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: the injury became manifest. In the alternative, he asserts that the side effects resulting from the castration represent an injury that is “separate and distinct” from the original mutilation and, accordingly, the cause of action did not accrue until discovery. Since we hold, infra, that Briley’s cause of action against those who participated in the “plea bargain” did not accrue until he discovered the fraud or could have done so in the exercise of reasonable diligence, we need not reach the merits of these assertions. 6 . We are aware of California Code of Civil Procedure § 352 which allows for tolling the limitations period on account of minority, insanity, and imprisonment, none of which, however, is relevant here. See Ney v. State of California, 439 F.2d 1285, 1287 (9th Cir. 1971) (<HOLDING>). 7 . Indeed, it was a concern for the remedial Options: A. holding that the threeyear statute of limitations applicable to 1983 actions in arkansas governed idea claims B. holding that a twoyear statute of limitations period applies to all 1983 actions brought in pennsylvania C. holding that in california the oneyear statute applies to a 1983 action D. recognizing 3381 as the applicable statute of limitations for 1983 actions brought in california but nevertheless applying 3523 to a case where the plaintiff had been previously imprisoned E. recognizing a hypothetical situation where california law left a party free to sue on a claim in maryland even after the claim was precluded in california because the california statute of limitations had expired

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing 3381 as the applicable statute of limitations for 1983 actions brought in california but nevertheless applying 3523 to a case where the plaintiff had been previously imprisoned
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: forming his opinion as to the risk of infection, he assumed that Mr. Jones and Ms. Zhong had sex two to three times per week, contrary to Ms. Zhong’s record testimony that she and Mr. Jones had sex about once a week. Furthermore, the government presented its own expert witness, Harold Margolis, M.D., of the Centers for Disease Control, who disagreed with Dr. Gubbins’s assessment of the risk of infection. Dr. Margolis testified that Mr. Jones had only about a ten per cent, chance of infection over the course of a year. While the fact that the government would have presented an opposing expert is not by itself a' sufficient reason to exclude Dr. Gubbins’s testimony, it was a factor that the District Court properly considered in its assessment. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 580, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (<HOLDING>). The District Court’s analysis and findings as Options: A. holding that jury must be instructed that value of identification testimony may depend upon the witnesss capacity and opportunity to observe the offender B. recognizing under fre 702 that there is no clear line dividing testimony based on scientific knowledge from testimony based on technical or other specialized knowledge holding that a single flexible test for reliability applies to all expert testimony C. holding that a federal courts inquiry into the reliability of expert testimony is flexible and may depend upon a variety of considerations D. holding that the trial court was not clearly erroneous in accepting expert testimony on the issue of reliability and rank order scoring that happened to include a component reliability estimate E. holding that federal rules of evidence require trial courts to hold hearingsreferred to as daubert hearingsto determine reliability of scientific expert testimony before admission at trial

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a federal courts inquiry into the reliability of expert testimony is flexible and may depend upon a variety of considerations
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices, requests or other communications provided for in this Agreement shall be made, if to the Company, to United Insurance Holdings Corp., Attention: Jessica Strathman, 800 2nd Ave S., St. Petersburgh, FL 33701, and if to Optionee, to the last known mailing address of Optionee contained in the records of the Company. All notices, requests or other communications provided for in this Agreement shall be made in writing either (a) by personal delivery, (b) by facsimile or electronic mail with confirmation of receipt, (c) by mailing in the United States mails or (d) by express courier service. The notice, request or other communication shall be deemed to be received upon personal delivery, upon confirmation of receipt of facsimile or electronic mail transmission or upon receipt by the party entitled thereto if by United States mail or express courier service, provided, however, that if a notice, request or other communication sent to the Company is not received during regular business hours, it shall be deemed to be received on the next succeeding business day of the Company.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The amendments provided for by this Amendment shall become effective as of February 21, 2017 upon a duly executed counterpart of this Amendment from each party hereto. However, it shall also be a condition to the effectiveness of this Amendment that the Transferors shall have provided prior notice of the substance of such amendment to the Trustee and each Rating Agency.

assistant: Effectiveness
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: company had issued a policy which stated that the company would pay on behalf of “[t]he school district ... any amount it is required or permitted to pay as indemnity to any person insured under the applicable Coverage Plan....” 783 S.W.2d at 611. The applicable Coverage Plan insured the members of the board of trustees of the school district. The company defended the trustees in a lawsuit that was brought against the school district and the trustees. When the trustees were dismissed from the suit leaving only the school district as a defendant, the company withdrew the defense and the school district sued for a declaratory judgment. The court held that the insurance policy unambiguously only insured the trustees. Id. at 612. See also St. Paul Guardian Insurance Co., 548 So.2d at 1160 (<HOLDING>). The court was not persuaded by the argument Options: A. holding that trustee and personnel liability policy only covered the trustees and not the school itself B. holding that a chapter 7 trustee was the only person with authority to bring a cause of action after the appointment of a trustee C. holding that bankruptcy discharge eliminates only a debtors personal liability and not the debt itself and that a bankruptcy trustee stands in the shoes of the debtor and can bring a legal malpractice claim as trustee D. holding that under texas law where liability of insured and liability of its agent were related and interdependent court must look to whether agents fraud was covered by policy E. holding that where a high school student and the students mother received adequate notice of the charges had sufficient opportunity to prepare for the meeting with school personnel were accorded an orderly hearing and were given a fair and impartial decision no due process violation occurred even though the school failed to provide advance notice that the potential disciplinary actions included a transfer to another school

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that trustee and personnel liability policy only covered the trustees and not the school itself
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: As of the date hereof, and immediately prior to and after giving effect to the issuance of each Loan hereunder and the use of the proceeds thereof, (a) the fair value of the Borrower's assets is greater than the amount of its liabilities (including disputed, contingent and unliquidated liabilities) as such value is established and liabilities evaluated as required under the Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code, (b) the present fair saleable value of the Borrower's assets is not less than the amount that will be required to pay the probable liability on its debts as they become absolute and matured, (c) the Borrower is able to realize upon its assets and pay its debts and other liabilities (including disputed, contingent and unliquidated liabilities) as they mature in the normal course of business, (d) the Borrower does not intend to, and does not believe that it will, incur debts or liabilities beyond its ability to pay as such debts and liabilities mature, and (e) the Borrower is not engaged in business or a transaction, and is not about to engage in business or a transaction, for which its property would constitute unreasonably small capital.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which, when so executed, shall be deemed an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same Agreement. The signatures of all of the Parties need not appear on the same counterpart.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to raise any claim contesting Defendants’ entry into her home or taking of photographs, and she cannot add such a claim at this stage of the litigation. To the extent Plaintiff contends that the photographs are inadmissible pursuant to the exclusionary rule, the court disagrees — there is no indication of an illegal search in any of Plaintiff's filings. It appears that Plaintiff voluntarily permitted Defendants to enter the home. After entering the home, the officers were entitled to photograph objects in their plain view, and they were also permitted to photograph evidence they viewed from outside the residence, such as the window screens. See Wilson v. Supt., Attica Corr. Facility, No. 00-CV-0767 (NAM)(GLS), 2003 WL 22765351, at *8 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2003) (report and recommendation) (<HOLDING>), adopted, Order, 00-CV-0767 (NAM)(GS) Options: A. holding seizure of evidence in plain view reasonable under fourth amendment B. holding that visible contraband in plain view within the apartment provided probable cause for an arrest of person found therein C. holding that the twolevel enhancement was appropriate where the gun cash and a drug ledger were found in one apartment and the drugs were found in a different apartment in the same building D. holding that statements by defendant and apartment manager that defendant lived in the apartment where drugs were found demonstrated his control over the apartment even though no documents personal effects or keys were found E. holding that photographs taken of items outside defendants apartment that were in plain view of the officer were properly admitted

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that photographs taken of items outside defendants apartment that were in plain view of the officer were properly admitted
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: 147, 158 (2d Cir.2003); Stamelman v. Fleishman-Hillard, Inc., No. 02 Civ. 8318, 2003 WL 21782645, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2003). 14 . Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 513, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) (quoting Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984)). 15 . Phillips v. Girdich, 408 F.3d 124, 130 (2d Cir.2005) (citations omitted). 16 . In re Initial Public Offering Sec. Litig., 241 F.Supp.2d 281, 323 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (citations omitted). 17 . Higgs v. Carver, 286 F.3d 437, 439 (7th Cir.2002). 18 . Wynder v. McMahon, 360 F.3d 73, 79 (2d Cir.2004) (quoting Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir.1995)). 19 . Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 514, 122 S.Ct. 992. Accord Conley, 355 U.S. at 48, 78 S.Ct. 99 ("The Fed 632-37 (2d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). 25 . Baur, 352 F.3d at 632, 637 (finding a Options: A. holding that a party who had demonstrated an injury sufficient to confer standing to appeal from an agency decision could raise any relevant question of law in respect of the order of the agency B. holding that in the context of food and drug safety suits enhanced risk qualifies as sufficient injury to confer standing C. holding that allegation of cipa violation is sufficient to confer standing D. holding that the statute qualifies as an exemption 3 statute E. holding that if an injury is unexpected from the workers point of view it qualifies as an injury by accident

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that in the context of food and drug safety suits enhanced risk qualifies as sufficient injury to confer standing
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: tolls the running of the Ross one-year period during the pendency of petitioner’s proceedings in state court for collateral review, in effect applying the tolling provision of thé AEDPA to the judge-made limitations period announced in Ross. Although the Second Circuit has yet to decide the issue, at least three judges in this district have held that the tolling provision of the AEDPA does apply to the Ross one-year period. See Brooks v. Artuz, No. 98 Civ. 4449, 1999 WL 138926, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. March 15, 1999) (Chin, J.); Duncan v. Griener, No. 97. Civ. 8754, 1999 WL 20890 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan.19, 1999) (Koetl, J.); Joyner v. Vacco, No. 97 Civ. 7047, 1998 WL 633664 at * 3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept.15, 1998) (Cote, J.); but see Cole v. Kuhlmann, 5 F.Supp.2d 212, 213-214 (S.D.N.Y.1998) (Rakoff, J.) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the circuit courts that have Options: A. holding that habeas petitions challenging judgments of conviction that became final before the effective date of the aedpa are not time barred if filed within one year from aedpas effective date april 241996 B. holding that petitioners whose convictions became final before the enactment of aedpa had a oneyear grace period after aedpas effective date to file their federal habeas petitions C. holding that 2254 petitions of prisoners whose convictions became final before the passage of the aedpa are timely if filed within one year from the aedpas effective date D. holding aedpa applicable to petition filed on or after aedpas effective date E. holding that the aedpas tolling provision is inapplicable under peterson v demskie where petitioners conviction became final prior to the effective date of the aedpa

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the aedpas tolling provision is inapplicable under peterson v demskie where petitioners conviction became final prior to the effective date of the aedpa
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 terms of the Letter Agreement dated the date hereof in the form attached hereto as Annex A regarding confidential information (the “Confidentiality Agreement”) are incorporated herein by reference and shall be deemed for any and all purposes to be terms of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to the employment contracts of seamen. As adopted by Congress, the Convention is part of Title 9 of the United States Code, 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq. (“Title 9”). According to 9 U.S.C. § 1, the general provisions of Title 9 do not apply to seamen’s employment contracts. However, there is no indication that the Convention excludes seamen’s employment contracts from its purview. Instead, the Convention states that “an arbitration agreement... arising out of a legal relationship, whether contractual or not, which is considered as commercial.. .falls under the Convention.” 9 U.S.C. § 202. Numerous courts have held in accordance with this inclusive language that the Convention applies to the employment contracts of seamen E.g., Francisco v. STOLT ACHIEVEMENT MT, 293 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Bautista, et al. v. Star Cruises and Options: A. holding that this boilerplate language conflicts with the regulations and rulings B. holding that first and most importantly the language of the claim defines the scope of the protected invention C. holding that a rule that conflicts with a subsequent adopted statutory amendment may not be enforced D. holding that the most significant relationship test as espoused in the restatement of conflicts governs conflicts cases sounding in tort in case where automobile collision occurred in mexico E. holding that 9 usc 1 conflicts with the inclusive language of the convention and thus may not restrict its scope

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that 9 usc 1 conflicts with the inclusive language of the convention and thus may not restrict its scope
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: what he was charged with doing, the maximum penalty he faced and the possibility of restitution and court costs being ordered as part of any sentence imposed. Whitepipe indicated that he was ready to enter his plea and proceeded to plead guilty to the rape charge. The court then questioned Whi-tepipe to determine whether his plea was voluntary: THE COURT: Did anyone force you to enter that plea? THE DEFENDANT: No. THE COURT: Did anyone tell you, other than this plea agreement, that I would give you special treatment if you just came in today and pled guilty? THE DEFENDANT: No. THE COURT: And you are doing this under your own free will? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. To be constitutionally valid, a guilty plea must be knowing, voluntary and intelligent. See Parke, 506 U.S. at 28, 29, 113 S.Ct. 517 (<HOLDING>). Because a guilty plea constitutes a waiver of Options: A. holding that due process requires state courts to make an affirmative showing that a guilty plea is intelligent and voluntary B. holding a waiver of a substantial constitutional right must be a voluntary knowing and intelligent act C. holding that a voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty is an admission of all the elements of a formal criminal charge D. holding that a guilty plea must be both knowing and voluntary and must be a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action available to a defendant E. holding that a defendant must have knowledge of the likely consequences of entering the guilty plea in order for a plea to be voluntary and knowing

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a guilty plea must be both knowing and voluntary and must be a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action available to a defendant
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: (i) There is no action, suit, proceeding or investigation pending or, to the best knowledge of the Issuer, threatened, against the Issuer before any Governmental Authority and (ii) the Issuer is not subject to any order, judgment, decree, injunction, stipulation or consent order of or with any Governmental Authority that, in the case of either of the foregoing clauses (i) and (ii) , (A) asserts the invalidity of this Agreement or any other Transaction Document, (B) seeks to prevent the grant of a security interest in any Collateral by the Issuer to the Administrative Agent, the ownership or acquisition by the Issuer of any Pool Receivables or other Collateral or the consummation of any of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement or any other Transaction Document, (C) seeks any determination or ruling that could materially and adversely affect the performance by the Issuer of its obligations under, or the validity or enforceability of, this Agreement or any other Transaction Document or (D) individually or in the aggregate for all such actions, suits, proceedings and investigations could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: court’s dismissal was due to be reversed especially because Cruz did not assert a speedy-trial violation. In Holtzman v. Goldman, 71 N.Y.2d 564, 523 N.E.2d 297, 528 N.Y.S.2d 21 (1988), the complaining witness could not be located on the day of trial and the people requested an adjournment or continuance; the trial court denied the motion and dismissed the charges. The appellate court reversed, stating: “The power of the trial court to deny the People further adjournment is not disputed; the error lies in the corrective action it took after it did so. Trial courts are vested with statutory power to dismiss indictments, of course, but the power is not unlimited.” 71 N.Y.2d at 570, 523 N.E.2d at 301, 528 N.Y.S.2d at 25. See also Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 237 S.W.3d 575 (Ky.Ct.App.2007) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. King, 932 A.2d 948 Options: A. holding that district court lacked authority to dismiss charges of driving under the influence reckless driving operating a motor vehicle without a seatbelt and operating a motor vehicle without insurance without states consent where dismissal was at gonzalezs request based on absence of arresting officer B. holding that state has jurisdiction to prosecute a nonindian for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol within the boundary of an indian reservation C. holding that the sensible and popular understanding of what a motor vehicle accident entails necessarily involves the motor vehicle being operated as a motor vehicle D. holding that assault conviction for driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and causing serious bodily injury to the person of another with the motor vehicle qualified as a crime of violence under ussg 4b12a E. holding police officer had probable cause to believe defendant was operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that district court lacked authority to dismiss charges of driving under the influence reckless driving operating a motor vehicle without a seatbelt and operating a motor vehicle without insurance without states consent where dismissal was at gonzalezs request based on absence of arresting officer
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: Executive shall execute and deliver to the Company a release agreement in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “ Release ”) within twenty-one days (or such longer period of time as may be required by applicable law in order to make it enforceable) following the Date of Termination and that Executive not revoke such Release during any applicable revocation period. The form of the Release may be modified as needed to reflect changes in applicable law or regulations that are needed to provide a legally enforceable and binding release of the scope contemplated by the Release at the time of execution.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: coverage thus creating a common law bond. We address first the question of whether a bond which requires only a notice of nonpayment is an actual expansion of coverage from the statute which requires that a notice of nonpayment and a notice to contractor be given before an action will lie. We think not. The cases which have determined that a certain bond expanded coverage all involve bonds which broaden either the class of claimants or the payment provisions. Florida Keys Community College v. Insurance Co. of North America, 456 So.2d 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Standard Heating; Southwest Florida Water Management Dist. ex rel. Thermal Acoustic Corp. v. Miller Constr. Co., Inc., 355 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Quality Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. Ritch, 373 So.2d 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 385 So.2d 760 (Fla.1980). Options: A. holding that the bond was intended to and did substantially comply with sjection 71323 therefore because its conditions were not broader and more protective than the statute required the contention that the bond was a common law bond failed B. recognizing that no bond or a nominal bond may be appropriate in cases involving the public interest C. holding that even though a bond contained provisions not required by statute it must be considered statutory and not common law because the bond did not expand the payment provisions beyond those stated in statute D. holding that surety was liable to subcontractor on payment bond because payment bond applied to any claimant who among other things supplied materials that were reasonably required for use in the performance of the subcontract E. holding that bond provisions of rule 684 are manda tory and that an injunction issued without a bond is void

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that even though a bond contained provisions not required by statute it must be considered statutory and not common law because the bond did not expand the payment provisions beyond those stated in statute
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: albeit not the one urged by the State. The statute expressly states that the court may not grant a further reduction in excess of “one-half of the remaining mandatory minimum sentence.” Iowa Code § 901.10(2). If, as the State suggests, it is the prosecutor who decides the maximum level of the reduction, it seems more logical that any limitations on the extent of the reduction would be placed on the prosecutor, not the court. Moreover, the fact that the legislature expressly limited the court’s discretion indicates that it gave consideration to the breadth of the court’s power. The legislature could also have expressly limited any reduction by the court to an amount that did not exceed the prosecutor’s request, but it did not do so. See State v. Ayers, 590 N.W.2d 25, 31 (Iowa 1999) (<HOLDING>); Adams, 554 N.W.2d at 689 (“legislative intent Options: A. holding that the guidelines did not strip the sentencing court of its discretion to impose a concurrent sentence B. recognizing that sentencing facts are based on the evidence and testimony presented at sentencing under a preponderance of the evidence standard C. recognizing that sentencing judges have the discretion to reject any sentencing guideline but no judge is required to do so D. holding it was reasonable trial strategy for counsel to have determined that sentencing by the court was preferable to sentencing by a jury E. holding that sentencing court had discretion under sentencing statute noting that the legislature has demonstrated its ability to use restrictive language when it desires to do so

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that sentencing court had discretion under sentencing statute noting that the legislature has demonstrated its ability to use restrictive language when it desires to do so
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 Performance-Based Make-Whole Award shall be divided into three segments of 13,189 Shares (each, a “ Make-Whole Award Segment ”), corresponding to each of the three periods commencing on the Start Date and ending on the fifth anniversary of the Start Date, the sixth anniversary of the Start Date and the seventh anniversary of the Start Date, respectively (each, a “ Make-Whole Vesting Period ”). The number of Shares subject to each Make-Whole Award Segment that become earned, determined in accordance with this Section 2(b), shall vest on the last day of the corresponding Make-Whole Vesting Period, subject to the Participant’s continued employment with the Company and its Subsidiaries through such date (except as otherwise provided in Section 4). The number of Shares underlying each Make-Whole Award Segment that become earned will be based on the level of the Compound Annual TSR Growth Rate for such Make-Whole Vesting Period, calculated in accordance with the following table. If the Compound Annual TSR Growth Rate equals a percentage in column A, the percentage of Shares subject to the Make-Whole Award Segment that are earned will equal the corresponding amount in column B. If the Compound Annual TSR Growth Rate falls between 11% and 14% but does not equal a percentage set forth in column A, the percentage of Shares subject to the Make-Whole Award Segment that are earned will be determined by linear interpolation between the two corresponding amounts in column B. Fractional earned Shares shall be rounded to the nearest whole number of Shares.

assistant: Vesting
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 shall have obtained all Governmental Authorizations and all consents of other Persons, in each case that are necessary or advisable in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Credit Documents and the Related Agreements and each of the foregoing shall be in full force and effect and in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to Administrative Agent. All applicable waiting periods shall have expired without any action being taken or threatened by any competent authority which would restrain, prevent or otherwise impose adverse conditions on the transactions contemplated by the Credit Documents or the Related Agreements or the financing thereof and no action, request for stay, petition for review or rehearing, reconsideration, or appeal with respect to any of the foregoing shall be pending, and the time for any applicable agency to take action to set aside its consent on its own motion shall have expired.

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: corpus, not even a power to revoke. They occupy the property merely because they have a contract with the trust which “requires” them to “live on the premises,” subject to having to vacate on fifteen days’ notice. This revocable right of occupancy is the only interest in the property that they enjoy. Id. at 813. In discussing the law in Arkansas regarding homestead exemptions the court noted 17that [t]he Klaessons provide us with numerous cases that hold that equitable owners may claim homestead rights, and we entertain no doubt that, under Arkansas law, a person in possession as the beneficiary of a trust could claim the protection of the homestead exemption, assuming, of course, that he or she was married or the head of a family. But here the Klaessons are not beneficiaries of t ) (<HOLDING>); Callava v. Feinberg, 864 So.2d 429 Options: A. holding that regardless of whether the property was held as tenants in common or by the entirety the husband was entitled to hold property as a homestead B. holding that a wife could claim a homestead exemption even though she only had a beneficiary interest in the property held in trust C. holding that a bankruptcy debtor may claim the homestead exemption for real property transferred to a selfsettled revocable trust even though the settlor and the beneficiary as well as the bankruptcy debtor were the same person D. holding that debtor as grantor and trustee of a trust that held legal title to the property held a sufficient equitable interest in the property to claim it as exempt homestead where she resided on the property prepetition with the intent to maintain it as her primary residence E. holding that the property held by the revocable trust in which the trustee was the beneficiary and the property was his permanent residence was a constitutionally protected homestead property

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the property held by the revocable trust in which the trustee was the beneficiary and the property was his permanent residence was a constitutionally protected homestead property
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The parties hereto shall be entitled to enforce their respective rights under this Agreement specifically, to recover damages by reason of any breach of any provision of this Agreement, and to exercise all other rights existing in their favor. The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that money damages would not be an adequate remedy for any breach of the provisions of this Agreement and that any party hereto may, in their sole discretion, apply to any court of law or equity of competent jurisdiction for specific performance and/or injunctive relief (without posting bond or other security) in order to enforce or prevent any violation of the provisions of this Agreement. The Executive submits himself or herself to the personal jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Illinois in any action by the Company to enforce the provisions of this Agreement. Executive will reimburse the Company for all costs (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) incurred in connection with any action to enforce this Agreement if Company prevails on any material issue involved in such dispute.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and by different parties on separate counterparts, each of which, when executed and delivered, shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which, when taken together, shall constitute but one and the same Agreement. Delivery of an executed counterpart of this Agreement by telefacsimile, “.pdf file” or other electronic method of transmission shall be equally as effective as delivery of an original executed counterpart of this Agreement. Any party delivering an executed counterpart of this Agreement by telefacsimile, “.pdf file” or other electronic method of transmission also shall deliver an original executed counterpart of this Agreement but the failure to deliver an original executed counterpart shall not affect the validity, enforceability, and binding effect of this Agreement. The foregoing shall apply to each other Loan Document mutatis mutandis.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement and understanding of the Parties hereto with respect to the matters covered hereby. This Agreement shall not be changed, altered, modified or amended, except by a written agreement signed by the Parties hereto.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: your limited license to virtual items for use in zynga games is a service provided by zynga that starts when we accept your payment or redemption of third party virtual currency .

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: The Executive hereby acknowledges and agrees that his separation from service with the Company Group and his resignation from any and all titles, positions, and appointments the Executive holds with the Company or any member of the Company Group, whether as an officer, director, employee, consultant, trustee, committee member, agent or otherwise, will become effective as of the close of business on November 30, 2018 (the “ Anticipated Date of Retirement ”); provided, that such separation from service shall occur earlier upon the Executive’s death, a termination due to his Disability (as defined in the Employment Agreement), a termination by mutual agreement of the ADT Board and the Executive, or a termination by the Company for Cause (as defined in the Employment Agreement) (in any case, an “ Early Retirement ,” and the Executive’s ultimate date of such separation from service, the “ Retirement Date ”); provided, further that following the Retirement Date other than following an Early Retirement due to death, Disability, or a termination by the Company for Cause, the Executive shall remain a member of the ADT Board as contemplated by Section 2.B.2 below. Except as otherwise expressly set forth herein, effective as of the Retirement Date, the Executive shall have no authority to act on behalf of any member of the Company Group and shall not hold himself out as having such authority, enter into any agreement or incur any obligations on behalf of any member of the Company Group, commit any member of the Company Group in any manner, or otherwise act in an executive or other decision-making capacity with respect to any member of the Company Group. The Executive agrees to promptly execute such documents as the Company, in its sole discretion, shall reasonably deem necessary to effect such resignations. The Retirement Date shall be the termination date of the Executive’s employment for purposes of participation in and coverage under all benefit plans and programs sponsored by or through the Company, except as otherwise provided herein. The terms and conditions set forth herein shall exclusively govern the Executive’s continued employment with the Company from and after the date of this Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, the Retirement Date will be the last day of the term of the Employment Agreement, and such separation from service will be deemed a voluntary resignation from employment without Good Reason (as defined in the Employment Agreement).

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: Each of the Authorized Collateral Agents may demand specific performance of this Agreement. The First Lien Collateral Agent, on behalf of itself and the First Lien Secured Parties, the Second Lien Collateral Agent, on behalf of itself and the Second Lien Secured Parties, and the Third Lien Collateral Agent, on behalf of itself and the Third Lien Secured Parties, hereby irrevocably waive any defense based on the adequacy of a remedy at law and any other defense which might be asserted to bar the remedy of specific performance in any action which may be brought by any of the Authorized Collateral Agents or the Secured Parties.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In addition to such other rights of indemnification as they may have as members of the Board or the Committee, and to the extent allowed by Applicable Laws, the Administrator shall be indemnified by the Company against the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, actually incurred in connection with any action, suit or proceeding or in connection with any appeal therein, to which the Administrator may be party by reason of any action taken or failure to act under or in connection with the Plan or any Award granted under the Plan, and against all amounts paid by the Administrator in settlement thereof (provided, however, that the settlement has been approved by the Company, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld) or paid by the Administrator in satisfaction of a judgment in any such action, suit or proceeding, except in relation to matters as to which it shall be adjudged in such action, suit or proceeding that the Administrator did not act in good faith and in a manner which such person reasonably believed to be in the best interests of the Company, or in the case of a criminal proceeding, had no reason to believe that the conduct complained of was unlawful; provided, however, that within 60 days after institution of any such action, suit or proceeding, the Administrator shall, in writing, offer the Company the opportunity at its own expense to handle and defend such action, suit or proceeding.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you and airbnb each agree that the following claims are exceptions to the arbitration agreement and will be brought in a judicial proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction : ( i ) any claim related to actual or threatened infringement , misappropriation or violation of a party 's copyrights , trademarks , trade secrets , patents , or other intellectual property rights ; ( ii ) any claim seeking emergency injunctive relief based on exigent circumstances ( e.g. , imminent danger or commission of a crime , hacking , cyber-attack ) .

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: First, as here, judicial review of an administrative event is withheld until the agency instigates a second, independent proceeding. More significantly, the immigration statute is phrased so as to bar review of the agency’s determination of SAW status in an individual action — an event comparable to EPA’s selection of a removal or remedial action, which is the focus of the CERCLA bar. Neither statute mentions the availability of review of a constitutional challenge to the statute itself (as here) or to the agency’s execution of the statute (as in McNary). Insofar as the Immigration and Nationality Act compares to CERCLA, we think that the holding in McNary supports our conclusion here. See also Johnson v. Robinson, 415 U.S. 361, 367, 94 S.Ct. 1160, 1165-66, 39 L.Ed.2d 389 (1974) (<HOLDING>); cf. Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 762, Options: A. recognizing that this courts construction of a statute becomes as much apart of the statute as the words of the statute itself and that change is a matter that addresses itself to the general assembly not this court B. holding that the title of the statute did not limit the reach of the statute C. holding that the aedpa statute of limitations is not jurisdictional D. holding that this courts sixyear statute of limitations is jurisdictional E. holding that similar jurisdictional bar precluded review only of administration of statute not of challenge to statute itself

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that similar jurisdictional bar precluded review only of administration of statute not of challenge to statute itself
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: fail facially and as applied. He likewise argues that to the extent that AD-11-9 7 contains provisions requiring periodic review, those provisions are constitutionally inadequate, both facially and as applied. We disagree. 1. Facial Challenge: Wis. Stat. § 971.17(3)(c) on Procedural Due Process Grounds ¶ 56. We are satisfied that Wis. Stat. § 971.17(3)(c) is facially valid on procedural due process grounds for two primary reasons. ¶ 57. First, the statute requires that the court grant a conditional release hearing, which the committed person may request every six months. Wis. Stat. § 971.17(4). Although that review is not specific to the medication order, we are satisfied that it must necessarily include a review of the medication order. See, e.g., Anthony D.B., 237 Wis. 2d 1, ¶ 31 (<HOLDING>). ¶ 58. Second, we believe that other language Options: A. holding that an agencys reasonable reading of an ambiguous statute must be affirmed B. holding moot a constitutional challenge to a state statute governing the involuntary commitment of mentally ill minors because the law had been replaced with a different statute C. holding that by reading the statute governing involuntary medication of prisoners under ch 51 together with ch 980 a review of an order to compel medication is required D. holding that untimely provision of medication to hivpositive in mate did not cause sufficiently serious injury to give rise to an eighth amendment violation E. holding that review of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration is under the de novo standard

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that by reading the statute governing involuntary medication of prisoners under ch 51 together with ch 980 a review of an order to compel medication is required