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: F.Supp.2d 634 (E.D.Va.2007) (Hudson, J.); Walker v. Johnson, 448 F.Supp.2d 719 (E.D.Va.2006) (Hilton, J.). These decisions also influence the third factor, because they damage plaintiffs ability to “show[ ] a significant possibility of success on the merits.” Hill, 547 U.S. at 584, 126 S.Ct. 2096. Moreover, the pleadings filed by plaintiff provide minimal support for his assertions that the DOC’s protocol is not substantially similar to Kentucky’s procedure or that his execution will be carried out in a cruel and unusual fashion. Nor does the fact that the same or similar issues are pending before the Fourth Circuit increase the likelihood of irreparable harm, or likelihood of success, in the matter pending before this Court. See Jones v. Allen, 485 F.3d 635, 641 n. 4 (11th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Finally, the Court must consider the Options: A. recognizing in dicta that the case before it involving an individual and not an entity did not involve a recent change of domicile by the party in question and a similar case brought immediately after the partys arrival in the united states following a long period of domicile in the country where the bankruptcy is pending would likely lead to a different result B. holding that in the context of a challenge to a states lethal injection protocol the mere possibility of a trial date in another case involving similar issues does not affect the balancing of the equities in this case C. holding resentencing does not affect the date on which the judgment of conviction became final D. holding that the same hearing officer as in this case erred in substituting his judgment for that of the pertinent school board in that case E. holding that in a case involving misrepresentations in violation of securities and exchange commission rule 10b5 under the circumstances of this case involving primarily a failure to disclose positive proof of reliance is not a prerequisite to recovery

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that in the context of a challenge to a states lethal injection protocol the mere possibility of a trial date in another case involving similar issues does not affect the balancing of the equities in this case
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 ERISA Event has occurred or is reasonably expected to occur that, when taken together with all other such ERISA Events for which liability is reasonably expected to occur, could reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect. Each of the Company, the Subsidiaries and the ERISA Affiliates is in compliance with the applicable provisions of ERISA and the provisions of the Code relating to Plans and the regulations and published interpretations thereunder and any similar applicable non-U.S. law, except for such noncompliance that could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. The excess of the present value of all benefit liabilities under each Plan of the Company, the Subsidiaries and the ERISA Affiliates (based on those assumptions used to fund such Plan), as of the last annual valuation date applicable thereto for which a valuation is available, over the value of the assets of such Plan could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, and the excess of the present value of all benefit liabilities of all underfunded Plans (based on those assumptions used to fund each such Plan) as of the last annual valuation dates applicable thereto for which valuations are available, over the value of the assets of all such underfunded Plans could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. Each of the Company and the Subsidiaries is in compliance (i) with all applicable provisions of law and all applicable regulations and published interpretations thereunder with respect to any employee pension benefit plan or other employee benefit plan governed by the laws of a jurisdiction other than the United States and (ii) with the terms of any such plan, except, in each case, for such noncompliance that could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. Except to the extent the failure to do so could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, (a) each Foreign Pension Plan has been maintained in compliance with its terms and in compliance with the requirements of any and all applicable laws, statutes, rules, regulations and orders (including all funding requirements and the respective requirements of the governing documents for each such Foreign Pension Plan) and has been maintained, where required, in good standing with applicable regulatory authorities and (b) all contributions required to be made with respect to a Foreign Pension Plan have been timely made. Neither the Company nor any Subsidiary has incurred any obligation in connection with the termination of or withdrawal from any Foreign Pension Plan that could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. No actions or proceedings have been taken or instituted to terminate or wind-up a Foreign Pension Plan that could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Erisa
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 Section 7.02(a ) and Section 7.05 , whether or not the transactions contemplated hereby are consummated and whether or not the Closing takes place, all costs and expenses incurred in connection with this Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby shall be paid by the party incurring such expenses.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If it shall be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction that any provision of this Agreement shall be invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not invalidate the entire Agreement. This Agreement shall be construed so as to limit any term or provision so as to make it enforceable or valid within the requirements of any applicable law, and, in the event such term or provision cannot be so limited, this Agreement shall be construed to omit such invalid or unenforceable provisions.

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: law claims against defendant Hunt were dismissed on March 31, 1999. In 2001, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and for dismissal for failure to prosecute and the motion was granted in July 2002. Two weeks later, the plaintiffs filed motions to vacate the dismissal, and these motions were denied on November 13 and 14, 2002. On February 14, 2003, Hunt filed a “Motion for Attorney Fees/Costs Under 18 USC 1964(c) and for Rule 11 Sanctions.” The district court denied this motion and Hunt now appeals. II. Discussion Hunt argues that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to grant Hunt fees and costs pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. We disagree. First, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) does not apply to prevailing defendants. ir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Hunt is not a person injured in his business Options: A. holding award of attorneys fees to party prevailing on contract claim is mandatory under section 38001 if there is proof of the reasonableness of the fees B. holding that a defendant is the prevailing party within the meaning of statutory provisions awarding attorneys fees to the prevailing party even when the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the action C. holding that successful rico defendants may receive attorneys fees under federal rule of civil procedure 11 D. recognizing that a school district must be a prevailing party in order to be entitled to attorneys fees under the idea E. holding that a prevailing rico defendant may receive attorneys fees under federal rule of civil procedure 54d

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a prevailing rico defendant may receive attorneys fees under federal rule of civil procedure 54d
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 payments under this Agreement shall be made subject to applicable tax withholding, and the Company shall withhold from any payments under this Agreement all federal, state, and local taxes as the Company is required to withhold pursuant to any law or governmental rule or regulation. Except as specifically provided otherwise in this Agreement, the Executive shall bear all expense of, and be solely responsible for, all federal, state, and local taxes due with respect to any payment received under this Agreement.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you acknowledge and agree that : ( i ) skype is not required to offer access to emergency services under any applicable local and/or national rules , regulations or law ; ( ii ) it is your responsibility to purchase , separately from the products , traditional wireless ( mobile ) or fixed line telephone services that offer access to emergency services , and ( iii ) the software and the products are not a replacement for your primary telephone service .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: way to reconcile the results of the prongs). Given these variations in the methods by which courts determine when corporations shall be liable for the acts of their affiliates, we decline to interpret the Department of Labor’s statement that it does not intend to create “new” law for WARN Act liability as a direction to courts to employ multiple tests within a single case. Rather, we conclude that the most prudent course is to employ the factors listed in the Department of Labor regulations themselves. This approach not only has the virtue of simplicity (if anything in this area of law can be described as “simple”), but also allows for the creation of a uniform standard of liability for the enforcement of a federal statute. Cf. United States v. Pisani, 646 F.2d 83, 87-88 (3d Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). Finally, and most importantly, the DOL Options: A. holding that resolution of tribal law disputes are not within federal court jurisdiction B. holding that when state educational benefits exceed minimum federal standards the state standards are enforceable through the idea C. holding that 15 usc 11142dv requires the federal court to approach the issues raised in an action brought under that provision de novo rather than to apply the deferential review appropriate to actions governed by the federal arbitration act D. holding that federal prisoners need not exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court E. holding that federal veilpiercing standards are appropriate in medicare disputes due to the need for a uniform federal approach

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that federal veilpiercing standards are appropriate in medicare disputes due to the need for a uniform federal approach
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: P. 26.02(1) placed the initial burden on the Boyd parties to establish that the requested documents contained information relevant to (1) Comdata’s obligations under the Marketing Services Agreement, (2) Comdata’s representations that induced the Boyd parties to approve the assignment of the contracts to Comdata and to sign the Guaranty Agreement, and (3) the Boyd parties’ obligations under the Guaranty Agreement. The Boyd parties have not carried this burden. The rights and obligations of the parties to a written contract are governed by the terms of the contract, Hillsboro Plaza Enters, v. Moon, 860 S.W.2d 45, 47 (Tenn.Ct.App.1993), not by the parties’ statements during their negotiations or drafts of the final contract. Faithful v. Gardner, 799 S.W.2d 232, 235 (Tenn.Ct.App.1990) (<HOLDING>); GRW Enters., Inc. v. Davis, 797 S.W.2d 606, Options: A. recognizing that production of a written insurance policy was unnecessary to prove the existence of the policy because the proof required was proof of the fact of insurance and not of the contents of a writing B. holding that the existence of a written contract gives rise to the presumption that the parties have reduced their prior agreements to writing C. holding that failure to appoint second counsel under section 3005 gives rise to an irrebuttable presumption of prejudice D. holding that the rules of contract law are applicable to plea agreements E. holding that the existence of a valid contract bars the imposition of a constructive trust because quasicontractual claims such an unjust enrichment are not permitted if a written contract between the parties governs the subject matter of their dispute

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the existence of a written contract gives rise to the presumption that the parties have reduced their prior agreements to writing
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 to be governed by and construed under the laws of the United States and of the State of Colorado without resort to Colorado’s choice of law rules. Whiting Petroleum and Rimer agree that the forum and venue for any legal or equitable action or proceeding arising out of, or in connection with, this Agreement will lie in the appropriate federal or state courts in the State of Colorado and each specifically waives any and all objections to such jurisdiction and venue.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices, statements, requests and demands and other communications given to or made upon the Companies, Prudential or the Purchasers in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement shall be given or made in the manner as provided in paragraph 11K of the Shelf Agreement.

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: As a condition precedent to the payment or provision by the Company of the amounts set forth under the Section 7.2 or 7.3 (other than the Accrued Obligations, which shall be payable in all events), as applicable, the Employee must execute a release in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “ Release ”) within forty-five (45) days following the date of termination and not revoke such Release within the subsequent seven (7) day revocation period (if applicable).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: hearing shall apply"); People v. Allen, 978 P.2d 620, 622 (Colo.1999). Section 16-11-206, which governs the procedures at a revocation hearing, provides for certain advisements at revocation hearings: (1) At the first appearance of the probationer in court or at the commencement of the hearing, whichever is first in time, the court shall advise the probationer as provided in section 16-7-206 insofar as such matters are applicable .... (2) At or prior to the commencement of the hearing, the court shall advise the probationer of the charges against him and the possible penalties therefor and shall require the probationer to plead guilty or not guilty. § 16-11-206(1)-(2) (emphasis added). 116 Counsel may waive a defendant's statutory rights. See In re Lynch, 788 P.2d 848, 858 (Colo.1989) (<HOLDING>); see also People v. Baird, 66 P.3d 183, 189 Options: A. recognizing counsels ability to waive statutory right to a mental health hearing B. recognizing a constitutional right of privacy in mental health records C. recognizing the roots of the right to privacy in mental health records D. recognizing the right to waive a jury trial E. holding that trial counsels performance was not deficient for failing to give a mental health expert additional information because the expert testified at the evidentiary hearing that the collateral data would not have changed his testimony

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing counsels ability to waive statutory right to a mental health 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: (amending Act No. 6687 (2004), which repealed 4 V.I.C. §§ 33-40, and reinstating appellate jurisdiction in this Court); Revised Organic Act of 1954 § 23A; 48 U.S.C. § 1613a. Findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. See Poleon v. Argument The Appellants argue that they relied on the Gauriloff map as representing the boundary between their land and Estate Anna’s Retreat. They assert that Gauriloff re portray the boundaries of Estates Langmath and Estate Anna’s Retreat. Instead, it portrays a subdivision, Parcel No. 173, in Estate Anna’s Retreat. Thus, even if the Harrigan map was a representation by Farrington, to rely on the Harrigan map for anything more than the boundaries of Parcel No. 173 in Estate Anna’s Retreat would be unreasonable. See, e.g., Slagle, 809 F. Supp. at 710 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the doctrine of equitable Options: A. holding that the land under navigable waters was not granted by the constitution to the united states but was reserved to the states respectively and that new states have the same rights jurisdiction and sovereignty over the soil under navigable water as the original states B. holding that wetlands adjacent to navigable waters are included in the term territorial waters C. holding that it was unreasonable for a party to rely on maps drafted by the united states corps of engineers that bore the heading waters covered by section 10 of the 1899 rivers and harbors act under the jurisdiction of the st paul district corps of engineers and the caption that all other waters and wetlands not shown on this map should be considered to be covered by section 404 of the 1972 act to determine whether bodies of water outside the scope of the map were considered navigable D. holding that the united states corps of engineers publication of maps of navigable waters did not constitute affirmative misconduct for equitable estoppel purposes E. holding that the evident breadth of congressional coneern for protection of water quality and aquatic ecosystems supported the army corps of engineers interpretation of waters of the united states to encompass wetlands adjacent to waters as more conventionally defined

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that it was unreasonable for a party to rely on maps drafted by the united states corps of engineers that bore the heading waters covered by section 10 of the 1899 rivers and harbors act under the jurisdiction of the st paul district corps of engineers and the caption that all other waters and wetlands not shown on this map should be considered to be covered by section 404 of the 1972 act to determine whether bodies of water outside the scope of the map were considered navigable
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 Grantee is ultimately liable and responsible to pay for all taxes owed in connection with the Award. The Company does not make any representation or undertaking regarding the treatment of any tax withholding in connection with the grant or vesting of the Award or any subsequent sale of Shares issuable pursuant to the Award. The Company does not commit and is under no obligation to structure the Award to reduce or eliminate the Grantee’s tax liability.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: (emphasis added). 13 . The Court notes that plaintiff has adduced no evidence that his request for a three day overlap with a substitute teacher was ever communicated to the District. Plaintiffs evidence demonstrates only that his insurance provider, Madison National, received the request. Def.’s Material Facts ¶ 62. 14 . The fact that Holler responded to plaintiffs request for assistance with his needy students by offering to help plaintiff conduct visits with other teachers who had the same students is further evidence that the District understood plaintiff as requesting assistance due to the needs of his students, not his medical inability to manage them. Act claim, while not citing Soda); Rea-Car, Inc. v. PNM Const., Inc., No. 90-7540, 1991 WL 87215, at *2 (E.D.Pa. May 21, 1991) Options: A. holding that promissory estoppel is applicable only in the absence of an enforceable contract B. recognizing cause of action for equitable estoppel under erisa C. recognizing difference between tolling and equitable estoppel D. holding an evidentiary hearing on the applicability of equitable estoppel E. holding that equitable estoppel is applicable to a suit under the miller act while not citing soda

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that equitable estoppel is applicable to a suit under the miller act while not citing soda
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 amended by the Company, provided that unless the Grantee consents in writing, the Company cannot amend this Agreement if the amendment will materially change or impair the Grantee’s rights under this Agreement and such change is not to the Grantee’s benefit.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: apparent. See United States v. Brown, 402 F.3d 133, 138-39 (2d Cir. 2005) (vacating condition where it was “seemingly unrelated to [Defendant’s] offense and circumstances”). As mentioned earlier, the nature of these employment restrictions mean that, as a practical matter, he may never be employable. Another condition prohibits Jenkins from incurring new credit charges or opening additional lines of credit without approval of a probation officer. Nothing in the record suggests these restrictions on Jenkins’s use of credit cards are “reasonably necessary,” 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(5), to protect the public or to deter Jenkins from continuing to engage in the conduct for which he was convicted — possession of child pornography. Cf. United States v. Peppe, 80 F.3d 19, 23 (1st Cir. 1996) (<HOLDING>). This is especially true when the use of Options: A. holding that retaliation claim was reasonably related to prior sex discrimination claim B. holding that the mere passive extension of credit does not constitute any form of reliance C. holding that effect of discharge of debt under bankruptcy code is the same as it was under the 1898 bankruptcy act it is not an extinguishment of the debt but only a bar to enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation of the debt or D. holding that a bar on incurring debt without prior approval was reasonably related to defendants offense which involved the extortionate extension of credit E. holding that where there were two possible grounds to revoke defendants probation and only one ground was relied on to revoke his probation defendant was not entitled to jailtime credit when he was later convicted on the offense that constituted the other ground it did not matter that the authorities learned about the ground for revocation while investigating the offense for which he was convicted sjection 558031 requires only that custody be related to the offense on which credit is sought because his custody was not related to the convicted offense he did not get any credit

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a bar on incurring debt without prior approval was reasonably related to defendants offense which involved the extortionate extension of credit
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: However, we believe that the ALJ’s limited reliance on the PRFCA was harmless because it was not the sole basis for his conclusion. The ALJ also relied upon substantial objective medical evidence that contradicted the opinions of Drs. Pascual and Gates, Humphreys’ treating physicians. First, the objective diagnostic findings of record contradicted the treating physicians’ opinions. In particular, Humphreys completed an exercise stress test in June 2001, performing at a level of at least 10.1 METS. See Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairments, 170-71 (American Medical Association, ed. 4th ed.1995) (explaining that patients who can exercise from 7 to 16 METS are classified as having no resulting limitations); see also Moore v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 901, 904 (5th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Notably, Humphreys was able to exercise for Options: A. recognizing that in the usual case no information or evidence comes to light more than one year after imposition of sentence B. holding that 101 mets is more than enough for the performance of light work C. holding that more than notice to a defendant is required D. holding an attorney does not have a duty to insure or guarantee that the most favorable outcome possible and because no amount of work can guarantee a favorable result attorneys would never know when the work they do is sufficiently more than adequate to be enough to protect not only their clients from error but themselves from liability E. holding that the more transformative the new work the more likely the use of the old work is a fair one

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that 101 mets is more than enough for the performance of light work
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: accommodation requires a great deal of communication between the employee and employer[;] ... both parties bear responsibility for determining what accommodation is necessary.” Bultemeyer v. Fort Wayne Community Schools, 100 F.3d 1281, 1285 (7th Cir.1996) (also noting that “[i]n a ease involving an employee with mental illness, the communication -process becomes more difficult,” and “[i]t is crucial that the employer [is] aware of the difficulties, and help the other party determine what specific accommodations are necessary”) (internal quotations and citation omitted). • If the termination was the result of a communication mistake Criado should háVe been reinstated once her physician explained her condition and prognosis and asked for additional leave. See Bultemeyer, 100 F.3d at 1286 (<HOLDING>). Asserting that the termination was based on Options: A. holding that an employers decision to terminate the plaintiff based on information supplied by a supervisor satisfies the causation requirement B. holding that although physicians letter requesting an accommodation for disabled employee came after employers decision to terminate employer should have reconsidered the decision to terminate his employment C. holding that res judicata properly barred claims based on an employers decision to terminate an employee because the termination was not a fresh act of discrimination rather it was the same decision not to allow the employee to return to work that the employee had challenged previously D. recognizing that an agencys decision to terminate an employee is presumed correct E. holding that after the employer determined the employee was not disabled the employer had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason to terminate the employee for unexcused absences under section 510

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that although physicians letter requesting an accommodation for disabled employee came after employers decision to terminate employer should have reconsidered the decision to terminate his employment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to compensation, severance pay, benefits and accelerated vesting and supersedes in all respects all prior agreements between the parties concerning such subject matter, including without limitation the Superseded Employment Agreements . Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Employee NDA, the Plan and the Equity Documents shall not be superseded by this Agreement and the Executive acknowledges and agrees that any such agreements remain in full force and effect.

assistant: Integration
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: particular, is likely to provoke controversy and call for judgments based on information well beyond the employee’s date of hiring and termination.”); Blair, 158 F.Supp.2d at 659-60 (remark as employees are terminated, which necessarily requires some ongoing administration. See Ebenstein v. Ericsson Internet Applications, Inc., 263 F.Supp.2d 636, 642 (E.D.N.Y.2003) (“Notably, the Ericsson agreement applies to all employees and was not drafted for a single event such as a plant closing. As such, the plan can reasonably be interpreted as an ongoing commitment on the part of the Company.”). The remaining factors do not implicate an ERISA plan. Once an employee is determined qualified under the SAP, a single lump-sum payment is made to the employee. See, e.g., Donovan, 220 F.Supp.2d at 565 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, Defendant has no long-term Options: A. holding the payment of benefits at the occurrence of a single event an indicium of lack of an administrative scheme B. holding that the employer did not have a plan under erisa where no administrative scheme was required to pay the annuity benefit C. holding the lumpsum payment of a severance benefit to be evidence of lack of an administrative scheme D. holding that a lumpsum restitution order is valid where it does not specify the source of the restitution or direct liquidation of specific assets and the defendant may have other sources of payment E. holding that the discovery of evidence of crimes in the course of an otherwise proper administrative inspection does not render that search illegal or the administrative scheme suspect

assistant: The best answer is C. holding the lumpsum payment of a severance benefit to be evidence of lack of an administrative scheme
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: under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a), file a suit “against any person ... who is alleged to be in violation of an effluent standard or limitation under this chapter or an order issued by the Administrator or a State with respect to such a standard or limitation.” “Effluent standard or limitation” is further defined to include, inter alia, those standards established pursuant to section 1311 and "a permit or condition ... issued under section 1342.” 33 U.S.C. § 1365(f). 3 . Like the CWA, the SMCRA contains a citizen suit provision that allows citizens to file a suit to enforce compliance with the SMCRA. 30 U.S.C. § 1270. 4 . Defendant is Maple Coal Company, a Delaware Corporation doing business in Summersville, West Virginia. 5 . Four outlets in this permit are subject to the selen h Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). 9 . See also Holt v. United States, 46 F.3d Options: A. recognizing that in such close circumstances where the error involves the central issue in the case it is the better policy to require a new trial under the correct instruction B. holding that because the facts are not in dispute the court should review the arbitration waiver de novo and gathering federal cases holding the same C. recognizing that in those cases where the jurisdictional facts are intertwined with the facts central to the merits of the dispute it is the better view that the entire factual dispute is appropriately resolved only by a proceeding on the merits citations omitted D. holding that the circuit lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the merits of plaintiffs claims are inescapably intertwined with a review of the procedures and merits surrounding the faas order E. recognizing that sanctions are collateral to the merits of the case and may be considered even after the merits are no longer before the district court

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that in those cases where the jurisdictional facts are intertwined with the facts central to the merits of the dispute it is the better view that the entire factual dispute is appropriately resolved only by a proceeding on the merits citations omitted
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 of the representations, warranties, covenants, and agreements in this Agreement or pursuant hereto shall survive the Closing. Notwithstanding any knowledge of facts determined or determinable by any party by investigation, each party shall have the right to fully rely on the representations, warranties, covenants and agreements of the other parties contained in this Agreement or in any other documents or papers delivered in connection herewith. Each representation, warranty, covenant and agreement of the parties contained in this Agreement is independent of each other representation, warranty, covenant and agreement. Except as expressly set forth in this Agreement, no party has made any representation warranty, covenant or agreement.

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: be a materially adverse employment action, see White v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe R. Co., 364 F.3d 789, 802 (6th Cir. 2004), the “change in employment conditions must be ‘more disruptive than a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities.’ ” Kocsis v. Multi-Care Mgmt, Inc., 97 F.3d 876, 886 (6th Cir. 1996) (quoting Crady v. Liberty Nat’l Bank and Trust Co., 993 F.2d 132, 136 (7th Cir. 1993)). The change in Kubik’s teaching schedule is just that: an alteration of job responsibilities. Although being directed to teach at 8:00 a.m. every morning might be a frustrating inconvenience, Title VII claims cannot be brought based upon “trivial workplace dissatisfactions.” White, 364 F.3d at 795. See also Turner v. Sullivan Univ. Sys., Inc., 420 F.Supp.2d 773, 787 (W.D. Ky. 2006) (<HOLDING>). The denial of Kubik’s tenure extension Options: A. holding that assignment of unfavorable class schedules did not constitute an adverse employment action absent evidence of materially adverse consequences B. holding that termination is an adverse employment action C. holding that a negative criticism or performance evaluation unaccompanied by a materially adverse change in the terms or conditions of employment does not constitute adverse employment action D. holding that a transfer of job duties can constitute an adverse employment action E. holding that potentially indefinite suspension of employee from work without pay could constitute materially adverse employment action even where employer awards full backpay for the entire period and that reassignment of responsibilities could constitute materially adverse employment action even absent demotion

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that assignment of unfavorable class schedules did not constitute an adverse employment action absent evidence of materially adverse consequences
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 causation — which, if used for this purpose, would suppress evidence “simply because it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police.” Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 488, 83 S.Ct. at 418. Instead, “a finding with respect to attenuation ... can only be made after consideration of all the circumstances of the case.” United States v. Wellins, 654 F.2d 550, 554 (9th Cir.1981). This necessarily requires a “careful sifting of the unique facts and circumstances of each case.” Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 233, 93 S.Ct. at 2051. There being no fixed formula, cou th Cir.1990) (“Even assuming the initial entry was illegal, we agree with the district court that that entry did not taint Valencia’s subsequent consent.”); United States v. Sheppard, 901 F.2d 1230, 1234 (5th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); State v. Owen, 453 So.2d 1202, 1207 (La.1984) Options: A. holding that defendants voluntary consent to search his car dissipated taint of officers illegal entry B. holding that a detained defendants consent to search his car was voluntary even though the police did not tell him he was free to leave C. holding that defendants consent was involuntary where defendant consented to search following a warrantless entry and officers explained that absent consent the officers would obtain a warrant D. holding that officers request for defendants name during an illegal entry constituted exploitation of the illegal entry under hall E. holding that it was objectively reasonable for the police to conclude that the general consent to search the respondents car included consent to search a bag within that car

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that defendants voluntary consent to search his car dissipated taint of officers illegal entry
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 point is that, once jurisdiction is lost, the court of appeals lacks the power to invoke any rule to thereafter obtain jurisdiction. Even a claimed deprivation of constitutional rights cannot confer jurisdiction upon a court where none exists, anymore than parties can by agreement confer jurisdiction upon a court. So any amendments made pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) cannot be jurisdictional amendments. Id. at 413-14 (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted). According to Riewe, the only amendments permitted under Rule 25.2(d) are wcm-jurisdictional amendments. Id. The amendments appellant must make to his notice of appeal to invoke our jurisdiction over his complaint about punishment evidence are “jurisdictional amendments.” Craddock v. State, 32 S.W.3d 886, 887 (Tex.App.—Waco 2000, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); see also Davis v. State, 870 S.W.2d 43, 46-47 Options: A. holding that notice requirements of 4206a are jurisdictional B. holding that notice requirements under rule 252b3 are jurisdictional C. holding that notice requirements under former rule 40b1 are jurisdictional D. holding that regulatory requirements are not jurisdictional in nature E. holding that notwithstanding rule 252b3 requirements appellate court could address jurisdictional defects

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that notice requirements under rule 252b3 are jurisdictional
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 Holder may assign or sell a portion or all of this Debenture to one or more of its Affiliates upon five (5) Trading Days’ notice to the Company, which assignment or sale does not require the consent of the Company, or to one or more non-Affiliates upon five (5) Trading Days’ notice to the Company, which assignment or sale shall require the consent of the Company.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event that a dispute arises between the parties regarding the formation, interpretation and/or the terms and conditions of this Agreement and/or if there arises any other claim or legal dispute between the parties with respect to Executive’s employment or the termination thereof (the “Dispute”), the complaining party shall submit the Dispute in writing to the other party for resolution. If the Dispute is not resolved between the parties within thirty (30) days of the date the Dispute is submitted in writing to the other party, the complaining party must make a demand for final and binding arbitration in Boston, MA before an arbitrator pursuant to the Employment Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association in effect at the time of the Dispute (the “AAA Rules”) if the complaining party wishes to pursue the Dispute (“Demand for Arbitration”). Provided , however, that the foregoing shall not preclude the Company from immediately seeking injunctive or other equitable relief in a court of competent jurisdiction in connection with Executive’s breach or threatened breach of the Restrictive Covenants or the provisions set forth in Sections 13 or 14 of this Agreement. The parties expressly understand that by agreeing to this arbitration provision, they are agreeing to waive any rights to a civil action and/or jury trial regarding any Disputes between them. The parties shall share all costs, filing fees, and administrative fees for the arbitration equally as they come due; the parties shall be responsible for their own attorneys’ fees, witness fees, and travel costs. The arbitrator shall have the authority to rule on any and all issues properly presented in the Demand for Arbitration and/or pursuant to the AAA Rules and may award any and all relief provided under applicable law. The arbitrator’s award may be enforced, vacated, modified or corrected as set forth in the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C § 1 et seq. This Agreement shall be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C § 1 et seq., as amended, and the applicable rules of the American Arbitration Association set forth in this Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding upon, and shall inure to the benefit of Executive, the Company and their respective permitted successors and assigns.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Borrower (a) has not entered into the transaction or any Loan Document with the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor and (b) received reasonably equivalent value in exchange for its obligations under the Loan Documents. Giving effect to the Loan, the fair saleable value of Borrower’s assets exceeds and will, immediately following the making of the Loan, exceed Borrower’s total liabilities, including, without limitation, subordinated, unliquidated, disputed and contingent liabilities. The fair saleable value of Borrower’s assets is and will, immediately following the making of the Loan, be greater than Borrower’s probable liabilities, including the maximum amount of its contingent liabilities on its debts as such debts become or may become absolute and matured. Borrower’s assets do not and, immediately following the making of the Loan will not, constitute unreasonably small capital to carry out its business as conducted or as proposed to be conducted. Borrower does not intend to, and does not believe that it will, incur debt and liabilities (including contingent liabilities and other commitments) beyond its ability to pay such debt and liabilities as they mature (taking into account the timing and amounts of cash to be received by Borrower and the amounts to be payable on or in respect of obligations of Borrower).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of the parties hereto submits to the jurisdiction of any state or federal court sitting in New York, New York, in any action or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Agreement and agrees that all claims in respect of the action or proceeding may be heard and determined in any such court and hereby expressly submits to the personal jurisdiction and venue of such court for the purposes hereof and expressly waives any claim of improper venue and any claim that such courts are an inconvenient forum. Each of the parties hereby irrevocably consent to the service of process of any of the aforementioned courts in any such suit, action or proceeding by the mailing of copies thereof by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, to its address set forth herein.

assistant: Jurisdictions