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: No notice to, filing with, or Permit, or consent or approval of any Person (including any Person which provides financing to Parent, Purchaser or its Affiliates) is necessary for the execution, delivery or performance of this Agreement or the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby by Purchaser and Parent.

assistant: Consents
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: 7.9 any inquiries , feedback , suggestions , ideas , other information which is not part of your use of the products or user material that you provide to us ( collectively , `` submissions '' ) will be treated as non-proprietary and non-confidential .

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: From and after the date of this Agreement, upon the request of any Investor or the Company, each of the Company and the Investors shall execute and deliver such instrument, documents and other writings as may be reasonably necessary or desirable to confirm and carry out and to effectuate fully the intent and purposes of the Transaction Documents.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: witness, he was precise in his answers, and he jousted with the defense attorney during the course of his examination. The Attorney General went on to testify: “We expect that persons are going to come in and tell the truth.... That just plain didn’t happen in the Sanders case. Mr. Storeh was a person who lied about his credibility, and it was a serious risk to the judicial system.” In sum, Storeh perjured himself multiple times at Maxwell’s trial and employed a signature method to “book” fellow inmates. Furthermore, Storeh had a chronic pattern of dishonesty that both predated and followed Maxwell’s trial. The evidence of Storch’s later lies under oath does not establish the nature of his testimony at Maxwell’s trial, but it remains relevant. It demonstrates a willingness to com 2003) (<HOLDING>); Bradley v. Duncan, 315 F.3d 1091, 1094 (9th Options: A. holding that the state courts rejection of the petitioners ineffective assistance of counsel claim was an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence before the state court B. holding that the state courts decision to uphold the parole boards denial of parole was an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence C. holding that the postconviction court erred in finding the ineffective assistance of counsel claim proeedurally barred because the courts opinion did not comment specifically on the ineffective counsel argument and the overall holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jurys verdict could not be viewed as an adjudication on the merits of the ineffective assistance claim D. holding that the petitioners failure to raise his ineffective assistance of counsel claim before the bia deprived the district court of jurisdiction to hear the issue E. holding that a state courts rejection of petitioners habeas claim was unreasonable under 2254d2 where the court made credibility determinations on the basis of a paper record without an evidentiary hearing

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the state courts rejection of the petitioners ineffective assistance of counsel claim was an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence before the state court
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provision of this Agreement is found to be illegal or unenforceable, such finding shall not invalidate the remainder of this Agreement, and that provision shall be deemed to be severed or modified to the minimum extent necessary to equitably adjust the Parties’ respective rights and obligations under this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: after the grand jury has finally passed on them. 42 C.J.S. Indictments and Informations § 193 (1991). Generally, an amendment to an indictment, made either before or after trial, must be of form, not of substance, which means the amendment may not charge a greater offense. Minn. R.Crim.P. 17.05. Here, however, the original indictment was dismissed and replaced by a complaint. Following dismissal of an indictment for a curable defect, Rule 17.06, subd. 4(3) requires the state to elect a means of continuing the prosecution within seven days. The state satisfies this requirement either by moving for a continuance of the stay or by filing a new or amended indictment or complaint within that seven-day period. Minn. R.Crim.P. 17.06, subd. 4(3); State v. Dwire, 409 N.W.2d 498, 503 (Minn.1987) (<HOLDING>). Because the original indictment charged Options: A. holding that because the plaintiff had not perfected service within 120 days of filing the complaint the complaint was subject to mandatory dismissal B. holding that the charge was timely when filed within the statute of limitations period even though served after the period C. holding rule 1706 subd 43s timing requirements satisfied by filing of a complaint within seven days after dismissal of indictment even though the state failed to move to continue the stay within the sevenday period D. holding that rule 63 applies to pleadings filed within seven days of summary judgment proceedings E. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the case without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to properly serve the defendant within 120 days after filing the complaint

assistant: The best answer is C. holding rule 1706 subd 43s timing requirements satisfied by filing of a complaint within seven days after dismissal of indictment even though the state failed to move to continue the stay within the sevenday period
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: Seller represents, warrants and covenants to Buyer that all state and local transaction privilege, sales, excise, use or similar taxes relating to the development, sale or rental of the Property prior to the Closing Date (including, without limitation any speculative builder tax, owner-builder tax, construction contractor tax, or rent tax) have been or timely will be paid. Seller will additionally pay any such taxes that may arise or be assessed against Seller as a result of the sale of the Property to the appropriate taxing authorities as and when due. Seller will indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Buyer Indemnified Parties from any and all Claims relating to a breach of such tax payment obligations. The provisions of this Section shall survive Closing.

assistant: Sales
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, the other Transaction Documents, the Confidentiality Agreements and the other agreements and documents referred to herein are intended by the parties as a final expression of their agreement and intended to be a complete and exclusive statement of the agreement and understanding of the parties hereto in respect of the subject matter contained herein and therein. There are no restrictions, promises, warranties or undertakings, other than those set forth or referred to herein, the other Transaction Documents or the Confidentiality Agreements with respect to the rights granted by the Company or any of its Affiliates or the Purchasers or any of their respective Affiliates set forth herein or therein. This Agreement, the other Transaction Documents, the Certificate of Designations, the Confidentiality Agreements and the other agreements and documents referred to herein or therein supersede all prior agreements and understandings between the parties with respect to such subject matter.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Article and Section headings used herein are for convenience of reference only, are not part of this Amendment No. 9 and are not to affect the construction of, or to be taken into consideration in interpreting, this Amendment No. 9.

assistant: Headings
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: Neither the execution and delivery of the Loan Documents, nor the consummation of the transactions contemplated therein, nor performance of and compliance with the terms and provisions thereof will (i) violate or conflict with any provision of its formation and governance documents, (ii) violate any material Legal Requirement, regulation (including Regulation U, Regulation X or Regulation T), order, writ, judgment, injunction, decree or permit applicable to it, (iii) violate or conflict with contractual provisions of, or cause an event of default under, any indenture, loan agreement, mortgage, contract, REA or other Material Agreement to which Borrower, Property Owner or Master Tenant or any of its respective direct equityholders is a party or may be bound which would reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, or (iv) result in or require the creation of any Lien or other charge or encumbrance upon or with respect to the Collateral in favor of any Person other than Lender.

assistant: No Conflicts
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: Seller shall indemnify, make good, save and hold harmless Buyer, its parent, successors, Buyers and assigns and their respective officers, agents and employees, from all liabilities, damages, costs, charges, reasonable attorneys' fees, recoveries, actions, judgments, penalties, expenses and other losses whatsoever which may be obtained against, imposed upon or suffered by Buyer, its parent, successors, Buyers and assigns arising from a third party claim resulting from breach of any of Seller’s representations, warranties or agreements hereunder.

assistant: Indemnity
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: 4 . We further note that Reyes is distinguishable from this case. In Reyes, the employer contested the application of the fair notice requirements, but also conceded that if the conspicuousness requirement applied, then the waiver signed by the employee was inconspicuous. The appellate court remanded the cause for a fact determination of whether the employee had actual knowledge of the terms of the plan. Reyes, 134 S.W.3d at 193. Reyes did not specifically apply the "actual knowledge” exception to the express negligence requirement. Id. at 192-94. Further, as support for applying the actual notice exception, Reyes cites Dresser, 853 S.W.2d at 505(which applies "actual notice” to the conspicuousness requirement) and Dresser cites Cate v. Dover Corp., 790 S.W.2d 559, 561 (Tex.1990)(<HOLDING>). The Hospital does not direct us to any case Options: A. holding that a standard form disclaimer for negligence of thirdparty tour operators which appeared on plaintiffs cruise ticket was valid as a disclaimer B. holding inconspicuous written disclaimer to be unenforceable absent actual knowledge of the disclaimer C. holding that the language in the lease agreement for computer accounting programs was an effective disclaimer of an implied warranty but for language in a statement of installation conditions which document created a genuine issue of material fact as to disclaimer D. holding that similarly worded disclaimer was sufficiently unambiguous E. holding similar language to be a valid disclaimer

assistant: The best answer is B. holding inconspicuous written disclaimer to be unenforceable absent actual knowledge of the disclaimer
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: had reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant and could therefore ask him questions “ ‘reasonably related in scope to the justification for their initiation.’ ” United States v. Cervantes-Flores, 421 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 29, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)). That included questions “ ‘about [Defendant’s] citizenship and immigration status,’ ” and questions seeking “ ‘to explain suspicious circumstances.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 881-82, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975)). The fact that Special Agent Gal-lardo placed Defendant in handcuffs did not, without more, convert the lawful stop into a custodial arrest. Id.; see also United States v. Medina-Villa, 567 F.3d 507, 520 (9th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. *** This disposition is not Options: A. holding that a border patrol agents blocking the stopped vehicle approaching the vehicle with his gun drawn and interrogating the individual about his citizenship and immigration status did not convert the stop into a custodial arrest B. holding that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to stop the defendant for obstructing traffic because there was no evidence of intent to impede or hinder traffic where the vehicle was only briefly stopped in the roadway and the officer approaching the vehicle from behind did not have to stop or drive around the defendants vehicle C. holding that when a border patrol officers observations lead him or her to reasonably suspect that a vehicle may contain illegal aliens the officer may stop the vehicle question its occupants as to citizenship and immigration status and ask them to explain suspicious circumstances but stating that any further detention or search must be based on consent or probable cause D. holding that the stop of defendants vehicle was unlawful where officers stopped the vehicle to check the license and registration but had observed no suspicious activity E. holding that vehicle owner not present in the vehicle when it was stopped had not suffered interference with his possessory interest and could not challenge the constitutionality of the stop

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a border patrol agents blocking the stopped vehicle approaching the vehicle with his gun drawn and interrogating the individual about his citizenship and immigration status did not convert the stop into a custodial arrest
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All computations of interest for Base Rate Loans when the Base Rate is determined by Citi’s “prime rate” shall be made on the basis of a year of 365 or 366 days, as the case may be, and actual days elapsed. All other computations of fees and interest shall be made on the basis of a 360-day year and actual days elapsed (which results in more fees or interest, as applicable, being paid than if computed on the basis of a 365-day year). Interest shall accrue on each Loan for the day on which the Loan is made, and shall not accrue on a Loan, or any portion thereof, for the day on which the Loan or such portion is paid, provided that any Loan that is repaid on the same day on which it is made shall, subject to Section 2.10(a) , bear interest for one day. Each determination by the Administrative Agent of an interest rate or fee hereunder shall be conclusive and binding for all purposes, absent manifest error.

assistant: Fees
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: transfer to Jupiter Capital NBSC’s right to recover pre-sale fees, and looks to South Carolina contract law in arriving at this conclusion. When construing a contract, a court must look first to the language of the contract to determine the intentions of the parties. F.D.I.C. v. Prince George Corp., 58 F.3d 1041, 1046 (4th Cir.1995) (applying South Carolina law). When that language is plain and unambiguous, a court cannot modify it. Lewis v. Omni Indem. Co., 970 F.Supp.2d 437, 451 (D.S.C.2013). If the language contains both specific and general terms, then the court must interpret the general language to include “only persons or things of the same general kind or class as those enumerated” rather than broaden the specific term. Ellis v. Taylor, 316 S.C. 245, 449 S.E.2d 487, 489 (1994) (<HOLDING>). If a contract contains both printed language Options: A. holding that an agreement to pay sons college education expenses was nondischargeable support even though arkansas law does not require payment of such expenses B. holding that an award for medical expenses is proper when the expenses have been incurred but not paid C. holding agreement to pay for education expenses after high school not vague D. holding that debtors have the burden of proving that other necessary expenses on form b22c are actual reasonable and necessary expenses and that these expenses should be considered in light of schedule j and other relevant evidence E. holding that in an agreement where the father agreed to pay reasonable expenses to the extent that such expenses are not provided by any scholarship grant or other assistance for his sons education those expenses did not include loan repayment because it was not one of the forms of enumerated assistance

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that in an agreement where the father agreed to pay reasonable expenses to the extent that such expenses are not provided by any scholarship grant or other assistance for his sons education those expenses did not include loan repayment because it was not one of the forms of enumerated assistance
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: please see section 512 ( c ) ( 3 ) of title 17 of the us code ( available at http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512 ) for the requirements of a proper notification .

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: This Agreement has been duly executed and delivered by the Borrower and constitutes, and each other Loan Document when executed and delivered by each Loan Party that is party thereto will constitute, a legal, valid and binding obligation of such Loan Party enforceable against each such Loan Party in accordance with its terms, subject to (i) the effects of bankruptcy, insolvency, moratorium, reorganization, fraudulent conveyance or other similar laws affecting creditors’ rights generally, (ii) general principles of equity (regardless of whether such enforceability is considered in a proceeding in equity or at law), (iii) implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing and (iv) except to the extent set forth in the applicable Foreign Pledge Agreements, any foreign laws, rules and regulations as they relate to pledges of Equity Interests in Foreign Subsidiaries.

assistant: Enforceability
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: occasions, the district court admonished defense counsel and expressed its displeasure with his trial t Cir.2005) (rejecting innocent possession defense and affirming district court's refusal to give jury an instruction on "fleeting” or "transitory” possession); United States v. Mercado, 412 F.3d 243, 250-52 (1st Cir.2005) (rejecting innocent possession defense and holding that even momentary or fleeting possession of a firearm is sufficient under the statute); United States v. Gilbert, 430 F.3d 215, 218 (4th Cir.2005) (rejecting the proposal of an exception to § 922(g)(1) when the defendant had no illicit motive and attempted to quickly rid himself of the firearm). Some have rejected substantially similar defenses. See United States v. Hendricks, 319 F.3d 993, 1004-05 (7th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Adkins, 196 F.3d 1112, 1115 Options: A. holding that current titleholder would only have to be joined if the appropriate remedy for the plaintiff would be to reconvey his property B. holding that the insured failed to meet its burden where the insurer had reserved its rights to assert coverage defenses C. holding that only justification defenses would be recognized D. holding that plaintiffs could not proceed with different theory of liability after close of discovery when defendant would be prejudiced by inability to develop newly relevant evidence and defenses E. holding only defenses that would be valid in rendering state can be relied upon by courts of another state

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that only justification defenses would be recognized
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: and murder of a Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA”) agent in Mexico. Id. at 2746. Due to difficulties in extricating the plaintiff from Mexico, the DEA hired a group of Mexican nationals to abduct, the plaintiff and transport him by private plane to the U.S. where he was arrested. Id. He stood trial for his alleged crimes and was acquitted. Id. After returning to Mexico, he instituted a civil action against several Mexican nationals and the DEA. Id. at 2747. 17 . The Court notes that the delayed discovery rule does not apply to § 17200 claims. See Snapp & Associates Ins. Services, Inc. v. Robertson, 96 Cal.App.4th 884, 891, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 331 (2002). 18 . The Court notes that it must take these statements regarding foreign policy at face value. See Sarei, 221 F.Supp.2d at 1181-82 (<HOLDING>); cf. Sosa, 124 S.Ct. at 2766 n. 21 (noting Options: A. holding that the court must accept the statement of foreign policy provided by the executive branch as conclusive of its view of that subject it may not assess whether the policy articulated is wise or unwise or whether it is based on misinformation or faulty reasoning B. holding that an arbitration award involving the appellants challenge to the failure of the insurance company to ensure that he had read and understood a signed waiver and to attach the waiver to the insurance policy as contrary to public policy is not reviewable by the courts because there is no challenge to a provision or term of the policy the appellant never claimed that the waiver or policy language itself was contrary to the public policy of this commonwealth C. holding that whether a particular document is subject to the work product protection depends on whether the subject matter of the document concerns preparation or strategy or the appraisal of the strengths or weaknesses of the companys case or the activities of the attorneys in preparing their case or is at least primarily concerned with legal assistance and not simply underlying evidence D. holding that a local government may be held liable for its employees constitutional violation only when the employee is executing the governments policy or custom whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may be fairly said to represent official policy E. holding that it is not

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the court must accept the statement of foreign policy provided by the executive branch as conclusive of its view of that subject it may not assess whether the policy articulated is wise or unwise or whether it is based on misinformation or faulty reasoning
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: bargain; (b) the double jeopardy violation is apparent from the record; and (c) there is nothing in the record to indicate a waiver of the double jeopardy violation.” Novaton v. State, 634 So.2d 607, 609 (Fla.1994). Holubek meets the first prong because his plea was a general plea to the court and did not involve a plea bargain. See Godfrey v. State, 947 So.2d 565, 567 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); see also Brown v. State, 1 So.3d 1231, 1232 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (noting that the exception applies to an open plea). Second, Holubek argues that a double jeopardy violation is apparent from the record because Count 1 under section 934.215 is subsumed within both Count 2 under section 847.1035(3)(b) and Count 3 under section 847.0135(4)(a). We agree. Very recently, this court held that convi A 2014) (<HOLDING>). Consistent with our recent opinion in Holt Options: A. holding that for conduct arising out of the same criminal episode the elements for the offense of unlawful use of a twoway communications device are subsumed within the soliciting and traveling offenses B. holding that in the conviction and sentencing for criminal offenses committed in the course of one criminal episode it is the intent of the legislature that there be a separate conviction and sentence for each criminal offense unless one of the offenses is a degree of the other a necessarily included lesser offense subsumed in the other or both offenses are identical C. holding that when state charges defendant with both unlawfully using twoway communications device and traveling during same time period state charges single criminal episode regardless of whether evidence could support finding of separate criminal episodes and double jeopardy considerations require that communications charge be subsumed within traveling charge D. holding that two offenses are separate for the purposes of 4a12a1 where all the elements of the first offense occurred before any activity forming the basis of the second offense E. holding that the offense of unlawful use of a twoway communications device does not contain any elements that are distinct from the offense of traveling to meet a minor

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that for conduct arising out of the same criminal episode the elements for the offense of unlawful use of a twoway communications device are subsumed within the soliciting and traveling offenses
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except for payments of management fees otherwise permitted to be paid to Manager under this Agreement pursuant to a Management Agreement approved by Lender at a time when no Event of Default exists, Borrower shall not pay any distributions, dividends or other payments or return any capital to any of its respective partners, members, owners or shareholders or any other Affiliate or make any distribution of assets, rights, options, obligations or securities to any of its respective partners, members, shareholders or owners or any other Affiliate (individually, or collectively, a “ Distribution ”) unless (a) on the date of the proposed Distribution, and after giving effect to the subsequent Distribution, no Default or Event of Default exists; (b) funds are not then required to be deposited into any Reserves; (c) Borrower is not “insolvent” (as defined in the Bankruptcy Code) and will not be rendered insolvent by virtue of such Distribution; (d) Borrower shall deliver, at least ten (10) days in advance of the proposed Distribution, to Lender, an Officer’s Certificate executed by the chief financial officer or similar officer of Borrower, stating that the foregoing conditions (a), (b) and (c) have been satisfied.

assistant: Payments
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: violations made to appropriate governmental bodies. Finally, the Board concluded that the Report did not constitute a “disloyal” statement like that found to fall outside of the protection of § 7 in NLRB v. Local 1229, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Jefferson Standard), 346 U.S. 464, 74 S.Ct. 172, 98 L.Ed. 195 (1953). We cannot say that the Board erred in determining that preparation of the Report constituted § 7 activity. The record supports the Board’s finding that the Report raised issues that related not only to patient welfare but to the working conditions of the employees; indeed, in the health care field such issues often appear to be inextricably intertwined. See, e. g., Community Hospital of Roanoke Valley, Inc. v. NLRB, 538 F.2d 607, 610 (4th Cir. 1976) (<HOLDING>); Reading Hospital and Medical Center, 226 NLRB Options: A. holding that tort claims were arbitrable because they arose out of and were related to contract B. holding that a hospital can conspire with members of its medical staff C. holding that a nurse practitioners opinion constituted an acceptable medical source where the nurse worked closely under the supervision of the doctor such that the nurse was acting as an agent of the doctor D. holding jury was warranted in finding hospital negligent in its selection and retention of a nurse after the nurse violated hospital rules and had been repeatedly reprimanded but not fired E. holding protected a television interview in which a nurse complained of hospital staff shortages and suggested that they were related to low pay

assistant: The best answer is E. holding protected a television interview in which a nurse complained of hospital staff shortages and suggested that they were related to low pay
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 Executive is a party to any action, suit or proceeding by reason of the fact that Executive is or was an officer or agent of the Company (a “Proceeding”) , the Company will indemnify Executive to the fullest extent permitted by the laws of the state of the Company’s incorporation, in effect at that time, or the certificate of incorporation and bylaws of the Company, whichever affords the greater protection to Executive.

assistant: Indemnifications
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: Instead, the BIA found him ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT on the merits. Because the BIA did not order Fajardo-Alvarez removed based upon his offense and made a determination on the merits, we have jurisdiction to review the decision. See Unuakhaulu v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 931, 936-37 (9th Cir.2005). However, we lack jurisdiction to consider this petition on the merits. Fajardo-Alvarez failed to exhaust the critical issue of credibility in his appeal to the BIA, notwithstanding the IJ’s clear and unambiguous findings regarding adverse credibility. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). We therefore have no basis to consider Fajardo-Alvarez’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT. See Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). PETITION DENIED. ** This disposition is not Options: A. holding where withholding of removal and cat claims were based on the same discredited testimony the bia properly concluded the adverse credibility finding was fatal to all claims B. holding that when the asylum withholding of removal and cat claims are based on the same factual predicate a credibility ruling necessarily forecloses relief in each C. holding that the agency may not deny a cat claim solely on the basis of an adverse credibility finding made in the asylum context where the cat claim did not turn upon credibility D. holding that petitioners failure to exhaust the adverse credibility finding precluded this court from having jurisdiction to consider her claims of asylum withholding of removal and cat E. holding that the agency may not deny a cat claim solely on the basis of adverse credibility finding made in the asylum context where the cat claim did not turn upon credibility

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that petitioners failure to exhaust the adverse credibility finding precluded this court from having jurisdiction to consider her claims of asylum withholding of removal and cat
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: (daily ed. Feb. 17, 2005) (statement of Rep. Goodlatte) (“Since the legislation is not retroactive, it would have absolutely no effect on the 75 class actions already filed against Merck in the wake of the Vioxx withdrawal.”). The Pritchett court found that the legislative history of the act and public policy supported its determination that the filing a notice of removal does not commence a new action under CAFA. Athough parties have been unsuccessful in arguing that pending cases are “commenced” when they are removed to federal court, some courts have determined that certain amendments to complaints could cause a pre-CAFA case to fall within CAFA’s sphere. See Knudsen v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 435 F.3d 755 (7th Cir.2006). But see Plubell v. Merck & Co., 434 F.3d 1070 (8th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). In Knudsen v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 435 Options: A. holding that amended pleading did not commence a new action for the purposes of cafa because the claims were exactly the same in both pleadings and the replacement representative was a member of the putative class in the original pleading B. holding that the claims of the class representative and class members must be based on the same legal or remedial theory C. holding that a district of columbia consumer protection statute that authorized representative actions and did not reference class action requirements or mandate class certification was a separate and distinct procedural vehicle from a class action and thus did not constitute a class action under cafa D. holding that in class action the claim or defense of the representative party must be typical of the claim or defense of each member of the class E. holding that the filing of a class action by a class representative without standing tolls the period of limitations with regard to all asserted members of the class and that the amendment of the complaint by the addition of a class member with standing relates back to the original complaint

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that amended pleading did not commence a new action for the purposes of cafa because the claims were exactly the same in both pleadings and the replacement representative was a member of the putative class in the original pleading
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: with Coffman’s letter of resignation, he did take some action. He investigated the problem, but he concluded the acts were not retaliatory and suggested using a facilitator to solve what he viewed as a communication problem between Coffman and Beckler. The jury did not have to accept this as an appropriate response, especially since the jury found there had been retaliation rather than merely a communication problem. 3. Constructive Discharge Tracker Marine next argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s finding that Coffman had been constructively discharged. A plaintiff must show more than just a Title VII violation by her employer in order to prove that she has been constructively discharged. See Tidwell v. Meyer’s Bakeries, Inc., 93 F.3d 490, 495 (8th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Thus, even though there is sufficient Options: A. holding that although there was evidence of discrimination by the employer based on race there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the employer had constructively discharged the plaintiff B. holding that although there was evidence of discrimination based on race there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of constructive discharge C. holding although there was some evidence plaintiff subjectively believed conduct he reported violated the law there was legally insufficient evidence this belief was reasonable D. holding employee resigned and was not constructively discharged because there was no evidence that employer deliberately created working conditions that led to her resignation E. holding that because the plaintiff no longer managed others and had other job responsibilities reduced there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that he had been constructively discharged

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that although there was evidence of discrimination by the employer based on race there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the employer had constructively discharged the plaintiff
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: appeal that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), and if need be thereafter, to an appropriate federal Court of Appeals. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5); see also Ramani v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 554, 559 (6th Cir.2004) (noting that the purpose of the I.N.A.’s exhaustion requirement is to “allow the BIA to compile a record which is adequate for judicial review” (citation omitted)). This review process, not surprisingly, is exclusive. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(b)(9) and (d)(1). Thus, other courts who have confronted this issue have reached the same conclusion. See Howell v. INS, 72 F.3d 288, 293 (2d Cir.1995) (finding jurisdiction lacking where removal proceedings had begun because denials of status adjustment may be reviewed by immigration judges); cf. Pinho, 432 F.3d at 200-201 (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION Thus, having failed to exhaust her Options: A. holding that an aao eligibility determination is final and ripe for district court review if removal proceedings have not been initiated but noting that judicial review is barred in cases where removal proceedings have begun B. holding the district court did not have jurisdiction to review denial of adjustment of status where removal proceedings are pending C. holding that court lacked jurisdiction to review merits of question of whether immigration officer correctly initiated expedited removal proceedings D. holding that review of an original removal decision and a subsequent removal order are distinct E. holding that a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the apa to review the denial of an aliens application for adjustment of status where the alien is in removal proceedings

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that an aao eligibility determination is final and ripe for district court review if removal proceedings have not been initiated but noting that judicial review is barred in cases where removal proceedings have begun
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: L.Ed.2d 477 (1974) (“The mere fact that a business is subject to state regulation does not by itself convert its action into that of the State for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor does the fact that the regulation is extensive and detailed, as in the case of most utilities, do so.”) (citation omitted). Fourth, the State of Montana has not delegated a “public function” to MPC. MPC’s petitioning of the government is a quintessential private function. See E. R.R. Presidents Conf. v. Noerr, 365 U.S. 127, 137, 81 S.Ct. 523, 5 L.Ed.2d 464 (1961). We hold that MPC’s efforts to influence lawmakers through lobbying were private acts not fairly attributable to the State of Montana. See First Nat’l. Bank of Omaha v. Marquette Nat’l. Bank of Minneapolis, 636 F.2d 195, 198 (8th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). MPC’s lobbying activities thus could not have Options: A. holding without discussion that a banks lobbying activities designed to obtain the passage of a minnesota statute were not state action B. holding that a florida statute requiring a foreign corporation to obtain a certificate of authority prior to transacting business in the state was preempted as it applied to national banks C. holding that dismissal of prior action in louisiana federal court on the grounds of the statute of limitations bar subsequent action filed in minnesota federal district court D. holding that termination of an employee for refusing employees request to engage in political lobbying activities violates clear mandate of public policy under pennsylvania law E. holding that independent contractor claiming termination of contract because of lobbying and other political activities not protected by first amendment

assistant: The best answer is A. holding without discussion that a banks lobbying activities designed to obtain the passage of a minnesota statute were not state action
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Seller is duly formed, validly existing and in good standing under the Laws of its jurisdiction of incorporation and is duly authorized, qualified or licensed to do business and is in good standing as a foreign entity in each jurisdiction in which it is required to be so qualified, except to the extent that the failure to be so licensed or qualified and in good standing would not adversely affect the ability of Seller to perform its obligations under, and consummate the transactions contemplated by, this Agreement.

assistant: Existence
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: were discharged on August 1, 1994. The Defendant contends that pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C) the Taxes should be excepted from the discharge as the Plaintiffs either filed a fraudulent return or willfully attempted to evade or defeat the Taxes. Section 523(a)(1)(C) of Title 11 provides “(a) A discharge under section 727 ... of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt — (1) for a tax or a customs duty — (C) with respect to which the debtor made a fraudulent return or willfully attempted in any manner to evade or defeat such tax....” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C). The Defendant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the Plaintiff willfully attempted to evade or defeat a tax. Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 111 S.Ct. 654, 112 L.Ed.2d 755 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Whether a debtor has willfully attempted to Options: A. holding that the standard of proof for dischargeability exceptions under section 523a is preponderance of the evidence B. holding that a creditor objecting to the dischargeability of a debt under 523a must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence C. holding that the standard of proof for the dischargeability exceptions in 11 usc 523a is the preponderance of the evidence standard D. holding that best interest of child need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence E. holding all exceptions to discharge under 523a must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence

assistant: The best answer is E. holding all exceptions to discharge under 523a must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence
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: have expected that policyholders would assert claims and that some of the claims would be disputed. For some reason, EDS did not install a procedure for forwarding claims or notices served in its mail room. Nothing in the record excuses EDS’s misplacing of those claims and notices or its resulting failure to respond. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 67 comment b (1980) (“In the case of ... organizations that ought to expect to be sued from time to time, the question [in determining whether neglect is excusable] is whether their procedure for responding, particularly the procedure for putting the case in the hands of counsel, could be expected to function within the time al lowed.”); see also Secretary of State v. GPAK Corp., 95 N.J. Super. 82, 230 A.2d 146 (App.Div.1967) (<HOLDING>). EDS, therefore, is not entitled to relief Options: A. holding that corporations neglect in receiving notice of entry of judgment against it and not forwarding notice to corporations registered agent was inexcusable B. holding that notice to supervisor is notice to city C. holding premature notice of appeal was treated as entered on date of entry of final judgment D. holding that notice of judgment was insufficient E. holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that corporations neglect in receiving notice of entry of judgment against it and not forwarding notice to corporations registered agent was inexcusable