder or for the performance of any obligation hereunder, including closing, falls upon a Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday, the last day for said notice or performance shall be deemed to be the next day which is neither a Saturday, Sunday nor a legal holiday.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as could not, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, each Loan Party and each of their Subsidiaries own, or possess the right to use, all of the trademarks, service marks, trade names, trade dress, domain names, copyrights, patents, patent applications, franchises, licenses, trade secrets, know-how and other intellectual property rights (collectively, “ IP Rights ”) that are used in the operation of their respective businesses. Set forth on Schedule 5.16 is a complete and accurate list of all registrations or applications for registration of any IP Rights owned or exclusively licensed by a Loan Party or any of its Subsidiaries as of the Closing Date. To the knowledge of Holdings and the Borrower, (i) the conduct of the business of the Loan Parties and their Subsidiaries does not infringe, misappropriate, dilute or otherwise violate any rights held by any other Person, and (ii) no slogan or other advertising device, product, process, method, substance, part or other material now employed or sold, or now contemplated to be employed or sold, by any Loan Party or any Subsidiary infringes upon, misappropriates, dilutes or otherwise violates any rights held by any other Person except in each case for such infringements, individually or in the aggregate, which could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. No claim or litigation regarding any of the foregoing is pending or, to the knowledge of Holdings, threatened, which, either individually or in the aggregate, could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. To the knowledge of Holdings, no Person is infringing, misappropriating, diluting or otherwise violating any IP Rights that are material to the operation of the business of the Loan Parties or any of their Subsidiaries.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Either party shall have the right specifically to enforce this Agreement and Release, except for provisions which subsequently may be held invalid or unenforceable, and/or obtain money damages for its breach, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. Further, in the event of a breach by Employee of this Agreement and Release, including but not limited to paragraph 10 as it incorporates paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Severance Agreement, and upon the Company providing prior written notification of such breach to Employee, the Company may cease or suspend any payments remaining in the Special Exit Package.

assistant: Enforcements
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 LOAN PARTY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY AGREES THAT IT WILL NOT COMMENCE ANY ACTION, LITIGATION OR PROCEEDING OF ANY KIND OR DESCRIPTION, WHETHER IN LAW OR EQUITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT OR IN TORT OR OTHERWISE, AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT, ANY LENDER, ANY ISSUING LENDER, THE SWINGLINE LENDER OR ANY RELATED PARTY OF THE FOREGOING IN ANY WAY RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT OR THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING HERETO OR THERETO, IN ANY FORUM OTHER THAN THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK SITTING IN NEW YORK COUNTY AND OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, AND ANY APPELLATE COURT FROM ANY THEREOF, AND EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF SUCH COURTS AND AGREES THAT ALL CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF ANY SUCH ACTION, LITIGATION OR PROCEEDING MAY BE HEARD AND DETERMINED IN SUCH NEW YORK STATE COURT OR, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN SUCH FEDERAL COURT. EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO AGREES THAT A FINAL JUDGMENT IN ANY SUCH ACTION, LITIGATION OR PROCEEDING SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE AND MAY BE ENFORCED IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS BY SUIT ON THE JUDGMENT OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW. NOTHING IN THIS AGREEMENT OR IN ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT SHALL AFFECT ANY RIGHT THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT, ANY LENDER, ANY ISSUING LENDER OR THE SWINGLINE LENDER MAY OTHERWISE HAVE TO BRING ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT AGAINST ANY LOAN PARTY OR ITS PROPERTIES IN THE COURTS OF ANY JURISDICTION.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The representations and warranties of Sellers contained in this Agreement (including the Exhibits hereto) or in any certificate or document delivered to Buyers in connection herewith, shall be deemed to have been made again at Closing and shall then be true in all material respects; and Sellers shall have performed and complied with all material covenants, agreements and conditions required by this Agreement to be performed or complied with by them prior to or at Closing.

assistant: Representations
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 Amendment is held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable, (a) the legality, validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions of this Amendment shall not be affected or impaired thereby and (b) the parties shall endeavor in good faith negotiations to replace the illegal, invalid or unenforceable provisions with valid provisions the economic effect of which comes as close as possible to that of the illegal, invalid or unenforceable provisions. The invalidity of a provision in a particular jurisdiction shall not invalidate or render unenforceable such provision in any other jurisdiction.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 1 . While the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in United Kingdom was limited by Intel regarding its implication that there is a foreign discoverability requirement (a factor that weakens NextEra’s position here), the remainder of the opinion remains Circuit precedent. See Intel, 542 U.S. at 253, 124 S.Ct. 2466; In re Consorcio Ecuatoriano, 685 F.3d at 998. 2 . The Second and Fifth Circuits interpreted § 1782 more narrowly in two pre-Intel decisions, with respect to purely private arbitrations. See Republic of Kazakhstan v. Biedermann Int’l, 168 F.3d 880, 881 (5th Cir.1999) ("we elect to follow the Second Circuit’s recent decisions that § 1782 does not apply to private international arbitrations’’); Nat’l Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., 165 F.3d 184, 190 (2nd Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). 3 . While the Eleventh Circuit had previously Options: A. holding that 1447c does not apply to counsel B. holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively C. holding that title ii does not apply to the states D. holding that 1782 does not apply to private arbitral tribunals E. holding that equitable tolling principles apply to suits against the united states in the same manner as they apply to private parties

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that 1782 does not apply to private arbitral tribunals
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, he did not invoke the statute or the parties’ agreement; instead, he referred in general only to “arbitral principles and reason.” The case law on the jurisdictional aspect of narrow certiorari review provides some guidance. InFOP, Lodge No. 5, the City argued that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to grant out-of-class pay because the union did not properly present such a claim in its demand for arbitration. This Court ultimately held that the claim indeed was not encompassed in the demand for arbitration and that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to permit the union to add the issue on the first day of arbitration hearings over the City’s objection. Accordingly, we concluded, the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim. 768 A.2d at 296-99. See also id. at 298 n. 4 (<HOLDING>) siting City of Philadelphia v. City of Options: A. recognizing commonwealth court authority supporting proposition that arbitrators exceeded their jurisdiction when they considered issues which were not properly presented in the demand for arbitration B. holding that appellate court may only review issues actually presented to and considered by the trial court C. recognizing that proposition D. holding that although party participated in arbitration even presenting argument on merits it had not waived its objection to arbitrators jurisdiction because it consistently objected to arbitrators jurisdiction throughout proceedings E. holding that the court rather than arbitrators determines issues of attorney disqualification in arbitration

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing commonwealth court authority supporting proposition that arbitrators exceeded their jurisdiction when they considered issues which were not properly presented in the demand for arbitration
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 review and applicable law Section 37.011 of the Declaratory Judgments Act allows for “[fjurther relief based on a declaratory judgment” upon a showing that the relief is “necessary or proper.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 37.011. Ancillary injunctive relief may be obtained when the evidence establishes that a defendant will not comply with a declaratory judgment. Howell v. Tex. Workers’ Comp. Comm’n, 143 S.W.3d 416, 433 (Tex.App.-Austin 2004, pet. denied). The granting or denial of a request for a permanent injunction is within the trial court’s sound discretion, and a reviewing court’s inquiry is limited to the question whether the trial court abused its discretion. See Lakeside Realty, Inc. v. Life Scape Homeowners Ass’n, 202 S.W.3d 186, 190 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2005, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); see also Jim Rutherford Invs., Inc. v. Options: A. holding that the standard of review for an award of statutory damages is even more deferential than an abuse of discretion standard B. holding that the standard of review under rule 60 is abuse of discretion C. holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion D. holding that abuse of discretion is the proper standard of review for an order denying relief under section 37011 E. holding that the standard of review is abuse of discretion and an appeal from denial of rule 60b relief does not bring up the underlying judgment for review

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that abuse of discretion is the proper standard of review for an order denying relief under section 37011
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 Security Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts each of which when so executed and delivered shall be deemed an original, and it shall not be necessary in making proof of this Security Agreement to produce or account for more than one such counterpart executed by the Grantor against whom enforcement is sought.

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: 77, 111 S.Ct. at 1704. Thus, in diversity cases, whether a state-law cause of action exists at all is a jurisdictional issue insofar as it relates to standing and injury-in-fact, not an issue of whether a claim for relief has been stated. 74 .Despite this unambiguous holding, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has allowed plaintiffs to recover medical monitoring costs for exposure to asbestos. See Simmons, 674 A.2d at 239-40. The court stated that such costs were properly awarded for meritorious exposure-only cases but that damages for increased risk a , 192 (Ky.1994) (requiring manifestation of asbestos-caused injuiy before recognizing existence of cause of action for negligence based on exposure to asbestos); Larson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 427 Mich. 301, 399 N.W.2d 1, 2 (1986) (<HOLDING>); Locke v. Johns-Manville Corp., 221 Va. 951, Options: A. recognizing in a latent disease case that an injured persons cause of action accrues either 1 B. holding that cause of action for asbestosis accrues upon discovery of disease not at time of exposure to asbestos C. recognizing that breach of contract cause of action accrues at time of the breach D. holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach E. holding that a cause of action for an unconstitutional taking accrues at the time the taking occurs

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that cause of action for asbestosis accrues upon discovery of disease not at time of exposure to asbestos
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Subject to the terms of the Plan and any applicable Award Agreement, the Committee shall determine the Performance Measures to be achieved during the applicable Award Period, the number of shares of Stock subject to any Performance Share Award, and the amount of any payment to be made upon achievement of the Performance Measures applicable to any Performance Award.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This letter agreement and the obligation of the GSO Investor to fund the Commitment in accordance with Sections 1 and 2 of this letter agreement shall terminate automatically and immediately, without any further liability or obligation on the part of the GSO Investor, upon the earliest to occur of (i) the consummation of the Anadarko Closing (as defined in the Securities Purchase Agreement) or the Closing, (ii) the termination of the Anadarko Purchase Agreement in accordance with its terms or the termination of the Securities Purchase Agreement in accordance with its terms, (iii) the funding of the Commitment and (iv) either Seller or any of its affiliates, directly or indirectly, asserting in any legal proceeding a claim in connection with the Anadarko Purchase Agreement or any of the transactions c ontemplated thereby against (a) the GSO Investor other than as expressly permitted pursuant to Section 3 hereunder or (b) any Investor/Partner Affiliate in violation of Section 7 hereof. From and after any such termination of this letter agreement, the GSO Investor shall have no liability or obligation to any Person under or as a result of this letter agreement .

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: 86 S.Ct. 1602. Once these warnings are administered, [i]f the individual indicates at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease.... [A]ny statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise. Without the right to cut off questioning, the setting of in-custody interrogation operates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked. Id. at 473-74, 86 S.Ct. 1602. If an accused wishes to invoke his right to remain silent, he must do so unambiguously. See Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 458-59, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994); United States v. Hurst, 228 F.3d 751, 759-60 (6th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). The trial court conducted an evi-dentiary Options: A. holding that the admissibility of statements obtained after the person in custody has decided to remain silent depends under miranda on whether his right to cut off questioning was scrupulously honored and upholding officers attempts to resume questioning after defendant invoked right to remain silent because defendant was readvised of his rights sufficient time elapsed between the original invocation and the requestioning and the questioning involved a different crime B. holding that a defendant who is subject to custodial interrogation must be advised in clear and unequivocal language of his constitutional right to remain silent and his right to a lawyer C. holding that a suspects invocation of the right to remain silent must be unequivocal to require that police questioning cease D. holding that evidence of a defendants invocation of the right to remain silent ordinarily is not admissible at the defendants criminal trial E. holding that during police interrogation right to remain silent must be invoked unambiguously

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a suspects invocation of the right to remain silent must be unequivocal to require that police questioning cease
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 begin participation in the Plan, a Director shall properly complete and timely submit an Election Form in accordance with the Committee's rules. A Director shall become a Participant on the first day on which a deferral of an elected amount is first credited to the Participant's Account. The Committee or its delegate may establish from time to time such other enrollment requirements as it determines in its sole discretion are necessary. Such Participant shall remain a Participant in the Plan until the Participant's Account balance is paid in full.

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

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 370 U.S. 717 82 S.Ct. 1287 8 L.Ed.2d 798 Bernard SILBER, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 454. Argued April 19, 1962. Decided June 25, 1962. Victor Rabinowitz, New York City, for petitioner. Bruce J. Terris, Washington, D.C., for respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment is reversed. Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 8 L.Ed.2d 240. The indictment upon which the petitioner was tried was identical to those held defective in Russell. The petitioner's timely motion to dismiss the indictment, made in accord with Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. 12(b)(2), was erroneously denied by the District Court. 2 Although the trial court squarely considered and decided the issue raised by the motion to dismiss, it was apparently not presented to the Court of Appeals and was not briefed or argued in this Court. While ordinarily we do not take note of errors not called to the attention of the Court of Appeals nor properly raised here, that rule is not without exception. The Court has 'the power to notice a 'plain error' though it is not assigned or specified', United Brotherhood of Carpenters v. United States, 330 U.S. 395, 412, 67 S.Ct. 775, 784, 91 L.Ed. 973.* 'In exceptional circumstances, especially in criminal cases, appellate courts, in the public interest, may, of their own motion, notice errors to which no exception has been taken, if the errors are obvious, or if they otherwise seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.' United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160, 56 S.Ct. 391, 392, 80 L.Ed. 555. Our own rules provide that 'the court, at its option, may notice a plain error not presented.' Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, Rule 40(1)(d)(2), 28 U.S.C.A. See also Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. 52(b). 3 Reversed. 4 Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. 5 Mr. Justice WHITE took no part in the decision of this case. 6 Mr. Justice CLARK and Mr. Justice HARLAN dissent for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 779, 781, 82 S.Ct. 1038. * See Brasfield v. United States, 272 U.S. 448, 450, 47 S.Ct. 135, 71 L.Ed. 345; Mahler v. Eby, 264 U.S. 32, 45, 44 S.Ct. 283, 288, 68 L.Ed. 549; Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 362, 30 S.Ct. 544, 547, 54 L.Ed. 793. See also Kessler v. Strecker, 307 U.S. 22, 34, 59 S.Ct. 694, 700, 83 L.Ed. 1082.

assistant: 3
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: masquerade and you agree that all disputes ( except for the excluded disputes ) , including those relating to , arising out of , or in any way in connection with your rights of privacy and publicity , will be resolved through final and binding arbitration .

assistant: Arbitration
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: Thus, it appears to this court they would still be a proper member of the class. Their claims do not have to be identical to the class representatives. ii. Geographic Diversity It is undisputed the potential class covers tribes all over the United States. They involve tribes in 35 states. Defendant argues geographic diversity is insufficient to defeat joinder because it cannot be ascertained where the purported class members reside due to the vagueness and imprecision of the proposed class. However, the court agrees with plaintiffs that the geographic diversity of the potential class members makes joinder impractical, if not impossible. See Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino, LLC, 186 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir.1999) cert. denied 528 U.S. 1159, 120 S.Ct. 1169, 145 L.Ed.2d 1078 (2000) (<HOLDING>) Hi. Ability to Identify Class Members The Options: A. holding joinder not practicable where 100 to 150 class members were geographically dispersed B. holding that joinder is impracticable where the class consisted of at least fifty members C. holding that 100 to 150 members is within the range that generally satisfies the numerosity requirement D. holding numerosity requirement to be satisfied where putative securities fraud class consisted of more than 90 geographically dispersed plaintiffs E. recognizing that in determining numerosity the proper focus is not on numbers alone but on whether joinder of all members is practicable in view of the numerosity of the class and all other relevant factors

assistant: The best answer is A. holding joinder not practicable where 100 to 150 class members were geographically dispersed
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: Whenever possible, each provision or portion of any provision of this Guaranty will be interpreted in such manner as to be effective and valid under applicable Requirements of Law, but if any provision or portion of any provision of this Guaranty is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect under any applicable Requirements of Law, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability will not affect any other provision or portion of any provision in such jurisdiction, and this Guaranty will be reformed, construed and enforced in such jurisdiction as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision or portion of any provision had never been contained herein.

assistant: Severability