flwrlabs/fed-legal huggingface dataset:
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: five separate allegations: A. From in or about June of 1992, up through approximately October of 1995, and continuing thereafter, the Giacobbe defendants and Schaefer caused monthly statements to be mailed regularly to Bay Bootery, Port Washington, New York, from a NatWest Bank central office, which contained credits to Bay Bootery’s account of substantial sums from deposited checks otherwise payable to or belonging to the Body Shop Partnership which had been endorsed over to Bay Bootery by the Giacobbe defendants. B. On or about May 11, 1994, Michael and Alyssa caused Federal Insurance Company to mail a check in the amount of $7,137.10 payable to Finish Line Collusion jointly with Ford Motor Credit Company. C. On or about March 14, 19 Litig., 663 F.Supp. 1123, 1125 (S.D.N.Y.1987) (<HOLDING>). Paragraphs B and C may be considered Options: A. holding that the first element of mail fraud knowing participation in a scheme to defraud can extend beyond the specific mailing and that the loss calculation for a mail fraud conviction may include any loss from the fraudulent scheme that the mailing furthered B. recognizing that where the relationship to the mailing and the alleged fraudulent scheme is at best highly attenuated a rico claim based thereupon will be dismissed C. holding that mailing of titleregistration forms satisfied mailing requirement because they contributed to success of the scheme D. holding that a rico plaintiff must allege at a minimum the time place and content of the alleged misrepresentations on which he or she relied the fraudulent scheme the fraudulent intent of the defendants and the injury resulting from the fraud E. recognizing that a mailing must be sufficiently related to the fraudulent scheme to support a charge of mail fraud

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that where the relationship to the mailing and the alleged fraudulent scheme is at best highly attenuated a rico claim based thereupon will be dismissed
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you agree that all information that you submit upon creation of your account , including information submitted from your facebook account , is accurate and truthful and you have the right to post the content on the service and grant the license to tinder above .

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 provision of this Agreement to the contrary notwithstanding, the Company may take such steps as it may deem necessary or desirable for the withholding of any taxes which it is required by law or regulation of any governmental authority, federal, state or local, domestic or foreign, to withhold in connection with any shares subject hereto. Subject to limitations established by the Committee and/or the Board from time to time, any withholding taxes may be paid by delivery to the Company of previously owned shares of Stock or by reducing the number of shares issuable upon exercise of this Option.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: waiver of appeal paragraph. This paragraph essentially indicates that the defendant acknowledges that he’s been advised of his rights to appeal only in very limited circumstances and that he will not be allowed to challenge his conviction under Title 28, 2255; and Title 18, Section 3742; however, he is reserving the right to appeal any punishment in excess of the statutory maximum. THE COURT: And the statutory maximum in this case, Mr. McIntyre, at least with respect to Count 3, is 240 months. MR. WELDON: That is correct. THE COURT: You understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. The record thus demonstrates that the district court made McIntyre fully aware of the waiver of his appellate rights regarding his sentence and thus complied with Rule ll(b)(l)(N). Cf. Almany, 598 F.3d at 240-41 (<HOLDING>). McIntyre’s only argument in opposition to the Options: A. holding that district comets inquiry do you have anything else for the record failed to satisfy requirement that the court clearly ask for objections to the sentence that have not been previously raised B. holding that verbal threats such as we going to get you you better drop the suit do not rise to the level of adverse action C. holding that the district courts question do you also understand that under some circumstances you or the government may have the right to appeal any sentence that i impose did not comply with rule llbln and failed to properly notify the defendant about the waiver of his appellate rights D. holding that if you do not qualify under the hup test you never get to the statute E. holding that it is not extortion to threaten economic harm when you have a legal right to engage in the activity you threaten

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the district courts question do you also understand that under some circumstances you or the government may have the right to appeal any sentence that i impose did not comply with rule llbln and failed to properly notify the defendant about the waiver of his appellate rights
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: at 112. We fail to see how this background information demonstrates a Congressional intent to bar our review under the circumstances existing in this case. Furthermore, the case law on appellate review of FCC determinations contradicts the agency’s argument. For instance, in Straus Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 530 F.2d 1001 (D.C.Cir.1976), the court found jurisdiction to review an FCC letter ruling which held that a broadcast licensee had violated a rule but, at the same time, rescinded the monetary sanction based on the violation. The court determined that review was appropriate, in spite of the lack of a forfeiture, because the existence of the letter could result in harsher treatment for further violations by the licensee. See id. at 1005-07. See also I 6-78 (3d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); see also Laguna Gatuna, Inc. v. Browner, 58 Options: A. holding that case law from other circuits squarely precluded jurisdiction over preenforcement ruling under the clean air act B. holding the epa could regulate air pollutants under the clean air act solely on the basis of the pollutants risk to human health C. holding that section 9613h precluded preenforcement judicial review of plaintiffs constitutional challenge cercla D. holding that district courts are without jurisdiction to review preenforcement orders issued under the clean water act E. holding judicial review of a preenforcement ruling unavailable under the clean air act because early intervention would interfere with statutorilyrequired efforts at negotiation and compromise

assistant: The best answer is E. holding judicial review of a preenforcement ruling unavailable under the clean air act because early intervention would interfere with statutorilyrequired efforts at negotiation and compromise
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 Executive shall not at any time, publicly or privately, verbally or in writing, directly or indirectly, make or cause to be made any defaming and/or disparaging, derogatory, misleading or false statement about the Company or its products, or any current or former directors, officers, employees, or agents of the Company, or the business strategy, plans, policies, practices or operations of the Company to any person or entity, including members of the investment community, press, customers, competitors, employees and advisors of the Company. Executive recognizes that the breach of this Section 5 will cause serious and irreparable injury to the Company. The Company shall instruct the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and the Board not to make any defaming and/or disparaging, derogatory, misleading or false statement about the Executive. Truthful disclosure to any government agency regarding possible violations of federal law or regulation in accordance with any whistleblower protection provisions of state or federal law or regulation shall not be deemed to violate this paragraph.

assistant: Non-Disparagement
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 in respect of regulatory approvals, which shall be governed by Section ‎4.2(c) , as promptly as possible and, in any event, prior to the Closing Date, Seller shall use commercially reasonable efforts to (i) make or cause to be made all filings required by Law to be made by it in order to consummate each Acquisition; and (ii) seek and obtain all Consents required pursuant to Part VII of Section A of the Appendix relating to such Acquisition.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: which is not satisfied merely by pointing to a ‘negative spill-over effect from damaging evidence presented against codefendants.’ “ (quoting United States v. Wacker, 72 F.3d 1453, 1468 (10th Cir. 1995))); Hack, 782 F.2d at 871 (“[A] mere disparity in the evidence from a quantitative standpoint against each defendant in a conspiracy case, without more, provides no justification for severance.”). Mr. Wardell’s prosecution did not constitute an extraordinary instance where prejudice would have been manifested from evidentiary and culpability disparities. Mr. Wardell was charged with the same offenses — conspiracy any spill-over prejudice. The district court instructed the jury to give separate and individual consideration to each charge against each defendant. See Hack, 782 F.2d at 871 (<HOLDING>). Although Mr. Wardell complains that the jury Options: A. holding that district court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for new trial because nonmovant presented sufficient evidence at trial for the district court to conclude that the outcome was not against the great weight of the evidence so as to constitute a miscarriage of justice B. holding that a jury is presumed to heed the district courts instruction to disregard the fact that the defendants were held in contempt and admonished before the jury C. holding that improper statement was rendered harmless because the district court sustained the defendants objection and admonished the jury to disregard the statement D. holding that it was improper for the trial court to instruct the jury that it could not consider the states failure to videotape the defendant E. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants request for severance because the district court nullified any prejudicial error when it repeatedly admonished the jury throughout the trial to consider the evidence only against the defendant to whom it related and at the end of trial gave the jury instructions that admonished the jury to consider separately each offense and evidence in support of each offense

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants request for severance because the district court nullified any prejudicial error when it repeatedly admonished the jury throughout the trial to consider the evidence only against the defendant to whom it related and at the end of trial gave the jury instructions that admonished the jury to consider separately each offense and evidence in support of each offense
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: ex rel. Long v. SCS Bus. & Technical Inst., 173 F.3d 890, 892-93 (D.C.Cir.1999) (suggesting that a court may accept a stale's invitation to decide the merits first). 4 . It is arguable that Harris may not recover tobacco funds that have already been deposited in the state treasury and appropriated for other uses. It is unclear from the record how much money (if any) the state has actually received to date. With respect to these funds, the alleged violation may be the wrongful appropriation of money that belonged to Harris. This action would be wholly in the past, and ordering Defendants to pay Harris for that past conduct would likely be considered "the practical equivalent of money damages." ANR Pipeline, 150 F.3d at 1189; cf. Johns v. Stewart, 57 F.3d 1544, 1554-55 (10th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). We need not resolve this issue definitively, Options: A. holding that a suit seeking to recover withheld socialsecurity benefits was barred as to past withholdings but could proceed as to future withholdings B. holding that debtor was liable to the commonwealth for past and future cleanup costs C. holding plaintiff must move before public interests are involved to bring suit for ejectment but allowing single action for past present and future damages D. holding that carriers consent required if past and future benefits might exceed settlement E. holding that a city could not use past conduct to enjoin future protected speech

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a suit seeking to recover withheld socialsecurity benefits was barred as to past withholdings but could proceed as to future withholdings
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: the whatsapp parties will not be liable to you for any lost profits or consequential , special , punitive , indirect , or incidental damages relating to , arising out of , or in any way in connection with our terms , us , or our services , even if the whatsapp parties have been advised of the possibility of such damages .

assistant: Limitation of liability
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: as a result , we recommend that you save copies of any user videos that you post to the service on your personal device ( s ) in the event that you want to ensure that you have permanent access to copies of such user videos .

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: Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms used herein shall have the respective meanings given them in the Repurchase Agreement, or with respect to capitalized terms used in Section 9 and not otherwise defined herein or in the Repurchase Agreement, the respective meanings given to such terms in the Credit Agreement, dated as of August 6, 2013, (the “ Credit Agreement ”) among Guarantor, as borrower thereunder, Buyer as administrative agent thereunder and the lenders thereto, (as amended, supplemented, replaced, refinanced or otherwise modified from time to time; provided that if the obligations under the Credit Agreement are paid in full and the lending commitments thereunder are terminated, the Credit Agreement is otherwise terminated or cancelled, or JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. shall for any reason cease to remain a party thereto, the provisions and related capitalized terms contained in Section 9 shall remain as they existed immediately prior to such event), attached hereto as Exhibit A .

assistant: Defined Terms
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: a workers’ compensation case concerning the statutory limitations for a claim for additional benefits, Justice George Rose Smith, in holding that the employee was statutorily barred from receiving additional benefits, stated, “It is plainly the better rule to put upon the claimant the burden of filing his claim for additional compensation within the time allowed by the statute. In our opinion, that view of the matter gives effect both to the letter and to the spirit of the law.” 251 Ark. at 875, 475 S.W.2d at 534. Although not directly on point, we find that this holding is analogous and instructive. The claimant has always been required to prove all of the elements of his workers’ compensation claim. See McFall v. Farmers Tractor & Truck Co., 227 Ark. 985, 302 S.W.2d 801 (1957) (<HOLDING>); Am. Cas. Co. v. Jones, 224 Ark. 731, 276 Options: A. holding that the liberal construction of workers compensation laws did not relieve a claimant of the burden of showing a causal relation between his injury and the employment B. holding the retaliation claim did arise under states workers compensation laws C. holding that the burden rests upon the party seeking benefits to prove the injury sustained was the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment and the rule of liberal construction is not a substitute for the claimants burden of establishing his claim by a preponderance of the evidence D. holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant E. holding that retaliation claim did not arise under states workers compensation laws

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the liberal construction of workers compensation laws did not relieve a claimant of the burden of showing a causal relation between his injury and the employment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: disfavors the voters in the counties in which they reside, placing them in a position of constitutionally unjustifiable inequality vis-a-vis voters in irrationally favored counties.” Id. at 207-08, 82 S.Ct. 691. The Court thus concluded that these plaintiffs had standing because they were asserting “ ‘a plain, direct and adequate interest in maintaining the effectiveness of their votes,’ not merely a claim of the right possessed by every citizen to require that the government be administered according to the law ....” Id. at 208, 82 S.Ct. 691 (citations omitted). As already explained, plaintiff falls within the latter category. Plaintiff has also not alleged that he is being treated differently from any other voter in Tennessee. See Mixon v. Ohio, 193 F.3d 389, 402 (6th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Instead, he asserts that he, like every other Options: A. holding that the federal due process clause protects a state employee who under state law has a legitimate claim of entitlement to state employment B. recognizing right to participate in state elections on equal basis with other qualified voters whenever the state has adopted an elective process for determining who will represent any segment of the states population citation omitted C. holding that a state may not condition voting in state elections on payment of a tax D. holding that where it is alleged that state has violated rights conferred by constitution governmental immunity is not available in state court action but declining to infer a right to sue the state for damages on the basis of a violation of the michigan constitution E. holding that the potential harm caused to uocava voters far outweighed the burden placed upon the state because of the states legally mandated obligation to provide uocava voters the ability to vote

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing right to participate in state elections on equal basis with other qualified voters whenever the state has adopted an elective process for determining who will represent any segment of the states population citation omitted
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement (this “Agreement”) is governed by the terms and conditions of the Amended and Restated EOG Resources, Inc. 2008 Omnibus Equity Compensation Plan (as may be amended from time to time, the “Plan”), which is hereby made a part of this Agreement. All capitalized terms that are not defined in this Agreement have the meanings ascribed to them under the Plan. Under the terms of this Agreement and the Plan, a Restricted Stock Unit ledger account will be maintained by the Company (or its agent) until you become vested in the Restricted Stock Units. You will have no voting rights with respect to the Company common stock represented by such Restricted Stock Units until such time as the Company common stock is issued to you.

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: The execution, delivery, and performance by such Preferred Backstop Investor of this Agreement do not and will not (a) violate any provision of the organizational documents of such Preferred Backstop Investor; (b) conflict with or violate any Law or Order applicable to such Preferred Backstop Investor or any of its respective assets or properties; (c) violate, conflict with, result in any breach of, constitute a default (or event which with the giving of notice or lapse of time, or both, would become a default) under, require any consent under, or give to others any rights of termination, amendment, acceleration, suspension, revocation or cancellation of, any note, bond, mortgage or indenture, Contract, agreement, lease, sublease, license, permit, franchise or other instrument or arrangement to which such Preferred Backstop Investor is a party or to which any of its assets or properties are subject, or result in the creation of any Encumbrance on any of its assets or properties, except, in the case of clauses (b) and (c), for any such conflict, violation, breach or default that would not reasonably be expected to have, individually or in the aggregate, a Preferred Backstop Investor Material Adverse Effect on such Preferred Backstop Investor.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in or related to a case under title 11” to the Bankruptcy Court. § 157(a). In A.H. Robins Co. v. Piccinin, 788 F.2d 994 (4th Cir.1986), the Fourth Circuit defined “related to” jurisdiction under § 1334(b): An action is related to bankruptcy if the outcome could alter the debtor’s rights, liabilities, options or freedom of action (either positively or negatively) and which in any way impacts upon the handling and administration of the bankrupt estate. Id. at 1002 n. 11 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984, 994 (3d Cir.1984)). Subsequent decisions have clarified that “related to” jurisdiction is to be broadly interpreted. See, e.g., In re Johnson, 960 F.2d 396, 403 (4th Cir.1992); In re A.H. Robins Co., 182 B.R. 128, 133 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1995) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 86 F.3d 364 (4th Cir.1996). As Judge Options: A. holding that pro se pleadings will be liberally construed B. holding that pleadings under the rico act are to be liberally construed C. holding that 1334b is to be liberally construed especially where the question at hand involves the interpretation of a plan of reorganization D. holding that coas should be construed liberally E. holding that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that 1334b is to be liberally construed especially where the question at hand involves the interpretation of a plan of reorganization
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: appellant’s medical history, spoke to appellant in detail about his mental health, and interviewed appellant’s medical care provider. After speaking to appellant about his condition, counsel and appellant agreed to pursue the claim of self-defense. Decided November 20, 2006. Patricia F. Angelí, for appellant. Jewel C. Scott, District Attorney, Melvin E. Abercrombie, Assistant District Attorney, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Benjamin H. Pierman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. We conclude that counsel’s choice of trial strategy was not unreasonable, and therefore, counsel’s performance was not deficient. The evidence fails to demonstrate that counsel’s decision to forego an insanity defense was unreasonable. Compare Harris v. State, 279 Ga. 304 (612 SE2d 789) (2005) (<HOLDING>) with Fortson v. State, 277 Ga. 164 (587 SE2d Options: A. holding trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless issue B. holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel C. holding that because appellant had waived review of constitutional challenge to sentencing statute by failing to raise it at the first opportunity the trial court correctly proceeded to examine whether the appellants trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise constitutional challenges to the sentencing statutes D. holding that defendant failed to raise a constitutional issue at trial and thus waived appellate review of that issue E. holding that trial counsel did not act unreasonably in failing to raise the issue of the defendants mental health at trial

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that trial counsel did not act unreasonably in failing to raise the issue of the defendants mental health at trial
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: See BIF v. Service Constr. Co., No. 87-136-II, 1988 WL 72409, at * 6 (Tenn.Ct.App. July 13, 1988) (No Tenn.R.App.P. 11 application filed). Discretionary decisions are not entirely immune from appellate scrutiny but are subjected to less rigorous appellate scrutiny. See Martin B. Louis, Allocating Adjudicative Decision Making Authority Between the Trial and Appellate Level: A Unified Vieiv of the Scope of Revieiv, the Judge/Jury Question, and Procedural Discretion, 64 N.C.L.Rev. 993, 1045-46 (1986); Maurice Rosenberg, Judicial Discretion of the Trial Court, Viewed From Above, 22 Syracuse L.Rev. 635, 667 (1971). Discretionary decisions must take applicable law into account and must be consistent with the facts before the court. See Ballard v. Herzke, 924 S.W.2d 652, 661 (Tenn.1996) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the appellate courts will set aside a Options: A. holding a party must timely present his legal theories to the trial court so as to give the trial court an opportunity to rule properly B. holding that the trial court must give due consideration to the applicable law and facts C. recognizing that the court must give meaning to all the words in the claims D. holding that the district court must give parties notice of intent to depart E. holding that where trial court erred in applying established law to the facts of the case it must be reversed and remanded for a new hearing to give the trial court an opportunity to address the issue

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the trial court must give due consideration to the applicable law and facts
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Univ., 979 F.2d 552, 553 (7th Cir.1992). In this case, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Mr. Zakaras’ claims were filed within 300 days of the discriminatory act. The “accrual date” of a plaintiffs claim is the date on which the statute of limitations begins to run. Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.2d 446, 450 (7th Cir.1990). In cases of alleged discriminatory demotion (or termination), the period begins to run on the date the employee is notified that he will be demoted. See Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 259, 101 S.Ct. 498, 66 L.Ed.2d 431 (1980) (“limitations periods commenced to run when the [adverse employment action] was made and [the employee] was notified.”); see also Murrell v. USF & G Ins., 81 F.Supp.2d 912, 921 (N.D.Ill.2000) (<HOLDING>). The pivotal question, therefore, is when did Options: A. holding that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the alleged malpractice is discovered B. holding the sixyear limitations period begins to run upon date that payment is made C. holding that accrual date begins to run on the date the employee is notified unambiguously of the adverse employment action D. holding that the statute of limitations period begins to run when the allegedly discriminatory pension plan is applied to the plaintiffs and leaving determination of the actual date the statute begins to run on each claim to the district court E. holding that rule 6e is inapplicable where the time for filing begins to run on the date of mailing

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that accrual date begins to run on the date the employee is notified unambiguously of the adverse employment 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: Each Credit Party will comply, and shall cause each of its Subsidiaries and all other Persons, if any, on or occupying any Facilities to comply, with (a) the Patriot Act and OFAC rules and regulations, (b) all other Applicable Laws and (c) all Material Contracts, noncompliance with, with respect to clauses (b) and (c) , could reasonably be expected to have, individually or in the aggregate, a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in relevant part that [t]he court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a). Notably, Rule 60(a) “imposes no time limitations.” Truskoski v. ESPN, Inc., 60 F.3d 74, 77 (2d Cir.1995). “The general purpose of Rule 60(a) is to afford courts a means of modifying their judgments in order to ensure that the record reflects the actual intentions of the court.” Highland Capital Mgt., L.P. v. Schneider, 2008 WL 3884363, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Dudley ex rel. Estate of Patton v. Penn-America Ins. Co., 313 F.3d 662, 665 (2d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Rule 60(a) “permits the correction not only Options: A. holding that an appeal from a denial of a rule 59e motion should have been construed as seeking review of the underlying judgment B. holding that rule 60a is the proper vehicle for correcting a judgment in order to provide for an award of prejudgment interest where among other things governing law would make the interest award automatic or the district court clearly intended to make the interest award in its prior order C. holding in a case where the plaintiff had argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to amend its judgment more than ten days after entry because that is the time limit under federal rule of civil procedure 59 that a district court can amend its judgment because of mistake or inadvertence months after judgment has been entered pursuant to rule 60b of the federal rules of civil procedure D. holding that rule 60a did not authorize the district court to change the rate of interest in its initial order E. holding that where a partys motion seeking an amended judgment to include an award of prejudgment interest did not invoke a specific federal rule of civil procedure the district court correctly construed it as a motion under rule 60a since the amended judgment did not affect substantive rights but merely corrected a judicial oversight namely the district courts failure to include the monetary award in the original judgment

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that where a partys motion seeking an amended judgment to include an award of prejudgment interest did not invoke a specific federal rule of civil procedure the district court correctly construed it as a motion under rule 60a since the amended judgment did not affect substantive rights but merely corrected a judicial oversight namely the district courts failure to include the monetary award in the original judgment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as otherwise provided in this Section 3, one hundred percent (100%) shall vest on May 13, 2016; provided that the Participant is a member of the Board of Directors of the Company on such vesting date.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: in addition , all page headers , custom graphics , button icons and scripts are service marks , trademarks and/or trade dress of instagram , and may not be copied , imitated or used , in whole or in part , without prior written permission from instagram .

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: SOOUM is a Minnesota corporation, with full power and authority (corporate and other) to conduct its business as currently conducted. SOOUM is duly qualified to do business and is in good standing in each jurisdiction where its activities would require qualification, except where the failure to qualify would not have a material adverse effect upon SOOUM business or financial condition, or on the ability of the Parties to consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement (each, a "SOOUM Material Adverse Effect"). SOOUM is not in default of any provision of its organizational documents.

assistant: Organizations
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: 6, 1989). None of these prior decisions address the precise issue here, though they do provide some insight on the issue. But appellate courts in our sister states have addressed the issue, and as recognized by the Green I Court, one case, Miner v Fashion Enterprises, Inc, 342 Ill App 3d 405, 415; 276 Ill Dec 652; 794 NE2d 902 (2003), set forth the following principle: We do note that in Miner, [342 Ill App 3d] at 415, the Illinois Appellate Court ruled that “a judgment creditor may choose to file a new action to pierce the corporate veil of a judgment debtor in order to hold individual shareholders and directors liable for a judgment against the corporation.” [Green I, 282 Mich App at 304-305.] See also Westmeyer v Flynn, 382 Ill App 3d 952, 956; 321 Ill Dec 406; 889 NE2d 671 (2008) (<HOLDING>). The Kentucky Supreme Court has also opined on Options: A. holding a shareholders cause of action accrued for statute of limitations purposes when shareholders and directors of a company asserted a right to stock which was hostile to the plaintiffs claim to the stock B. holding that individual shareholders of a corporation could disregard the corporate form and assert that a loan made to their corporation was usurious where the lender insisted that the shareholders incorporate an entity to receive the proceedseven though the proceeds were for the individual shareholders benefitsolely to avoid the lower usury rate for individual borrowers C. holding that corporation can file an answer when the plaintiffs cause of action is such as to endanger rather than advance corporate interests but not where the cause of action is fraud against the corporate directors D. recognizing privilege for corporate officers directors and shareholders to influence the actions of their corporation E. recognizing holding in miner that a judgment creditor can file a new action to seek to pierce the corporate veil of a judgment debtor and hold individual shareholders and directors liable

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing holding in miner that a judgment creditor can file a new action to seek to pierce the corporate veil of a judgment debtor and hold individual shareholders and directors liable
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: 913 (Miss.1991) (citing Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Evans, 553 So.2d 1117, 1119-20 (Miss.1989)). ¶ 24. Further, sanctions cannot be brought merely because the underlying facts in a suit were later found to support the defendants’ arguments. In Bean, this Court held that the threshold inquiry must take place at the time of the filing of the lawsuit. Bean, 587 So.2d at 913. Our law is well-settled on the threshold inquiry as to when the possibility of sanctions arises. There is nothing in the record that indicates Tullos was filing suit on behalf of his client without a reasonable basis. ¶25. “Conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to defeat a motion to dismiss.” Penn Nat’l Gaming, Inc. v. Ratliff, 954 So.2d 427, 431 (Miss.2007) (<HOLDING>). Here, Tullos had a client who had allegedly Options: A. holding if plaintiff does not serve report as to particular defendant trial court must dismiss that defendant from suit B. holding that the movant failed to establish that plea counsel coerced him to plead guilty to avoid taking the case to trial C. holding that defendant failed to plead sufficient facts and instructing the trial court to dismiss the plaintiff from the case D. holding that a defendant need only plead the facts upon which a finding of solidary liability would be based ie it is sufficient that a defendant plead facts that would if proven cause the named defendant to be considered joint tortfeasors and therefore solidarily liable E. holding that plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to allege affirmative misconduct on the part of the government

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that defendant failed to plead sufficient facts and instructing the trial court to dismiss the plaintiff from the case
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of Rogers, 103 Hawai'i 275, 81 P.3d 1190, 1198 (2003); Ellis v. Ellis, 752 S.W.2d 781, 782-84 (Ky. 1988); In re Estate of KingsbuRy, 946 A.2d 389, 394 n.4 (Me. 2008); In re Estate of Palmer, 658 N.W.2d 197, 199-200 (Minn. 2003); In re Nocita, 914 S.W.2d 358, 359 (Mo. 1996); Wingate v. Estate of Ryan, 149 N.J. 227, 693 A.2d 457, 463-64 (1997); C.L.W. v. M.J., 254 N.W.2d 446, 450 (N.D. 1977); In re Estate of Greenwood, 402 Pa.Super. 536, 587 A.2d 749, 752 (1991); In re Estate of ChavarIa, 993 S.W.2d 311, 317-18 (Tex. App. 1999); Marshall v. Bird, 230 Va. 89, 334 S.E.2d 573, 575 (1985); Taylor v. Hoffman, 209 W.Va. 172, 544 S.E.2d 387, 395 (2001); In re Estate of Thompson, 261 Wis.2d 723, 661 N.W.2d 869, 880 (Wis. App. 2003). But see In re Estate of Smith, 685 So.2d 1206, 1208 (Fla. 1996) (<HOLDING>). 80 . See AS 13.12.114(a) ("[T]he parent and Options: A. holding that no acts by the outofstate defendant would place her within the florida longarm statute in entering into a contract with a florida resident for an office to be run in mississippi B. holding that duress toll to statute of limitations under state law had no application to federal rico statute of limitations C. holding that defendants bank account and open line of credit in florida utilized to transfer money in international commerce was insufficient to confer jurisdiction under section 481932 florida statutes where defendant operated its business in honduras had no employees or agents in florida and did not advertise or solicit business in florida D. holding that florida has no separate statute of limitations for paternity determinations in probate proceedings E. holding pennsylvanias similarly worded sixyear statute of limitations for paternity actions unconstitutional

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that florida has no separate statute of limitations for paternity determinations in probate proceedings
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 signed up for an account prior to june 19 , 2017 , we 'll ask you to agree to the new terms when you use airbnb on or after september 01 , 2017 ; until september 01 , 2017 the prior terms of service , payments terms of service , and privacy policy will apply to you .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: combination of presence in an area known to be a center of drug-related activity coupled with evasive action on the part of individuals involved in some sort of interaction with Defendant is sufficient to support a conclusion that Officer Pritchard had the “reasonable articulable suspicion” necessary to support an investigative detention. In fact, having seen the two pedestrians approach Defendant’s vehicle and insert their hands into it, an action which the trial court found to have the appearancé of a hand-to-hand drug transaction, Officer Pritchard actually had more of a basis for suspecting that criminal activity was afoot in this instance than Officer Hedges had for suspecting that something was amiss in Butler. State v. Summey, 150 N.C. App. 662, 667, 564 S.E.2d 624, 628 (2002) (<HOLDING>); State v. Clyburn, 120 N.C. App. 377, 380-81, Options: A. holding truck lessors liability to truck lessee existed without parties express indemnity clause in lease thus exclusion was inapplicable where carolina casualty alleged its insured truck lessor was precluded from coverage because lessors liability was assumed under contract with truck lessee B. holding that a truck drivers injury from a fall in the shower of a truck stop while off duty was not compensable C. holding that officers observations of the speed of the truck coupled with the sound of the engine racing and the bouncing of the truck as it passed through the intersection gave officer probable cause to believe that truck was exceeding a speed greater than was reasonable and prudent under the conditions D. holding that inconsistent answers by occupants or problems with the occupants licenses or registration of the vehicle provide grounds for broadening the inquiry E. holding that an officers belief that he had observed the occupants of a truck participate in a drug transaction supported a valid investigatory detention of the truck and its occupants

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an officers belief that he had observed the occupants of a truck participate in a drug transaction supported a valid investigatory detention of the truck and its occupants
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: At such time (the “ Release Date ”), as both (x) the Exchanged Convertible Note has less than $2,394,748.13 in aggregate principal amount outstanding and (y) the Exchanged Non-Convertible Note has less than $1,596,498.75 in aggregate principal amount outstanding, the Investor shall release its security interest arising pursuant to the Security Documents and the Guaranty.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: ALL QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE CONSTRUCTION, VALIDITY, ENFORCEMENT AND INTERPRETATION OF THIS SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPLICABLE TO CONTRACTS MADE AND TO BE PERFORMED IN SUCH STATE.

assistant: Governing Laws