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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Schedule 4 hereto sets forth a true, correct and complete list of all employee benefit plans, programs, policies and arrangements, whether written or unwritten (the “ Company Plans ”), that the Company, any subsidiary or any other corporation or business which is now or at the relevant time was a member of a controlled group of companies or trades or businesses including the Company or any subsidiary, within the meaning of section 414 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “ Code ”), maintain or have maintained on behalf of current or former members, partners, principals, directors, officers, managers, employees, consultants or other personnel. (i) There has been no prohibited transaction within the meaning of Section 406 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ ERISA ”), or Section 4975 of the Code, with respect to any of the Company Plans; (ii) none of the Company Plans is or was subject to Section 412 of the Code or Section 302 or Title IV of ERISA; and (iii) each of the Company Plans has been operated and administered in all material respects in accordance with all applicable laws, including ERISA. There are no actions, suits or claims pending or threatened (other than routine claims for benefits), whether by participants, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Labor or otherwise, with respect to any Company Plan and no facts exist under which any such actions, suits or claims are likely to be brought or under which the Company or any subsidiary could incur any liability with respect to a Company Plan other than in the ordinary course. None of the Company Plans is or was a multiemployer plan within the meaning of Section 3(37) of ERISA. Neither the Company nor any subsidiary has announced, proposed or agreed to any change in benefits under any Company Plan or the establishment of any new Company Plan. There have been no changes in the operation or interpretation of any Company Plan since the most recent annual report, which would have any material effect on the cost of operating, maintaining or providing benefits under such Company Plan. Neither the Company nor any subsidiary has incurred any liability for the misclassification of employees as leased employees or independent contractors. Except as provided for in this Subscription Agreement and in the other Sale Documents, the consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Subscription Agreement, either alone or in combination with another event, will not (A) result in any individual becoming entitled to any increase in the amount of compensation or benefits or any additional payment from the Company or any subsidiary (including, without limitation, severance, golden parachute or bonus payments or otherwise), or (B) accelerate the vesting or timing of payment of any benefits or compensation payable in respect of any individual.

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: Each Lender agrees to hold any confidential information which it may receive from the Company or any of its Subsidiaries pursuant to this Agreement in confidence (other than information pertaining to this Agreement routinely provided by arrangers to data service providers, including league table providers, that serve the lending industry), except for disclosure (i) to its Affiliates and to other Lenders and their respective Affiliates, (ii) to legal counsel, accountants and other professional advisors to such Lender or to a Transferee, (iii) to regulatory officials, (iv) to any Person as requested pursuant to or as required by law, regulation or legal process, (v) to any Person in connection with the exercise of any remedies under this Agreement or any other Loan Document or any legal proceeding to which such Lender is a party, (vi) as permitted by Section 13.4 , (vii) to rating agencies if requested or required by such agencies in connection with a rating relating to the Advances hereunder, (viii) to any other party to this Agreement, (ix) consented to by the Company or (x) to the extent such confidential information (1) becomes publicly available other than as a result of a breach of this Section or (2) becomes available to the Administrative Agent, the Issuing Bank or any Lender on a nonconfidential basis from a source other than the Company (it being understood that the Persons described in clauses (i) through (x) above to whom such disclosure is made will be informed of the confidential nature of such confidential information and instructed to keep such information confidential).

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: Each Group Member owns, or is licensed to use, all Intellectual Property necessary for the conduct of its business as currently conducted, except as would not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. No claim has been asserted and is pending by any Person challenging any Intellectual Property owned by any Group Member, which would reasonably be expected to have any Material Adverse Effect. The conduct of the business by each Group Member does not infringe the rights of any Person, and to its knowledge, each Group Member’s Intellectual Property is not being infringed by any Person, except in each case as would not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: ex rel. Columbus Blank Book Mfg. Co. v. Ayres (1943), 142 Ohio St. 216, 27 O.O. 176, 51 N.E.2d 636, the Ohio Supreme Court held that “all matters pertaining to the conduct of elections are state functions” and that “[mjembers of the boards of elections act under the direct control of and are answerable only to the Secretary of State in his capacity as the chief election officer of the state. They perform no county functions and are not county officers.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at paragraphs one and two of the syllabus. The court found nothing to indicate any legislative intent to make the members of the boards of elections county officers. Id. at 220, 27 O.O. 176, 51 N.E.2d 636; see also State ex rel. Moss v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections (1980), 69 Ohio App.2d 115, 117, 432 N.E.2d 210 (<HOLDING>). {¶ 61} Although R.C. 309.09 and 305.14 were Options: A. recognizing that a board of elections is not a political subdivision and its members are not county officers B. holding that state may not compel political party to allow nonmembers to vote in its primary elections C. recognizing absolute immunity for attorneys and board members of the texas medical board D. holding that the determination of the boundaries of a political subdivision of the state is a political question solely within the power prerogative and discretion of the legislature and not subject to judicial review E. recognizing county officers as those whose general authority and jurisdiction are confined within the limits of the county in which they are appointed who are appointed in and for a particular county and whose duties apply only to that county and through whom the county performs its usual political functions

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that a board of elections is not a political subdivision and its members are not county officers
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: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, all agreements, representations and warranties made in this Agreement herein shall not be impaired by any investigation or other act of Buyer or Seller and shall not be merged into the documents executed and delivered at Closing, but rather, except for Article 6, Sections 2.5.4, 3.4, 7.4 and 7.16 which shall survive indefinitely, shall survive the Closing for nine (9) months following the Closing Date. Any claim by one party hereto against the other for the breach of any agreement, representation or warranty contained herein not made within the foregoing nine (9) month period will be forever barred.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of jurisdiction. Vacated and remanded. 1 . WMATA also filed a third-party complaint against Blocker and Rudd, which the district court dismissed. WMATA appeals that dism Cir. 107, 1994 WL 1031399, at *2 (Va. Cir. Ct.1994) (attorney’s equitable claim against settlement fund); Slaughter v. Winston, 347 F.Supp. 1221, 1222-23 (E.D.Va.1972) (garnishment); Phillips v. Rector of Univ. of Va., 97 Va. 472, 34 S.E. 66 (1899) (mechanic’s lien); see also Department of the Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 525 U.S. 255, 264, 119 S.Ct. 687, 142 L.Ed.2d 718 (1999) (noting that "sovereign immunity bars creditors from attaching or garnishing funds in the Treasury, or enforcing liens against property owned by the United States” (citations omitted)); Knight v. United States, 982 F.2d 1573, 1578-79 (Fed. Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). 7 . We look to District of Columbia law to Options: A. holding that the ats does not waive the united states sovereign immunity B. holding that sovereign immunity does not bar extinguishment of united states junior lien in proceeding in which united states was not a party C. holding that sovereign immunity bars an attorneys lien against the united states D. holding that state sovereign immunity bars state constitutional claims E. holding that sovereign immunity bars dchra claim against the department of commerce

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that sovereign immunity bars an attorneys lien against the united states
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: duty of due care independent from the parties’ contractual relationship. Such tort duties of care with respect to representations are imposed by courts to protect a peculiarly vulnerable party. In particular, such duties are imposed in the context of a patient’s or client’s dealings with a professional in whom one places a great degree of personal trust and confidence—such as a physician, an attorney, an architect or a public accountant. Jacques, 515 A.2d at 763. No such relationship of special trust exists here. Nor is INTELSAT an unsophisticated consumer, unfamiliar with the subject matter of the contract, who relied on the representations of someone holding himself or herself out as possessing special expertise. See Ward Development Co. v. Ingrao, 63 Md.App. 645, 493 A.2d 421 (1985) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the contract itself imposes no Options: A. recognizing that city may be liable for negligent maintenance of sewer system even though doctrine of res ipsa loquitor was inapplicable B. holding housing developer liable for negligent misrepresentation for grossly inaccurate estimate of water and sewer connection charges given to prospective homeowners who had no means of checking accuracy C. holding economic loss rule did not bar negligent misrepresentation claim where parties had no contract D. holding that a city was equitably estopped from denying the accuracy of blueprints and specifications given to a party who had been contracted to build a sewer for the city E. holding negligent misrepresentation sufficient

assistant: The best answer is B. holding housing developer liable for negligent misrepresentation for grossly inaccurate estimate of water and sewer connection charges given to prospective homeowners who had no means of checking accuracy
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 representation or warranty by the Client contained in this Agreement, and no statement contained in any instrument, list, certificate, or writing furnished to the Consultant pursuant to the provisions hereof or in connection with the transaction contemplated hereby, contains any untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements contained herein.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: During the Term, Executive shall be entitled to participate in all employee benefit plans, programs and arrangements made available generally to the Company’s senior executives or to its employees on substantially the same basis that such benefits are provided to such senior executives (including, without limitation, profit-sharing, savings and other retirement plans (e.g., a 401(k) plan) or programs, medical, dental, hospitalization, vision, short-term and long-term disability and life insurance plans or programs, accidental death and dismemberment protection, travel accident insurance, supplemental long-term disability insurance, insurance and operating costs, and any other employee welfare benefit plans or programs that may be sponsored by the Company from time to time, including any plans or programs that supplement the above-listed types of plans or programs, whether funded or unfunded); provided , however , that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to require the Company to establish or maintain any such plans, programs or arrangements.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Upon the issuance of Shares to Employee pursuant to this Agreement, Employee shall pay an amount equal to the amount of all applicable federal, state and local employment taxes which the Company is required to withhold at any time. Such payment may be made in cash or, with respect to the issuance of Shares to Employee pursuant to this Agreement, by delivery of whole Shares (including Shares issuable under this Agreement) in accordance with Section 14(a) of the Plan.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: v. Richards, 5 F.3d 1369, 1371 (10th Cir.1993) (“A person cannot be actually innocent of a noncapital sentence .... ”). The Court agrees wit d Cir.2003) (involving misapplication as a career offender, but pointing out that there was no suggestion the crimes were not violent felonies). Duval does not claim to be actually innocent of the crime for which he was sentenced or innocent of the predicate crimes upon which his ACCA status was based; instead, he claims to be actually innocent of being an armed career criminal. He claims that his assault does not qualify as a violent felony, making it legally ineligible for the ACCA. Some courts have rejected similar claims. The Fourth Circuit held, “This argument ... is not cognizable as a claim of actual innocence.” Pettiford, 612 F.3d at 284 (<HOLDING>). See also McKay, 657 F.3d at 1199 (“[E]ven if Options: A. holding that 2255 movant claiming his prior conviction for assault was not a violent felony did not qualify for actual innocence exception B. holding that burglary is violent felony C. holding that in determining whether a prior conviction is a violent felony a court generally must look only to the fact of conviction and the statutory definition of the prior offense D. holding a burglary must be of a building or structure in order to qualify as a violent felony for acca purposes E. holding that fourthdegree aggravated assault is a violent felony

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that 2255 movant claiming his prior conviction for assault was not a violent felony did not qualify for actual innocence exception
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in the forum state.’ ” Id. (quoting Dakota Indus., Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc., 946 F.2d 1384, 1390-91 (8th Cir.1991)). It is important to note, however, that the Calder test does not displace the five-factor personal jurisdiction test set forth above, see supra p. 987; rather, it “requires the consideration of additional factors when an intentional tort is alleged.” Dakota Indus., Inc., 946 F.2d at 1391 (internal citation omitted). Therefore, even assuming that the Calder effects test is satisfied in this case, “absent additional contacts, mere ef fects in the forum state are insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction.” Johnson, 614 F.3d at 797 (internal citation omitted); accord AmerUs Group Co. v. Ameris Bancorp, No 4:06-cv-00110, 2006 WL 1452808, at *6 (S.D.Iowa May 22, 2006) (<HOLDING>). This is fatal to First American’s case Options: A. holding minimum contacts were necessary for personal jurisdiction over defendant B. holding that the effects of a tortious act cannot subject a defendant to personal jurisdiction in a forum where no other contacts exist C. holding that specific jurisdiction requires plaintiff to show that defendants forum contacts be related directly to the subject of the lawsuit D. holding no specific jurisdiction where alleged tortious conduct was not related to defendants contacts with texas E. holding that personal jurisdiction over a party is proper if the party has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the effects of a tortious act cannot subject a defendant to personal jurisdiction in a forum where no other contacts exist
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: market area, given the demographic similarities between the markets, and that sales would definitely increase in a certain store if the franchisee ran it properly. Id. The court held that statements were nothing more than projections of future events and were not actionable as fraud under the state law. Id. Similar to the alleged misrepresentations made in America’s Favorite Chicken, all of the statements made by Papa John’s concerned future events, were statements that were merely predictive, and were statements which Defendants could not reasonably relied upon. Kentucky courts have specifically held that it is unreasonable to rely on projections of future profits or future sales in a fraud case. See Rivermont Inn, Inc. v. Bass Hotels Resorts, Inc., 113 S.W.3d 636, 640 (Ky.App.2003) (<HOLDING>). Many other courts agree. See Zar v. Omni Options: A. holding that future predictions and opinions especially those regarding future profitability of business cannot form basis for fraud as matter of law B. holding that projections of future profits or business success may constitute fraud if declarant had exclusive or superior knowledge of the facts C. holding that in texas future predictions and opinions especially those regarding the future profitability of a business cannot as a matter of law form a basis for fraud D. holding that to satisfy the element of specific intent to defraud needed to convict for mail fraud the government must show that the defendant knowingly made a material misrepresentation or knowingly omitted a material fact for the purpose of inducing the victim of the fraud to part with property or undertake some action that he would not otherwise do absent the misrepresentation or omission E. holding that mere statements of opinion or prediction such as future profits or how well a business will do in a particular market may not be a basis for a fraud or misrepresentation action because predictions are not past or present material facts

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that mere statements of opinion or prediction such as future profits or how well a business will do in a particular market may not be a basis for a fraud or misrepresentation action because predictions are not past or present material facts
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: agree that because Plaintiff’s entries were never liquidated, subparagraph (B) of 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3) applies. Def.’s Mot. at 3; Pl.’s Opp’n at 5. As a sovereign entity, the United States is immune from suit unless it consents to be sued. United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980) (quoting United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941)). Title 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) constitutes an explicit waiver of immunity by the United States. US JVC Corp. v. United States, 22 CIT 687, 694, 15 F. Supp. 2d 906, 913 (1998). Previous judicial decisions have therefore held that the statutory timing requirement for protests is a mandatory term of the United States’ consent to suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a). United States v. Boe, 64 Ct. Cust. App. 11, 15-16, 543 F.2d 151, 154-55 (1976) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court must construe the Options: A. holding that under the fsia personal jurisdiction depends upon the district court finding subject matter jurisdiction under 28 usc 1330a and proper service under 28 usc 1608 B. holding that where jurisdiction was based on 28 usc 2201 venue was determined as per 28 usc 1391 C. holding a bankruptcy court is not a court of the united states entitled to waive filing fees pursuant to 28 usc section 1915a D. holding that under 28 usc 1404a might have been brought requirement was not satisfied by defendants consent to jurisdiction E. holding that the customs court lacked jurisdiction when plaintiff failed to comply with all terms of consent by the united states mandated by 28 usc 1582 1976 the predecessor to 28 usc 1581a 2000

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the customs court lacked jurisdiction when plaintiff failed to comply with all terms of consent by the united states mandated by 28 usc 1582 1976 the predecessor to 28 usc 1581a 2000
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 Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation — and then-ideas from suppression — at the hand of an intolerant society.” McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 356, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 131 L.Ed.2d 426 (1995) (citation omitted). It is perhaps because of this essential value that our free speech tradition has hesitated to allow a government to exclude speech from the marketplace of ideas merely because that speech does not disclose its source. See id. at 342-43, 115 S.Ct. 1511. But compelled disclosure is not a direct prohibition on speech. Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186, 130 S.Ct. 2811, 2818, 177 L.Ed.2d 493 (2010); see also Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 366, 130 S.Ct. 876, 175 L.Ed.2d 753 (2010) (<HOLDING>). Striking a balance between those two points, Options: A. holding that apprendi error is harmless if the court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the result would have been the same absent the error internal quotation marks and citation omitted B. holding that a statute must be construed so that no part of the statute is rendered surplusage or superfluous internal quotation marks and citation omitted C. recognizing that absent illegality we do not weigh the wisdom of any particular employment decision internal quotation marks and citation omitted D. holding that disclosure requirements may burden the ability to speak but they do not prevent anyone from speaking citation and internal quotation marks omitted E. holding that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the citizens of minnesota from those who pose a severe threat to their health and safety citation omitted internal quotation marks omitted

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that disclosure requirements may burden the ability to speak but they do not prevent anyone from speaking citation and internal quotation marks 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: During the Term, the Company shall pay to the Executive an annual base salary (“Base Salary”) of at least $358,829, less applicable and authorized deductions, subject to review annually for appropriate increases by the Chief Executive Officer and the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) pursuant to the normal performance review policy for senior level executives. The Base Salary shall be payable in accordance with the Company’s payroll schedule.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: 9gag , inc reserves the right , at its discretion , to modify these terms of service at any time by posting revised terms of service on the site and by providing notice via e-mail , where possible , or on the site .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The parties have participated jointly in negotiating and drafting this Agreement. If an ambiguity or a question of intent or interpretation arises, this Agreement shall be construed as if drafted jointly by the parties, and no presumption or burden of proof shall arise favoring or disfavoring any party by virtue of the authorship of any provision of this Agreement. When a reference is made in this Agreement to sections or subsections, such reference shall be to a section or subsection of this Agreement unless otherwise indicated. The headings contained in this Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not affect in any way the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. Whenever the words “include,” “includes” or “including” are used in this Agreement, they shall be deemed to be followed by the words “without limitation.” The words “herein,” “hereof,” “hereunder” and words of similar import shall be deemed to refer to this Agreement as a whole and not to any particular provision of this Agreement. Any pronoun shall include the corresponding masculine, feminine and neuter forms. References to “party” or “parties” in this Agreement mean the Company and each Shareholder, as the case may be. Time periods within or following which any act is to be done shall be calculated by excluding the day on which the period commences and including the day on which the period ends and by extending the period to the next Business Day following if the last day of the period is not a Business Day.

assistant: Interpretations
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: affirmatively chose an appeal at the administrative level could frustrate Title VII’s goal of encouraging discrimination complaints to be resolved at the administrative level. See id. Courts have recognized the importance of the exhaustion requirement in similar, though not identical, circumstances, such as where plaintiffs had withdrawn or failed to pursue their complaints at the initial administrative step. “Allowing a plaintiff to abandon the administrative remedies he has initiated would tend to frustrate the ability of the agency to deal with complaints. All participants would know that at any moment an impatient complainant could take his claim to court and abort the administrative proceedings.” Gagnon v. Potter, No. 3:05-CV-324RM, 2006 WL 2051730, at *3 (N.D.Ind. July 19, 2006) (<HOLDING>); see also Mackay v. USPS, 607 F.Supp. 271, 276 Options: A. holding that a plaintiff who pled in her complaint that her law firm actively misled her in support of her request for application of the discovery rule had sufficiently pled the application of the doctrine B. holding that the plaintiffs second complaint did not relate back to her first complaint because her second complaint was not an amendment to her first complaint but rather a separate filing C. holding that plaintiff was not allowed to voluntarily withdraw her complaint after electing to have her complaint heard before an administrative law judge D. holding that a district court had sufficient reason to reject the plaintiffs belated attempt to amend her complaint fifteen months after the commencement of her action and nine months after the initial amendment to her complaint E. holding that plaintiffs motion to amend her complaint to add her husband as a defendant did not relate back because her failure to sue her husband was not due to misnomer or mistake involving the identity of the proper party but because the law at the time of the complaint did not allow one spouse to sue another in tort

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that plaintiff was not allowed to voluntarily withdraw her complaint after electing to have her complaint heard before an administrative law judge
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 part of the proceeds of the DIP Loans has been used, directly for any payment to any governmental official or employee, political party, official of a political party, candidate for political office, or anyone else acting in an official capacity, in order to obtain, retain or direct business or obtain any improper advantage in violation of any Anti-Corruption Law, as in effect on the date of the making of such representation and warranty.

assistant: Anti-Corruption 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: or impose a less onerous remedy when he refused to answer the state’s questions. He contends that the trial court’s decision rests on a misapprehension of the law. See State v. Rogers, 330 Or 282, 310-11, 4 P3d 1261 (2000) (addressing comparable problem). The premise of defendant’s argument is correct. In Oregon, trial courts have broad discretion to control the order and presentation of evidence. See OEC 611 (stating that courts shall exercise reasonable control over order and presentation of evidence); Rogers, 330 Or at 300 (recognizing that principle). That includes the discretion to strike the testimony of a witness who refuses to answer questions on cross-examination or to impose a less onerous sanction when appropriate. See State v. Mende, 304 Or 18, 21, 741 P2d 496 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Although defendant’s premise is correct, he Options: A. holding that the trial court properly disregarded a witnesss ex parte affidavit and his direct testimony when the witness declined to submit to crossexamination B. holding that trial court was required to give full effect to supreme courts judgment and that by failing to do so the trial court abused its discretion C. holding that although not required to do so trial court had discretion to strike defendants affidavit when he refused to submit to crossexamination D. holding that sentencing court did not violate defendants due process rights when it reasonably refused to recall a witness for crossexamination E. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to strike witnesss testimony on direct examination when witness asserted fifth amendment on collateral matters on crossexamination particularly when witness was required to invoke privilege in presence of jury

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that although not required to do so trial court had discretion to strike defendants affidavit when he refused to submit to crossexamination
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: therapy, the order violates the doctrine of separation of powers. The pro bono Attorney Ad Litem attempted to defend the trial court’s order by citing to general law regarding the need to foster attorney-client relationships in this context. That issue is not before us. The order under review excluded travel costs relating to attorney-client matters. Petition granted; order quashed. 1 . This court takes this opportunity to thank the Attorney Ad Litem, Angela Vigil, Esquire, for her professionalism in providing representation to J.B. on a pro bono basis. He ourt violated the separation of powers doctrine when it ordered the Department of Corrections to pay for an interpreter for a defendant who was hearing impaired); Dep’t of Corr. v. Grubbs, 884 So.2d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (<HOLDING>); Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. v. Options: A. recognizing that virtually all of the studies show that relatively few juvenile sex offenders are charged with a subsequent sex crime and sexual recidivism of juvenile sexual offenders posttreatment was very rare B. holding that a private school specializing in treatment and education of juvenile sex offenders was not providing a function that is traditionally the exclusive province of the state C. holding the trial court violated the separation of powers doctrine when it ordered the department of corrections to pay for a convicted sex offenders treatment program D. holding the trial court violated the separation of powers doctrine when it ordered the office of the state attorney to pay for the costs of mental health experts evaluating the defendant E. holding the trial court correctly ordered appellant to pay restitution for the full value of the vehicle

assistant: The best answer is C. holding the trial court violated the separation of powers doctrine when it ordered the department of corrections to pay for a convicted sex offenders treatment program
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 provision of this Fourth Amendment that is prohibited or unenforceable in any jurisdiction shall, as to such jurisdiction, be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition or unenforceability without invalidating the remaining provisions hereof, and any such prohibition or unenforceability in any 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: of India. Varghese could prove his eligibility for asylum by demonstrating that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution in India. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)©; 1101(a)(42)(A). To establish a well-founded fear of persecution, an alien must demonstrate that he genuinely fears persecution on account of his religion and that this fear is objectively reasonable. See Prela, 394 F.3d at 519. The IJ did not doubt the sincerity of Varghese’s fear, but found it objectively unreasonable. To demonstrate that his fear is objectively reasonable, Varghese had to show “ ‘specific, detailed facts supporting the reasonableness of [his] fear that [he] will be singled out for persecution.’ ” Bhatt v. Reno, 172 F.3d 978, 982 (7th Cir.1999) (quoting Bevc v. INS, 47 F.3d 907, 910 (7th Cir.1995)) (<HOLDING>). What’s more, an applicant “does not have a Options: A. holding that a showing of past persecution creates a rebuttable presumption of future persecution B. holding that two arrests and repeated beatings constituted persecution C. holding that threats standing alone generally do not constitute past persecution D. holding that beatings vandalism threats and humiliation in the aggregate rise to the level of persecution as contemplated by the act E. holding that indian applicants testimony of beatings and threats by hindu radicals is too vague speculative and insubstantial to establish either past or future persecution

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that indian applicants testimony of beatings and threats by hindu radicals is too vague speculative and insubstantial to establish either past or future persecution
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The parties to each assignment shall execute and deliver to the Administrative Agent an Assignment and Assumption, together with a processing and recordation fee of $3,500; provided , that the Administrative Agent may, in its sole discretion, elect to waive such processing and recordation fee in the case of any assignment. The assignee, if it is not a Lender, shall deliver to the Administrative Agent an Administrative Questionnaire.

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: The Board may at any time terminate the Plan, provided that such termination does not alter, impair, or reduce the number of CARs granted or the Grant Date Value of the Participant’s CARs under the Plan prior to the effective date of such termination without the written consent of the affected Participant.

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: statute. Id. Based solely on his delivery of the boat within Virginia’s boundaries, the Supreme Court of Virginia held the defendant subject to personal jurisdiction in the Commonwealth. Id. at 563-64. Because the claim asserted in Peninsula Cruise was based on the defendant’s failure to pay for repairs, not the failure to deliver the boat, the case points persuasively to the conclusion that acts of contract performance may confer jurisdiction in a breach of contract action even if those acts are not specifically related to the alleged breach. This reading of Peninsula Cruise is supported by Prolinks, Inc. v. Horizon Organic Dairy, 58 Va. Cir. 17, 20 (2001), which states in dicta that Peninsula Cruise establishes that “part performance of a contract [in the pp. 935, 937 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (<HOLDING>). In this case, therefore, all of defendant’s Options: A. holding new york law may prohibit noncompete forfeiture provisions but erisa statutes allow forfeiture of all deferred compensation benefits under noncompete forfeiture provisions in a top hat plan B. holding that plaintiffemployers claim that defendant violated noncompete agreement did not arise out of defendants businessrelated visits to new york C. holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership D. holding that television station was not subject to personal jurisdiction in new york under that states longarm statute since libel claim did not arise from defendants delivery of mail orders to new york E. holding that outofstate defendants transmittal into new york of ceaseanddesist letter to new york plaintiff for purported trademark infringement was insufficient to create jurisdiction over defendant in a new york declaratory judgment action

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that plaintiffemployers claim that defendant violated noncompete agreement did not arise out of defendants businessrelated visits to new york
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, for any reason, any provision hereof shall be determined to be invalid or unenforceable, the validity and effect of the other provisions hereof shall not be affected thereby. Whenever possible, each provision of this Agreement will be interpreted in such manner as to be effective and valid under applicable law, but if any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect under any applicable law or rule in any jurisdiction, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability will not affect any other provision or any other jurisdiction, but this Agreement will be reformed, construed and enforced in such jurisdiction as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein. If any court determines that any provision of this Agreement is unenforceable but has the power to reduce the scope or duration of such provision, as the case may be, such provision, in its reduced form, shall then be enforceable .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No Reportable Event has occurred during the five year period prior to the date on which this representation is made or deemed made with respect to any Plan, and each Plan has complied with the applicable provisions of ERISA and the Code, except, in each case, to the extent that any such Reportable Event or failure to comply with the applicable provisions of ERISA or the Code could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect. During the five year period prior to the date on which this representation is made or deemed made, there has been no (i) failure to make a required contribution to any Plan that would result in the imposition of a lien or other encumbrance or the provision of security under Section 430 of the Code or Section 303 or 4068 of ERISA, or the arising of such a lien or encumbrance; or (ii) “unpaid minimum required contribution” or “accumulated funding deficiency” (as defined or otherwise set forth in Section 4971 of the Code or Part 3 of Subtitle B of Title I of ERISA), whether or not waived, except, in each case, to the extent that such event could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect. No termination of a Single Employer Plan has occurred, and no Lien in favor of the PBGC or a Plan has arisen, during such five-year period. The present value of all accrued benefits under each Single Employer Plan (based on those assumptions used to fund such Plans) did not, as of the last annual valuation date prior to the date on which this representation is made or deemed made, exceed the value of the assets of such Plan allocable to such accrued benefits, except as could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect. Neither the Borrower nor any Commonly Controlled Entity has had a complete or partial withdrawal from any Multiemployer Plan during the five year period prior to the date on which this representation is made or deemed made that has resulted or could reasonably be expected to result in a material liability under ERISA, and neither the Borrower nor any Commonly Controlled Entity would become subject to any liability under ERISA if the Borrower or any such Commonly Controlled Entity were to withdraw completely from all Multiemployer Plans as of the valuation date most closely preceding the date on which this representation is made or deemed made, except as could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect. No such Multiemployer Plan is in Reorganization or Insolvent.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: although tripadvisor has no obligation to screen , edit or monitor any of the content posted to or distributed through any interactive area , tripadvisor reserves the right , and has absolute discretion , to remove , screen , translate or edit without notice any content posted or stored on this website at any time and for any reason , or to have such actions performed by third parties on its behalf , and you are solely responsible for creating backup copies of and replacing any content you post or store on this website at your sole cost and expense .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: for appellant’s two offenses. According to appellant’s trial attorney, the offer was conveyed to appellant that day, while appellant was in court. The plea-bargain offer remained open until the next day, October 4, 2004, when appellant appeared in court and rejected the offer, which the State then withdrew. The October 4, 2002 reset form, which was signed by the Assistant District Attorney, appellant’s trial attorney and appellant, had a handwritten note stating, “[Defendant] rejected 15 yrs [sic] TDC [;] offer [is] withdrawn[.] State to file additional charges. 40 [sic] f the alleged error when the alleged grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel are not related to the plea of guilty. See id.; Jordan v. State, 112 S.W.3d 345, 347 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2003, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). Our research has revealed that only one of Options: A. holding that a conflict of interest independent of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel constitute cause where the conflict caused the attorney to interfere with the petitioners right to pursue his 1 claim B. holding that right to appeal claim of inef fective assistance of counsel alleging that counsel had disqualifying conflict of interest waived because record did not show that jordan would have pleaded not guilty but for alleged conflict of interest C. recognizing conflict D. recognizing the conflict E. holding that defendants claim for ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest was not cognizable on direct appeal

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that right to appeal claim of inef fective assistance of counsel alleging that counsel had disqualifying conflict of interest waived because record did not show that jordan would have pleaded not guilty but for alleged conflict of interest