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: Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, and any other terms and conditions which the applicable Issuing Bank may reasonably require, the Borrower Representative may request the issuance of Letters of Credit for its own account or, so long as the U.S. Borrower is a joint and several co-applicant with respect thereto, the account of any Restricted Subsidiary, denominated in Dollars and in a form reasonably acceptable to the Administrative Agent and the applicable Issuing Bank, at any time and from time to time during the Revolving Availability Period. The U.S. Borrower and the Belgian Borrower, jointly and severally, unconditionally and irrevocably agree that, in connection with any Letter of Credit issued for the account of any Restricted Subsidiary that is, in the case of the Belgian Borrower, a Subsidiary of the Belgian Borrower, as provided in the first sentence of this paragraph, it will be fully responsible for the reimbursement of LC Disbursements, the payment of interest thereon and the payment of fees due under Section 2.12(b) to the same extent as if it were the sole account party in respect of such Letter of Credit. Notwithstanding anything contained in any letter of credit application furnished to any Issuing Bank in connection with the issuance of any Letter of Credit, (i) all provisions of such letter of credit application purporting to grant liens in favor of the Issuing Bank to secure obligations in respect of such Letter of Credit shall be disregarded, it being agreed that such obligations shall be secured to the extent provided in this Agreement and in the Security Documents, and (ii) in the event of any inconsistency between the terms and conditions of such letter of credit application and the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall control. Subject to the terms and conditions hereof, each Existing Letter of Credit that is outstanding on the Initial Funding Date shall, effective as of the Initial Funding Date and without any further action by the U.S. Borrower, be deemed a Letter of Credit for all purposes hereof and be subject to and governed by the terms and conditions hereof.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and each other Loan Document to which any Credit Party or any Subsidiary of any Credit Party is a party constitute the legal, valid and binding obligations of each such Person which is a party thereto, enforceable against such Person in accordance with their respective terms, except as enforceability may be limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, fraudulent transfer or similar laws affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights generally or by equitable principles relating to enforceability.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: prescription drug use and Keating’s positive urine test that day. Moreover, once inside 90 Market Street, Lombardo’s flight and Keating’s presence in the upstairs bathroom provided additional justification for the search of the residence. We find the search reasonable. C. The Strip Search of Keating Was Reasonable. We also agree with the District Court that the strip search of Keating was reasonable under the circumstances. The reasonableness of a strip search or visual cavity search is assessed by considering the totality of the circumstances, including “the scope of the particular intrusion, the manner in which it is conducted, the justification for initiating it, and the place in which it is conducted.” See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 620, 559, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed,2d 447 (1979) (<HOLDING>). We reiterate that Keating, as a parolee, had Options: A. holding that prison officials may conduct visual body cavity searches in a reasonable manner B. holding probable cause to be required for strip and visual body cavity searches C. holding unconstitutional blanket jail policy of subjecting all arrestees to strip and visual body cavity searches D. holding unconstitutional city policy of subjecting all females arrested and detained to strip and visual body cavity searches E. holding that a visual body cavity search requires probable cause and a search warrant

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that prison officials may conduct visual body cavity searches in a reasonable manner
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 Release may be executed by facsimile and/or electronic signature in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which when taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Facsimile and electronic signatures shall, for all purposes, be treated as originals.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: deadlines — and then apply that concept using conventional computer technology and the Internet, they fail to meet section 101’s subject matter eligibility requirements. “While running a particular process on a computer undeniably improves efficiency and accuracy, cloaking an otherwise abstract idea in the guise of a computer-implemented claim is insufficient to bring it within section 101.” My Space, Inc. v. Graphon Corp., 672 F.3d 1250, 1267 (Fed. Cir.2012) (Mayer, J., dissenting) (footnote omitted); see Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir.2012) (concluding that claims directed to a computerized method of managing a stable value protected life insurance policy fell outside section 101); Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed.Cir. 2012) (<HOLDING>); Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC, Options: A. holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not know the residence for which they obtained a warrant actually contained multiple units B. holding that section 1823e applies only to assets and does not apply to claims regarding letters of credit because letters of credit are liabilities rather than assets C. holding that a credit issuing bank did not breach a credit agreement when it unilaterally modified the terms D. holding that claims drawn to a method of applying for credit did not satisfy section 101 notwithstanding the fact that they contained a limitation requiring the invention to be computer aided E. recognizing statutory credit

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that claims drawn to a method of applying for credit did not satisfy section 101 notwithstanding the fact that they contained a limitation requiring the invention to be computer aided
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: as a matter of law, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state law claim. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, Ct. Rec. 45, is GRANTED IN PART, and Defendant’s Cross Motion, Ct. Rec. 53, is DENIED IN PART, on the issues of whether Title III of the ADA applies to Defendant NCAA, whether Plaintiffs learning disability constitutes a disability protected by the ADA, and whether a waiver of the 75/25 Rule would be a reasonable modification to the NCAA’s eligibility rules. 2. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, Ct. Rec. 45, is DENIED IN PART, on the issue of whether Plaintiffs failure to meet the NCAA’s eligibility criteria resulted from his disability and thus whether t d 580, 583 (6th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Other courts have held, however, that the Options: A. holding that hockey organization was not sufficiently linked to a place so not subject to ada B. holding ada claim was discharged C. holding that defendants were not in control and therefore were not supervisors and not subject to liability under 1983 D. holding that national football league was not a place and therefore not subject to ada E. holding national guardsmans ada and rehabilitation act claims nonjusticiable

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that national football league was not a place and therefore not subject to ada
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 the anti-stacking statute. The majority does not analyze the statute and resolve this critical issue, although it admits that Andrea, as the “injured insured,” would have been limited to only one UM policy had she lived. The very reason she would be limited is because she, not her parents, is the “insured” under the anti-stacking statute. The observation that a wrongful death action is a “separate and independent” cause of action from Andrea’s personal injury action, although true, is immaterial. Op. p. 744. The Boullts are not attempting to “stack” their policies covering Andrea’s wrongful death on top of policies covering Andrea for personal injury damages. They are attempting to “stack” two UM policies providing evelopment, 94-0735 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/30/94), 646 So.2d 1242 (<HOLDING>). 2 . The "insured” for purposes of uninsured Options: A. holding that where policies exclude coverage for injuries that are intended or expected the exclusion is applicable if the insured acts with the intent or expectation that bodily injury will result even though the bodily injury that does result is different either in character or magnitude from the injury that was intended B. holding that the married parents of their deceased son could not stack two separate um policies under which they and their son were each insureds because the antistacking statute reference to the insured contemplates the person who suffers the bodily injury or bodily injury resulting in death C. holding that the fatal injury to a murder victim may be considered as satisfying the bodily injury component of the capital felony of kidnapping with bodily injury D. holding that a divorced parent of a deceased child may chose to recover wrongful death damages under either her um policy or her exhusbands um policy which ever is more favorable but is prohibited by the antistacking statute from recovering under both policies E. holding that divorced parent could not stack their separate um policies for the wrongful death of their son because the insured referred to in the antistacking statute is the person who suffers bodily injury or bodily injury which results in death

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that divorced parent could not stack their separate um policies for the wrongful death of their son because the insured referred to in the antistacking statute is the person who suffers bodily injury or bodily injury which results in death
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Recipient may disclose the Confidential Information only to its directors or employees who have a need to know the Confidential Information for the Purpose, provided that such party agrees to be bound by this or comparable agreements to the same extent as Recipient is bound and Recipient agrees to be responsible for any breach by these employees and directors.

assistant: Yes
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: discrimination charge were invalid, the information sought in the subpoena is nonetheless within the scope of the EEOC’s investigative authority. During the course of the EEOC’s investigation, Milliren additionally alleged that she would be one of only two female LGMs out of 500 LGMs nationwide if she had completed the GMDP and that a female applicant was rejected for a manager position because she had children. Because the EEOC’s investigation into Milliren’s charge of individual gender discrimination revealed potential systemic gender discrimination, the EEOC had the authority to subpoena information relevant to systemic gender discrimination even absent a valid systemic charge by Milliren. See, e.g., EEOC v. Cambridge Tile Mfg. Co., 590 F.2d 205, 206 (6th Cir.1979) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). III. We affirm the district court’s order Options: A. holding that an original eeoc charge is sufficient to support a civil suit under the act for any discrimination developed in the course of a reasonable investigation of that charge provided such discrimination was included in the reasonable cause determination of the eeoc B. holding that statements made to internal investigator of employer were made in an investigation under this subchapter where investigation was pursuant to a charge filed with eeoc C. holding that plaintiff stated a discrimination claim despite not including a discrimination heading in eeoc complaint because the facts included in eeoc complaint were sufficient to trigger an investigation into whether plaintiff suffered an adverse action because of his religion D. holding that general employment practices are relevant to eeoc investigation of individual disparate treatment claim E. holding that the eeoc has authority to investigate a broader picture of discrimination that appears during the investigation of an individual charge

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the eeoc has authority to investigate a broader picture of discrimination that appears during the investigation of an individual charge
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 Student Plaintiffs’ protected First Amendment interests, a delay of only a few hours .was not a sufficient injury to invoke the protections of Article III of the Constitution. See Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 674, 97 S.Ct. 1401, 51 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977) (“There is, of course a de minimis level of imposition with which the Constitution is not concerned”); Brown v. Stone, 66 F.Supp.2d 412, 436 (E.D.N.Y.1999) (“[A]ny perceived chilling effect would appear to be de minimus, and hence not of constitutional significance.”); Arce v. Banks, 913 F.Supp. 307, 309 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (“At most, [plaintiff] has suffered a de minimus infringement of his First Amendment rights which is not actionable in a § 1983 petition”); Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 14, 92 S.Ct. 2318, 33 L.Ed.2d 154 (1972) (<HOLDING>). Because the Student Plaintiffs have failed to Options: A. holding all that is required to impose a duty to warn is that the defendant knew or should have known of a specific threat made to harm a specific person B. holding that the threat of future harm not yet realized is not enough C. holding that plaintiffs who alleged a subjective chill of their first amendment rights failed to establish specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm D. holding that common law duty to warn arises when a person being released from custody has made a specific threat of harm directed at a specific individual E. holding that chilling effect claim must still be rooted in specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm to convey standing

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that plaintiffs who alleged a subjective chill of their first amendment rights failed to establish specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm
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: (Utah 1989) (per curiam) (“Unambiguous language in [a] statute may not be interpreted to contradict its plain meaning.”). In construing a statute, we assume that “each term in the statute was used advisedly; thus the statutory words are read literally, unless such a reading is unreasonably confused or inoperable.” Savage Indus., Inc. v. Utah State Tax Comm’n, 811 P.2d 664, 670 (Utah 1991). “Only when we find ambiguity in the statute’s plain language need we seek guidance from the legislative history and relevant policy considerations.” World Peace Movement of Am. v. Newspaper Agency Corp., 879 P.2d 253, 259 (Utah 1994); see also Schurtz, 814 P.2d at 1112 (“We first look to the statute’s plain language. Only if we find some ambiguity need we look further.”); Brinkerhoff, 779 P.2d at 686 (<HOLDING>). While the Code defines the terms “issuer” and Options: A. holding that a court can look beyond the statutory language when plain meaning would compel an odd result B. recognizing that courts can look beyond an unambiguous statute and consult legislative history to divine its meaning if the literal application of the statutory language produces an outcome that is demonstrably at odds with clearly expressed congressional intent to the contrary or if the literal application of the statutory language results in an outcome that can truly be characterized as absurd ie that is so gross as to shock the general moral or common sense C. recognizing that courts should look to other sources of legislative intent if the statutory language does not convey a clear meaning D. holding that if statutory language is plain and unambiguous this court will not look beyond the same to divine legislative intent E. recognizing that courts may look beyond the statutory text to determine legislative intent only when the statute is ambiguous

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that if statutory language is plain and unambiguous this court will not look beyond the same to divine legislative intent
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 any one or more of the provisions of this Agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, or the validity, legality and enforceability of any one or more of the provisions contained herein shall be held to be excessively broad as to duration, activity or subject, such provision shall be construed by limiting and reducing such provision so as to be enforceable to the maximum extent compatible with applicable law.

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: The Parties agree that if the negotiated transaction does not proceed within a reasonable time, or upon any request from either Party, each Party shall promptly deliver to the other Party all written Confidential Information and any other written material containing or reflecting Confidential Information and will not retain any copies, extracts or other reproductions in whole or in part of such written material. All documents, memoranda, notes and other writings whatsoever prepared by each Party, or respective representatives, based on the information included in the Confidential Information shall be promptly destroyed, and such destruction shall be ce1tified in writing by an authorized officer supervising such destruction.

assistant: No
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: required to decide whether they had subject matter jurisdiction over those federal claims. In contrast, in the instant case, this Court’s jurisdiction is based solely on diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff has not asserted any claims under § 301. She has asserted only state law claims. The question before this Court is whether non-signatories to a CBA can invoke § 301 preemption as a defense to a plaintiffs state law claims. Several courts have held that they can. See Covenant Coal, 977 F.2d at 899-900; Dashields v. Robertson, No. 99-1124, 2000 WL 564024, at *2 n. 8 (4th Cir. May 10, 2000) (“section 301 can preempt claims against non-signatories to a collective bargaining agreement”); Mullins v. International Union of Operating Eng’rs Local No. 77, 214 F.Supp.2d 655, 668 (E.D.Va.2002)(<HOLDING>). See also Golden v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., 878 Options: A. holding section 301 preempted plaintiffs claim for tortious interference with contract because that claim would require interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement B. holding state law claim preempted by 301 of labor management relations act only if application of state law requires interpretation of collective bargaining agreement C. holding state law claim substantially dependent upon interpretation of collective bargaining agreement must be dismissed for failure to use grievance procedure or as preempted by 301 of labor management relations act D. holding that 301 preempts state claims against nonsignatories where interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement is required for resolution E. holding that the statute of limitations applicable to a section 301 suit was the same as that which applies to suits against an employer for breach of the collective bargaining agreement

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that 301 preempts state claims against nonsignatories where interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement is required for resolution
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 renewal, extension, increase, modification, alteration or rearrangement of all or any part of the Guaranteed Obligations, the Note, the Pledge Agreement, the Loan Agreement, the other Loan Documents or any other document, instrument, contract or understanding between Borrower and Lender or any other parties pertaining to the Guaranteed Obligations or any failure of Lender to notify Guarantor of any such action.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company represents and warrants to the Seller that as of the date hereof and as of the Closing: (a) the Company is duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of Minnesota and has all requisite limited liability company power and authority to own, lease and operate its properties and assets and to carry on its business as is now being conducted; (b) the Company has the full power and authority to enter into, execute and deliver this Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby and any instruments or agreements required herein; and (c) this Agreement has been duly and validly executed and delivered by the Company and constitutes a valid and binding obligation of the Company, enforceable against the Company in accordance with its terms.

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: court found, that the cessation of irrigation in 1981 completed the severance process. We disagree. The deciding factor for determining whether severance has occurred is completion of the necessary administrative steps and procedures, not the unilateral cessation of irrigation of land on which irrigation is still permitted. Sun Vineyards, Inc., 107 N.M. at 527, 760 P.2d at 1293. In support of the argument that cessation of irrigation is the critical action for severance, the Bassetts rely on KRM, Inc. v. Caviness, 1996-NMCA-103, 122 N.M. 389, 925 P.2d 9. However, KRM addressed whether water rights which had never been used for irrigation were appurtenant to the land. Id. ¶ 3. In KRM, this Court determine See McCasland v. Miskell, 119 N.M. 390, 395, 890 P.2d 1322, 1327 (Ct.App.1994) (<HOLDING>). {18} KRM does not require that water rights, Options: A. holding that failure to use irrigation water rights on conveyed property for more than ten years did not sever water rights from said property absent compliance with statutory requirements B. recognizing that water rights constitute a real property interest C. holding that a water right is a property right created by a person appropriating unappropriated water and applying it to a beneficial use D. holding that article x 2 of the california constitution dictates the basic principles defining water rights that no one can have a protectible interest in the unreasonable use of water and that holders of water rights must use water reasonably and beneficially E. recognizing a presumption that the issuance of a permit by the state engineer allowing recognized irrigation water rights to be shifted to other users works as severance of those water rights from the land

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that failure to use irrigation water rights on conveyed property for more than ten years did not sever water rights from said property absent compliance with statutory requirements
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 in the Plan, Section 5 of this Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas, without giving effect to any choice or conflict of law provision or rule that would cause the application of the laws of any other jurisdiction, except where preempted by federal law. Both parties hereby consent and submit to the jurisdiction of the state and federal courts in Dallas County, Texas in all questions and controversies arising out of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: The plaintiffs clearly have standing insofar as their complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief. Indeed, their standing in this respect has not been challenged. METDESI’s standing to sue for damages, however, is, under current legal standards, insufficient. The cases upon which the plaintiffs rely to establish their standing to collect damages involve situations where the organizations themselves claim injury. In Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 377, 102 S.Ct. 1114, 1123, 71 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982), the organization had standing sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss based on allegations of injury to itself — the impaired ability to provide services. See also Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 111, 99 S.Ct. 1601, 1613, 60 L.Ed.2d 66 (1979) (<HOLDING>). Because the present suit is brought in Options: A. holding that allegations of racial discrimination by citibank and its manager in connection with plaintiffs efforts to obtain a loan sufficiently stated a claim under the fha B. holding where corporation had acquired imputed racial identity and was direct target of discrimination it had standing to pursue 1981 claim C. recognizing that the distinction between national origin and racial discrimination is an extremely difficult one to trace and holding that plaintiffs allegations of racial discrimination were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss D. holding village had standing to claim money damages based on its allegations that it was denied racial balance and stability E. holding that disproportionate impact standing alone was insufficient to prove unconstitutional racial discrimination

assistant: The best answer is D. holding village had standing to claim money damages based on its allegations that it was denied racial balance and stability
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: 42 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1053, 1062 (N.D.Ill.1996)). Contributory dilution has not been recognized in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Indeed, even the one district court in this circuit that mentioned the doctrine acknowledged that it is somewhat “novel.” Steinway, Inc. v. Ashley, No. 01 Civ. 9703(GEL), 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1372, at *7, 2002 WL 122929, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2002) (denying motion to dismiss on contributory infringement claim). However, even assuming arguendo that a contributory dilution claim exists, it would fail for the reasons set forth above with respect to Tiffany’s contributory infringement claims. See id. (stating that claim for contributory dilution is “novel” and that claim would be analogous to contributory infringement); Lockheed Martin, 194 F.3d at 986 (<HOLDING>); Lockheed Martin, 175 F.R.D. at 646 (noting Options: A. recognizing cause of action B. recognizing the cause of action C. recognizing cause of action for wrongful death D. holding that a remand should be limited to cases in which further action must be taken by the district court or in which the appellate court has no way open to it to affirm or reverse the district courts action under review E. recognizing that no appellate court or statute has yet established the cause of action for contributory dilution and that it would require proof of encouraging others to dilute

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that no appellate court or statute has yet established the cause of action for contributory dilution and that it would require proof of encouraging others to dilute
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: 528 U.S. 62, 120 S.Ct. 631, 145 L.Ed.2d 522 (2000) and Board of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 121 S.Ct. 955, 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001) require reconsideration of whether retaliation claims against state defendants are indeed barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Kimel and Garrett held that particular laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age and disability, respectively, exceeded Congressional power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore did not abrogate state sovereign immunity. See Kimel, 528 U.S. at 91, 120 S.Ct. 631 (addressing Age Discrimination in Employment Act); Garrett, 531 U.S. at 374, 121 S.Ct. 955 (addressing Title I of Americans with Disabilities Act). But see Hason v. Medical Bd. of Cal., 279 F.3d 1167, 1170-1 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Following Kimel, Garrett, and other recent Options: A. holding that despite garrett congress abrogated state sovereign immunity under title ii of americans with disabilities act B. holding that congress had no power under article i to abrogate state sovereign immunity C. holding the americans with disabilities act not to abrogate tribal sovereign immunity and declaring congress abrogates tribal immunity only where the definitive language of the statute itself states an intent either to abolish indian tribes common law immunity or to subject tribes to suit under the act D. holding in the context of an adea claim that an indian tribes sovereign immunity had not been abrogated by congress and subject matter jurisdiction did not exist E. holding that unjustified segregation constitutes discrimination prohibited by the americans with disabilities act

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that despite garrett congress abrogated state sovereign immunity under title ii of americans with disabilities act
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 of employment under this Agreement, Executive will have access to and become acquainted with various confidential information including without limitation, trade secrets, customer relationships, formulas, devices, inventions, processes, know-how, financial information and other compilations of information, records, and specifications, which are owned by the Company. Executive shall not disclose any of the Company’s confidential information, directly or indirectly, or use them in any way, either during the term of this Agreement or at any time thereafter, except as required in the course of his employment for the Company. All files, records, documents, drawings, specifications, equipment and similar items relating to the business of the Company, whether prepared by Executive or otherwise coming into his possession, shall remain the exclusive property of the Company and shall not be removed from the premises of the Company under any circumstances whatsoever without the prior written consent of the Company, and if removed shall be immediately returned to the Company upon any termination of his employment and no copies thereof shall be kept by Executive, provided, however, that Executive shall be entitled to retain documents reasonably related to his interest as a shareholder.

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: The parties agree to hold in confidence the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement. In no event shall a party disclose the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement to any third party except as required by applicable securities or other laws or except as may be necessary to any lender of a party. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Cargill acknowledges and agrees that it will be necessary to disclose certain principal terms of this Agreement to the respective boards of directors and shareholders of ACSC and GGC.

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: If any provision of this Agreement, or application thereof to any person, place, or circumstance, will be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable, such provision will be enforced to the greatest extent permitted by law and the remainder of this Agreement will remain in full force and effect.

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: (a) Severability and Reformation . Each of the provisions of this Agreement constitutes independent and separable covenants. Any portion of this Agreement that is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be overly broad in scope, duration or area of applicability or in conflict with any applicable statute or rule will be deemed, if possible, to be modified or altered so that it is not overly broad or in conflict or, if not possible, to be omitted from this Agreement. The invalidity of any portion of this Agreement will not affect the validity of the remaining sections of this Agreement.

assistant: Miscellaneous
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 modified, amended or supplemented at any time by additional written agreements signed by or on behalf of the Parties, as may mutually be determined by the Parties to be necessary, desirable or expedient to further the purpose of this Agreement or to clarify the intention of the Parties; provided , however , that the Company may not modify, amend or supplement this Agreement without the prior written consent of a committee comprised solely of one or more disinterested members of the Board of Directors of the Company (such approval, a “ Company Independent Approval ”). The Company may not modify, amend, supplement or waive any provision of the Voting Agreement or, prior to their filing with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware, either the Series A-1 Certificate of Designation or the Series C-1 Certificate of Designation, without a Company Independent Approval.

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: acknowledged his existing attorney-client relationship with Coleman, Coleman’s friendship with Johnson’s alleged victim, and Coleman’s likely adverse testimony. At trial, Garrett would have found himself in an intractable dilemma: either he could vigorously cross-examine Coleman in an effort to discredit Coleman’s sworn testimony, or he could weaken the intensity of cross-examination (perhaps even abandon the effort altogether) out of a desire to protect Coleman. Exercising the kind of experienced instinct and judgment Wheat commends, the trial court understandably concluded a serious potential (if not an outright actual) conflict of interest infected Garrett’s continued representation of Johnson. See generally 3 Wayne R. LaFave, Criminal Procedure § 11.9(a), at 652 (2d ed.1999) (<HOLDING>); see, e.g., United States v. Stewart, 185 F.3d Options: A. recognizing the conflict B. holding that defense counsel suffered from an actual conflict of interest in representing two codefendants because had the attorney not been facing a conflict of interest he might have been able to negotiate a plea agreement on one defendants behalf in return for becoming a prosecution witness against the eodefendant C. recognizing a potential conflict of interest when appointed counsel previously represented the murder victim in a separate case D. recognizing a potential conflict when defense counsel is currently representing in another matter either the victim of the crime or a prosecution witness E. recognizing conflict

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing a potential conflict when defense counsel is currently representing in another matter either the victim of the crime or a prosecution witness
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 of a breach or threatened breach by the Executive of Section 7 , Section 8 or Section 9 of this Agreement, the Executive hereby consents and agrees that the Company shall be entitled to seek, equitable relief against such breach or threatened breach from any court of competent jurisdiction, with the necessity of showing actual damages or that money damages would not afford an adequate remedy, and with the necessity of posting bond or other security to move forward on legal actions. The aforementioned equitable relief shall be in addition to, not in lieu of, legal remedies, monetary damages or other available forms of relief, understanding that should the Executive prevail, the Company will pay executive for all legal expenses, lost income, and lost opportunity costs. The only damages the executive will pay should he not prevail will be for proven losses and actual damages, excluding legal costs.

assistant: Remedies
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 notice required or permitted to be given under this Severance Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given when delivered in person or when deposited in the U.S. mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid, and mailed to Employee's addresses set forth herein and the business address of Employer, unless a party changes its address for receiving notices by giving notice in accordance with this Section, in which case, to the address specified in such notice.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: v Bewersdorf, 181 Mich App 430, 433; 450 NW2d 271 (1989), aff'd in part and rev’d in part 438 Mich 55 (1991). 48 Bewersdorf, 438 Mich at 68. 49 Id. at 69-70 (quotation marks and citation omitted). 50 Id. at 68. The OUIL provisions at issue in Bewersdorf differ from the SORA. provisions in that the underlying offenses in Bewersdorf were misdemeanors and SORA-1, SORA-2, and SORA-3 are all felonies. Defendant complains that his sentence is inappropriate because his SORA-1 conviction was used to support his SORA-2 conviction and as th 491 (1990) (reaffirming Eilola and extending it by holding that the sentence could be enhanced using the same conviction used to elevate the offense (answering a question left open in Eilola)); People v James, 191 Mich App 480, 481-482; 479 NW2d 16 (1991) (<HOLDING>); People v Lynch, 199 Mich App 422, 423-424; Options: A. holding that the habitualoffender statutes and the statute imposing a mandatory minimum 5year sentence for a second offense of criminal sexual conduct may be concur rently applied B. holding the mandatory minimum sentence to be constitutionally applicable to respondent C. holding that even if the minimum mandatory exceeds the statutory maximum the court must impose the minimum mandatory D. holding that the statute is mandatory E. holding statute that extended statute of limitations for certain criminal sexual conduct could not be applied retroactively to a prosecution commenced after the limitations statute in effect at the time of the alleged offense had expired

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the habitualoffender statutes and the statute imposing a mandatory minimum 5year sentence for a second offense of criminal sexual conduct may be concur rently applied
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: if you use our self-service advertising creation interfaces for creation , submission and/or delivery of any advertising or other commercial or sponsored activity or content ( collectively , the `` self-serve ad interfaces '' ) , you agree to our self-serve ad terms .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any and all disputes arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be resolved pursuant to binding arbitration held in the County of Los Angeles in the State of California and administered by the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. pursuant to its Streamlined Arbitration Rules & Procedures then in effect. Each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and expenses in such arbitration. The parties agree to abide by all decisions and awards rendered in such proceedings. Such decisions and awards rendered by the arbitrator shall be final and conclusive.

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: Buyer is a limited liability company formed and in good standing under the laws of the State of Oklahoma. Buyer has the legal right, power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby, and the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement have been duly authorized and no other action by Buyer is requisite to the valid and binding execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly set forth herein. There is no agreement to which Buyer is a party or to Buyer's knowledge binding on Buyer which is in conflict with this Agreement.

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

user: 8. Except as provided under clause 12.2 of the General Purchase Conditions, it is expressly understood and agreed by the Parties hereto that the disclosure and provision of Proprietary Information under this Agreement by a Party to the other Party shall not be construed as granting to the receiving Party under the laws of any country any rights whether expressed or implied by licenceor otherwise on the matters, inventions or discoveries to which such Proprietary Information pertains or any copyright, trademark or trade secret rights. The property in all information and/or data disclosed by the Buyer to the Supplier pursuant to this Agreement shall subject to any right of any other owner, rest with the Buyer.

assistant: No
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: Tenant will not conduct or permit to be conducted any sale by auction in, upon or from the Premises or elsewhere in the Property, whether said auction be voluntary, involuntary, pursuant to any assignment for the payment of creditors or pursuant to any bankruptcy or other insolvency proceeding.

assistant: Sales