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 discretion of the trial judge and will not be reversed on appeal unless wholly unsupported by the evidence.”); id. ("[I]n reviewing the trial judge's disqualification of prospective jurors, the responses of a challenged juror must be examined in light of the entire voir dire.”). 14 . See State v. Copeland, 321 S.C. 318, 324, 468 S.E.2d 620, 624 (1996) (“The trial court has broad discretion when dealing with the propriety of the solicitor’s argument, including the question of whether to grant a defendant’s mistrial motion.”). 15 . See In re McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 93, 551 S.E.2d 235, 238-39 (2001) (stating a contemporaneous objection is required to preserve issues regarding a closing argument for review); State v. Moultrie, 316 S.C. 547, 555-56, 451 S.E.2d 34, 39 (Ct.App.1994) (<HOLDING>). 16 . See State v. Cooper, 334 S.C. 540, 554, Options: A. holding mistrial unwarranted where contemporaneous objection was made to single mention of insurance and court gave cautionary instruction B. holding that an objection raised in a motion to suppress evidence preserves the issue for appeal despite the lack of further objection at trial C. holding a contemporaneous objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review D. holding the lack of a contemporaneous objection could not be salvaged by a motion for a mistrial E. holding that where defense counsel made a timely objection and it was overruled by the trial court a further request for a mistrial was unnecessary and futile since the reasons for the objection were apparent and the trial courts denial of the objection indicated its belief the jury could properly hear the matter which was the subject of the objection

assistant: The best answer is D. holding the lack of a contemporaneous objection could not be salvaged by a motion for a mistrial
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 states while encroaching on the supremacy of the United States. The Waterfront Commission Act does seem to be such an agreement. Waterfront governance is closely related, to interstate and foreign commerce, and unquestionably impinges on the supremacy of the federal government. Cf American Sugar Refining Co., 55 N.Y.2d 11, 447 N.Y.S.2d 685, 432 N.E.2d 578. The second issue is whether Congress actually consented to the Waterfront Commission Act. The Constitution does not specify how and when Congressional consent is given to a compact. Generally, the form of consent is left to the discretion of Congress. Actual consent may be express or implied, and may be given before or after the states enter into the agreement. See Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. at 441 & n. 9, 101 S.Ct. at 708 & n. 9 (<HOLDING>); Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. at 521, 13 Options: A. holding there is no consent as a matter of law where the consent was given under coercion B. holding that because consent is not a statement and a request for consent is not an interrogation giving consent to search is a neutral fact which has no tendency to show that the suspect is guilty of any crime C. holding that congress by enacting the crime control consent act of 1934 gave consent in advance to the interstate agreement on detainers initially drafted by the council of state governments in 1956 D. recognizing that consent is an exception to the warrant requirement and that voluntariness of consent depends on the totality of the circumstances E. holding under state constitution that validity of consent search requires knowledge of right to refuse consent

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that congress by enacting the crime control consent act of 1934 gave consent in advance to the interstate agreement on detainers initially drafted by the council of state governments in 1956
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Neither the confidential information memorandum previously provided by the Borrower nor any of the other reports, financial statements, certificates or other information furnished by or on behalf of the Borrower or any Restricted Subsidiary to the Administrative Agent or any Lender in connection with the negotiation of this Agreement or delivered hereunder (as modified or supplemented by other information so furnished) contains any material misstatement of fact or omits to state any material fact necessary to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; provided that, with respect to projected financial information, the Borrower represents only that such information was prepared in good faith based upon assumptions believed to be reasonable at the time.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Upon the payment in full of the Secured Obligations, the termination of all Commitments, and termination of the Agreement, the Administrative Agent shall execute, acknowledge, and deliver to the Pledgors an instrument in writing in recordable form releasing the collateral pledge, grant, assignment, Lien and security interest in the Trademark Collateral under this Trademark Security Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event of the occurrence of a Change in Control, 100% of the then unvested portion of the Options granted hereunder and not previously forfeited shall immediately become fully vested and non-forfeitable, provided that the Participant remains in Service on the date of consummation of the Change in Control.

assistant: Change In Control
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: business is a disputed question of fact which cannot be resolved on summary judgment. State Auto disputes Appellants’ arguments and also posits in the alternative that, even if Kraus was an “insured” at the time he committed the acts in question, Appellants’ false imprisonment claims were subsumed by their sexual assault claims. As discussed below, we conclude that the district court correctly found that the determination of whether Kraus was an “insured” under the policy is a question of law where the pertinent facts are undisputed, that the policy is not ambiguous, and that Kraus’s acts fall within the Criminal-Acts Exclusion. Because we affirm the district court on those grounds, we do not reach State Auto’s alternative argument in support 2d 349, 633 N.W.2d 707 (Wis.Ct.App.2001) (<HOLDING>); Michelet v. Scheuring Sec. Servs. Inc., 680 Options: A. holding the question of whether insurance companys requests were reasonable under policy language was a fact question B. holding that the question of whether an employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment or while performing duties related to the conduct of the employers business for purposes of insurance coverage were questions of fact that precluded summary judgment particularly since there was a question regarding the employees intent in performing the act in question C. holding that issues of fact precluded summary judgment on the question of whether an employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment for purposes of insurance coverage when the employee was simply sitting in his vehicle in his employers parking lot waiting for the business to open at the time the accident occurred D. holding that it is well established that whether an employees actions were within the scope of employment is a question of fact and even if some of the actions were unauthorized the question of whether the actions were within the scope of employment is for the jury E. holding that generally the question of waiver and estoppel is a question of fact

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the question of whether an employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment or while performing duties related to the conduct of the employers business for purposes of insurance coverage were questions of fact that precluded summary judgment particularly since there was a question regarding the employees intent in performing the act in question
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 Lenders party hereto, who constitute the Required Lenders upon the Waiver Effective Date, waive, as of the Waiver Effective Date and until the earlier of (i) the Amendment No. 5 Effective Date and (ii) June 30, 2016, Holdings’, the Borrower’s and the Restricted Subsidiaries’ obligations to comply with the covenant set forth in Section 6.01(a) of the Credit Agreement solely with respect to the requirement that the report or opinion of an independent registered public accounting firm required to be delivered annually under Section 6.01(a) of the Credit Agreement not be subject to any “going concern” or like qualification or exception (the “ Going Concern Waiver ”); provided, however, that such Going Concern Waiver shall automatically expire and be of no further effect (x) immediately if the Borrower’s exchange offer (the “ Exchange Offer ”) and consent solicitation for the Senior Notes is not commenced by May 6, 2016 or (y) 10 days after the earlier of (A) any withdrawal of the Exchange Offer or (B) any termination of the related support agreement dated April 30, 2016 between Holdings, the Borrower and certain holders of the Senior Notes relating to the Exchange Offer (the “ Support Agreement ”), in each case prior to June 30, 2016 (the period during which the Going Concern Waiver remains in effect in accordance with this sentence being referred to as the “ Covered Period ”). The Lenders party hereto hereby waive, during the Covered Period, any Default arising solely from the failure to comply with the covenant and related requirement described under the immediately preceding sentence (the “ Default Waiver ” and, together with the Going Concern Waiver, the “ Waiver ”). The Loan Parties acknowledge that the failure to comply with such requirement of Section 6.01(a) of the Credit Agreement after the last day of the Covered Period (to the extent the Amendment No. 5 Effective Date has not occurred by such date) shall constitute an immediate Event of Default and the Administrative Agent and Lenders shall have all rights and remedies, as if the Waiver had never been granted. The Waiver set forth in this Section 1 shall, as of the Waiver Effective Date, extend the waiver pursuant to the March 2016 Waiver.

assistant: Waivers
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: When a reference is made in this Agreement to a Section, such reference shall be to a Section of this Agreement, unless otherwise indicated. The headings contained in this Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not affect in any way the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. Whenever the words “include,” “includes” and “including” are used in this Agreement, they shall be deemed to be followed by the words “without limitation.” The words “hereof, “herein” and “hereunder” and words of similar import when used in this Agreement shall refer to this Agreement as a whole and not to any particular provision of this Agreement. The word “will” shall be construed to have the same meaning as the word “shall.” The words “dates hereof” will refer to the date of this Agreement. The word “or” is not exclusive. The definitions contained in this Agreement are applicable to the singular as well as the plural forms of such terms. Any agreement, instrument, law, rule or statute defined or referred to herein means, unless otherwise indicated, such agreement, instrument, law, rule or statute as from time to time amended, modified or supplemented. Each of the Parties hereto acknowledges that it has been represented by counsel of its choice throughout all negotiations that have preceded the execution of this Agreement, and that it has executed the same with the advice of said independent counsel. Each Party cooperated and participated in the drafting and preparation of this Agreement and the documents referred to herein, and any and all drafts relating thereto exchanged among the parties shall be deemed the work product of all of the parties and may not be construed against any Party by reason of its drafting or preparation. Accordingly, any rule of law or any legal decision that would require interpretation of any ambiguities in this Agreement against any Party that drafted or prepared it is of no application and is hereby expressly waived by each of the Parties hereto, and any controversy over interpretations of this Agreement shall be decided without regards to events of drafting or preparation.

assistant: Construction
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: conduct as being directed at Roman’s counsel are insufficiently supported in the record. See State v. Kneeland, 552 A.2d 4, 5 (Me.1988) (appellant has burden to insure that record is adequate to allow effective review by appellate court of claims of error or abuse of discretion). Accordingly, Roman’s rights to a fair and impartial trial were not violated. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. All concurring. 1 . We reject at the outset Roman’s claim that his conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence. Based on the evidence introduced at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense charged. State v. Barry, 495 A.2d 825, 826 (Me.1985). 2 . See, e.g., State v. Rubino, 564 A.2d 59, 61 (Me.1989) (<HOLDING>); State v. Boone, 563 A.2d 374, 376 (Me.1989) Options: A. holding that past instances of physical contact between parties in sexual assault case admissible to show relationship intent opportunity and defendants attraction to alleged victim B. holding evidence of past uncharged sexual encounters admissible in child sexual abuse case to show relationship between defendant and alleged victim C. holding defendants prior conviction for assault related to sexual abuse of a minor even though it did not require an act of sexual abuse because it required intent to commit sexual abuse and such a mens rea demonstrate the offense was one relating to sexual abuse D. holding that attempted sexual abuse is a specific intent crime E. holding evidence of outofstate instances of abuse admissible in child sexual abuse case to show intent opportunity and relationship between defendant and victim

assistant: The best answer is E. holding evidence of outofstate instances of abuse admissible in child sexual abuse case to show intent opportunity and relationship between defendant and victim
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and isolated, justified response to defense counsel’s “opening the door,” we conclude that such remarks did not shift the burden of proof. Thus, our prior statement in Eley, 288 Md. 548, 419 A.2d 384, is inapposite. In Eley, we noted that [a prosecutor’s] comment upon the defendant’s failure to produce evidence to refute the State’s evidence ... might well amount to an impermissible reference to the defendant’s failure to take the stand. Moreover, even if such a comment were not held tantamount to one that the defendant failed to take the stand it might in some cases be held to constitute an improper shifting of the burden of proof to the defendant. 288 Md. at 555 n. 2, 419 A.2d at 388 n. 2 (emphasis added). But see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 990 F.2d 507, 510 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Dahdah, 864 F.2d 55, 59 (7th Options: A. holding the prosecutors statements were not an inappropriate comment on the defendants failure to testify but rather a comment on the defendants failure to present convincing evidence to support his defense B. holding that the prosecutors reference to the nonexistence of mitigating evidence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify C. holding that prosecutors direct comments on a defendants failure to testify were not cured by subsequent inclusion in the jury charge of an instruction regarding the defendants right not to testify D. recognizing that the fifth amendment forbids comment by the prosecution on a defendants failure to testify E. holding that the prosecutors comment regarding the defendants failure to call a potential witness did not shift the burden of proof because it did not implicate the defendants fifth amendment right not to testify

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the prosecutors comment regarding the defendants failure to call a potential witness did not shift the burden of proof because it did not implicate the defendants fifth amendment right not to testify
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: Enter into any transaction of any kind with any Affiliate of Borrower, whether or not in the ordinary course of business, other than on fair and reasonable terms substantially as favorable to Borrower or such Subsidiary as would be obtainable by Borrower or such Subsidiary at the time in a comparable arm’s length transaction with a Person other than an Affiliate, provided that the foregoing restriction shall not apply to: (a) transactions between or among Borrower and any Guarantor or between and among Guarantors; or (b) Permitted Investments in Subsidiaries.

assistant: Transactions With Affiliates
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 Supreme Court has identified three types of fora for purposes of free speech analysis: (1) the traditional public forum; (2) the public forum created by government designation; and (3) the non-public forum. Board of Airport Comm’rs v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., 482 U.S. 569, 572, 107 S.Ct. 2568, 2570, 96 L.Ed.2d 500 (1987) (citing Perry Educ. Ass’n. v. Perry Local Educs. Ass’n., 460 U.S. 37, 45-46, 103 S.Ct. 948, 954-955, 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983)). Public schools generally, and elementary schools in particular, are not considered to be traditional public fora. Deeper Life Christian Fellowship, Inc. v. Board of Educ., 852 F.2d 676, 679 (2d Cir.1988) (citing Brandon v. Board of Educ., 635 F.2d 971, 980 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1123, 102 S.Ct. 970, 71 L.Ed.2d 109 (1981)) (<HOLDING>). However, a state is free to open to the Options: A. holding that corrections officers mockpreaching and espousal of religious views did not constitute a substantial burden on inmates free exercise of religion B. holding that a high school is not a public forum thus precluding free airing of religious views C. recognizing a religious institutions right to free exercise of religion D. holding that a public high school newspaper was a limited public forum not a traditional or designated public forum because there was no evidence that the school permitted indiscriminate use by the general public quoting hazelwood sch dist v kuhlmeier 484 us 260 267 108 sct 562 98 led2d 592 1988 E. holding that mayor is a high public official

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a high school is not a public forum thus precluding free airing of religious views
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 BORROWER, EACH QUALIFIED BORROWER, THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT, THE CO-SYNDICATION AGENTS AND THE BANKS HEREBY IRREVOCABLY WAIVE ANY AND ALL RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY LEGAL PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY.

assistant: Waiver Of Jury Trials
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: Following the Executive's last day of employment by the Company, the Executive shall reasonably cooperate with the Company and its subsidiaries in connection with: (a) any internal or governmental investigation or administrative, regulatory, arbitral or judicial proceeding involving the Company and any subsidiaries with respect to matters relating to the Executive's employment with or service as a member of the Board or the board of directors of any subsidiary (collectively, " Litigation "); or (b) any audit of the financial statements of the Company or any subsidiary with respect to the period of time when the Executive was employed by the Company or any subsidiary (" Audit "). The Executive acknowledges that such cooperation may include, but shall not be limited to, the Executive making himself available to the Company or any subsidiary (or their respective attorneys or auditors) upon reasonable notice for: (i) interviews, factual investigations, and providing declarations or affidavits that provide truthful information in connection with any Litigation or Audit; (ii) appearing at the request of the Company or any subsidiary to give testimony without requiring service of a subpoena or other legal process; (iii) volunteering to the Company or any subsidiary pertinent information related to any Litigation or Audit; (iv) providing information and legal representations to the auditors of the Company or any subsidiary, in a form and within a time frame requested by the Board, with respect to the Company's or any subsidiary's opening balance sheet valuation of intangibles and financial statements for the period in which the Executive was employed by the Company or any subsidiary; and (v) tuning over to the Company or any subsidiary any documents relevant to any Litigation or Audit that are or may come into the Executive's possession. The Company shall reimburse the Executive for reasonable travel expenses incurred in connection with providing the services under this Section 6.1, including lodging and meals, upon the Executive's submission of receipts.

assistant: Cooperation
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: Not make or consent to any amendment or other modification or waiver with respect to any of the Pledged Collateral of such Pledgor or enter into any agreement or allow to exist any restriction with respect to any of the Pledged Collateral of such Pledgor other than as may be permitted under the Credit Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: “must be construed in its entirety and as a whole,” see Koile v. State, 934 So.2d 1226, 1233 (Fla.2006) (quoting St. Mary’s Hosp., Inc. v. Phillipe, 769 So.2d 961, 967 (Fla.2000)), and in such manner that it does not “render part of [the] statute meaningless.” Id. (quoting Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist., 604 So.2d 452, 456 (Fla.1992)). To this end, “sexual intercourse” must be read in the context of not only section 384.24, but also in the context of Chapter 384 as a whole. See Fla. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 986 So.2d at 1265-66; Miele v. Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc., 656 So.2d 470, 472 (Fla.1995) (“[T]he context in which a term is used may be referred to in ascertaining the meaning of that term.”); Ceco Corp. v. Goldberg, 219 So.2d 475, 476-77 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969) (<HOLDING>). Chapter 384, of which section 384.24(2) is a Options: A. holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court to determine B. recognizing that our task as a reviewing court is to afford a logical construction according to the general terms and intentions of the entire act and that it is axiomatic that we construe the statute as a whole entity in order to arrive at a construction which avoids illogical results C. recognizing rule of statutory construction that statutes must be read as a whole and sections which are part of the same general statutory scheme must be construed together and each given effect if it can be done by any reasonable construction D. recognizing this rule but concluded that the statute in that case was incapable of a narrower construction because there is no logical way to read a specific intent element into the statute as it is currently written E. holding that if precise issue is not clear in statute reviewing court must not simply impose its own construction but must determine whether agencys construction is permissible

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that our task as a reviewing court is to afford a logical construction according to the general terms and intentions of the entire act and that it is axiomatic that we construe the statute as a whole entity in order to arrive at a construction which avoids illogical results
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 Debtor shall pay promptly prior to delinquency all property and other taxes, assessments and government charges or levies imposed upon, and all claims (including, without limitation, claims for labor, materials and supplies) against, the Equipment or Inventory, except to the extent the validity thereof is being contested in good faith and adequate reserves are being maintained in connection therewith.

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: Rodgers, 12 F.3d at 675) (quotation marks omitted). The use of racially offensive language is particularly likely to create a hostile work environment when, as here, it is presented in a “physically threatening” manner. Hayut, 352 F.3d at 745. With that in mind, whether the conduct taken together created a work environment that was sufficiently hostile to violate Title VII is a question of fact for the jury. Redd, 678 F.3d at 178. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Taitón and accepting his version of the events as true, we conclude that the District Court erred in dismissing Talton’s hostile work environment claims against RGRTA pursuant to Title VII and against Tiberio pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981. See Patterson v. Cnty. of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206, 226 (2d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). 3. Retaliation Claims Rivera and Taitón also Options: A. recognizing hostile work environment discrimination in ada context B. holding that individuals may be held liable under 1981 provided there is affirmative link connecting actor with discriminatory action C. recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983 D. recognizing that individuals may be held liable under 1981 for intentional ly discriminatory acts including those giving rise to a hostile work environment E. holding that employer may be held liable under 1981 for discrimination by supervisory employee

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that individuals may be held liable under 1981 for intentional ly discriminatory acts including those giving rise to a hostile work environment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No consent, approval or authorization under any agreement to which Guarantor is a party is required for the execution, delivery and performance by Guarantor of, or compliance by Guarantor with, this Guaranty or the consummation of the transaction contemplated hereby.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: welcome to tinder , operated by match group , llc ( `` us , '' `` we , '' the `` company '' or `` tinder '' ) .

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: If either Party is rendered unable, wholly or in part, by an event of Force Majeure to carry out its obligations under this Agreement, except with respect to the obligation to pay amounts owing hereunder, the Party so affected must notify the other Party of the Force Majeure, describing it in reasonable detail. Notice must be given orally as soon as practicable and followed in writing within a reasonable time. The obligations of the Parties, so far as they are affected by such Force Majeure, will be suspended during the continuance of the event of Force Majeure, but for no longer period, and such Force Majeure will be remedied with all reasonable dispatch.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the exercise of the particular profession. The duty imposed upon the insurance agent as well as [the lawyer, doctor, and accountant] upon whose advice the client or patient depends is that of ‘reasonable diligence' a breach of which duty results in an action in negligence.”); § 19:8.Detrimental reliance, 18 La. Civ. L. Treatise, Civil Jury Instructions § 19:8 (3d ed.) ("The basis of detrimental reliance is not the intent to be bound, since detrimental reliance is not really contractual in nature. It is based on the idea that a person should not harm another person by maldng promises that he does not keep."). 295 . See, e.g., Rec. Doc. 1-2 at 10. 296 . See, e.g., Rec. Doc. 172 at 6. 297 . See Canal/Claiborne, Ltd. v. Stonehedge Dev., LLC, 2014-0664 (La. 12/9/14), 156 So.3d 627, 633-34. (<HOLDING>). 298 . Rec. Doc. 118-5 at 10. 299 . Rec. Doc. Options: A. holding that it is wellsettled that although a plaintiff is entitled to full recovery for its damages it is not entitled to a double recovery for the same loss or injury B. holding that it is clear that ebys misrepresentation claim as it is presented here is a contractual one C. holding that it is wellsettled in our jurisprudence that unjust enrichment is a quasicontract claim D. holding that it is not E. holding that under michigan law it is wellsettled that an individual with a mental disability is the beneficiary of the tolling statute even where his rights have been capably handled by a guardian or an attorney

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that it is wellsettled in our jurisprudence that unjust enrichment is a quasicontract claim
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 Party will comply with all applicable laws, rules, regulations and orders of the United States and applicable foreign countries and supra-governmental organizations and all jurisdictions and any agency or court thereof in connection with this Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Amendment should be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby, and the parties hereto shall enter into good faith negotiations to replace the invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: after learning that leave was needed for a serious health condition. In determining whether an employee provided sufficient notice to his employer, the Sixth Circuit has held that the “critical question is whether the information imparted to the employer is sufficient to reasonably apprise it of the employee’s request to take time off for a serious health condition.” Brohm v. JH Properties, Inc., 149 F.3d 517, 523 (6th Cir.1998). Courts have held that an employee merely notifying his employer that he is sick, without more, is not sufficient notice to invoke the FMLA. Rather, the employee must notify the employer that he is suffering from a serious health condition that prevents him from performing his normal job. Hammon v. DHL Airways, Inc., 165 F.3d 441, 451 (6th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>) Although “[t]he employee need not assert his Options: A. holding an employee is an agent of his employer where the employer assumes the right to control time manner and method of work B. holding that an employee requesting unforeseeable medical leave is not required to even mention the fmla when requesting leave for a serious health condition C. holding that the employee must at least provide his employer with enough information for the employer to be put on notice that the fmla is a consideration D. holding that an employee gives his employer sufficient notice that he is requesting leave for an fmlaqualifying condition when he gives the employer enough information for the employer to reasonably conclude that an event described in 29 usc 2612a1 has occurred E. holding that an employer may deny restoration when it can show that it would have discharged the employee in any event regardless of the leave

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that an employee gives his employer sufficient notice that he is requesting leave for an fmlaqualifying condition when he gives the employer enough information for the employer to reasonably conclude that an event described in 29 usc 2612a1 has occurred
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 other words, the statement is trustworthy because it represents an event speaking through the person rather than the person speaking about the event. Zuliani, 97 S.W.3d at 595. The lapse of time between the event a e reasonably concluded that Anderson had not been able to reflect or fabricate and was still under the excitement and stress of the shooting at the time of the statement. Anderson’s statement was made only a few hours after the shooting, an event likely to produce extreme excitement and shock so as to ensure the statement’s spontaneity and reliability. Because of the extreme nature of the startling event, and the short passage of time, it is highly probable that Anderson was still dominated by the emotion caused by the startling event. See Lawton, 913 5.W.2d at 553-54 (<HOLDING>); Cf. Aguilera v. State, 75 S.W.3d 60, 68 Options: A. recognizing statement could be admissible as an excited utterance and still constitute a testimonial statement for purposes of a confrontation clause analysis B. holding that a statement made by a witness to a shooting an hour or two after the incident was not an excited utterance as it was not made while the speaker was laboring under excitement and before he had to time to reflect C. holding eyewitnesss statement made an hour after the crime properly admitted as excited utterance based on magnitude of crime and officers testimony that witness was excited and upset when making the statement D. holding that a victims statement to her sister that she had been raped was an excited utterance when between the time of the assault and her making the statement the victim dressed herself and walked down the stairs E. holding that an officers hearsay statement was not cumulative to the eyewitnesss testimony where the officers statement provided the only evidence of a possible motive for the shooting and where the officers statement was based on his own observations not the eyewitnesss observations

assistant: The best answer is C. holding eyewitnesss statement made an hour after the crime properly admitted as excited utterance based on magnitude of crime and officers testimony that witness was excited and upset when making the statement
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: statute to consider the meaning of the words “no fault of the employee” in section 214(1)(D) or (E). However, in Bureau v. Staffing Network, Inc., 678 A.2d 583, 589-90 (Me.1996), we considered whether termination for cause from post-injury employment constituted a refusal of a bona fide offer of employment that would result in a suspension of benefits pursuant to section 214(1)(A). [¶ 11] We concluded “that an employee’s termination for cause is not included among the statutory grounds for suspending benefits pursuant to subsection 214(1)(A). Considering the plain language of our statute, we are unable to equate an employee’s termination for cause with a ‘refusal’ of an ‘offer’ of employment.” Id. at 590. But see Holt v. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 6, 2001 ME 146, ¶¶ 7, 8, 782 A.2d 779, 782 (<HOLDING>). [¶ 12] The Statement of Fact that accompanies Options: A. holding where employee handbook and employment offer letter disclaimed creation of employment contract that employees testimony of his understanding of terms of agreement did not raise fact issue of specific express and clear agreement contradicting the express provisions of the personnel manual and the employment offer letter B. holding that employee had duty to mitigate damages following breach of employment contract by accepting offer of reinstatement C. holding covenant in an employment agreement executed some 12 years after the initial taking of employment was not incident to the taking of employment D. holding voluntary resignation from postinjury employment not compelled by good and reasonable cause constitutes refusal of an offer of reasonable employment by which employee relinquished entitlement to benefits E. holding that a postinjury arbitration agreement was not part of a employment contract when a seamans continued employment was not conditioned upon its execution

assistant: The best answer is D. holding voluntary resignation from postinjury employment not compelled by good and reasonable cause constitutes refusal of an offer of reasonable employment by which employee relinquished entitlement to benefits
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: to the extent permissible under applicable law , spotify reserves the right , periodically and at any time , to modify or discontinue , temporarily or permanently , functions and features of the spotify service , with or without notice , all without liability to you , except where prohibited by law , for any interruption , modification , or discontinuation of the spotify service or any function or feature thereof .

assistant: Limitation of liability, Unilateral change, Unilateral termination
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 State and beneficial to the accused." Nettles, 565 N.E.2d at 1066-1067, 1069. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in refusing to give his tendered instruction. Id. at 1068. The Indiana Supreme Court found "nothing in [the] record to justify the conclusion that the police engaged in any willful conduct in destroying evidence." Id. at 1069. The Indiana Supreme Court also held that "negligent handling of evidence will not be grounds for reversal unless it can be demonstrated that police acted deliberately" and conelud- ed that the trial court was correct in refusing to give the tendered instruction. Id. Here, the dura from the left side is potentially useful evidence because it had not been tested but could have been subjected to tests. See id. at 1067 (<HOLDING>). Ray does not argue that the State acted in Options: A. holding that film negatives and master recordings were tangible personal property even though they were valued in part for their intellectual content because they were also physically useful in the manufacturing process B. holding in securities fraud case that defendants who were the subject of criminal investigation were not bound to predict the likelihood that they would be indicted but were required to disclose material facts that would potentially endanger the companys future financial performance C. holding the state law claims were not preempted D. holding that repeated remarks about need to bring in new blood or young blood by one of the decisionmakers were not stray remarks and may permit inference of discrimination E. holding that blood samples that were not preserved by the state were potentially useful evidence

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that blood samples that were not preserved by the state were potentially useful evidence
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in 2002, an abdominal and a back examination administered by a registered nurse practitioner in 2001, and an abdominal and back examination in 1998 by an examiner whose education, training, or experience is not ascertainable from the record. Neither section 5103A nor the implementing regulations define the term “medical examination,” and neither party cites any judicial decision interpreting this term. The Secretary argues that the examinations were adequate because, among other things, this Court affords no greater deference to a physician versus other healthcare professionals. Secretary’s Br. at 22. We have never required, nor do we intend to do so here, that medical examinations under section 5103A only be conducted by physicians. See, e.g., Goss v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 109, 114 (1996) (<HOLDING>); Williams v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 270, 273 (1993) Options: A. recognizing that only a claimant is entitled to the secretarys assistance in the development of the facts pertinent to the claim the benefit of the doubt and the determination whether the claim is well grounded B. recognizing that nurses statements regarding nexus were sufficient to make a claim well grounded C. holding that medical evidence as to nexus to service expressed as very well might have been although not conclusive suffices to well ground claim D. holding that a failure to make out a hostile work environment claim effectively disposes of the constructive discharge claim as well E. recognizing that vcaa requires remand for readjudication if claim had been denied as not well grounded

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that nurses statements regarding nexus were sufficient to make a claim well grounded
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: are almost identical to the claims of the third party insurers and health and welfare trust funds. “[N]o amount of semantic gymnastics can detract from the conclusion that [plaintiffs’] claims are completely derivative of the personal injuries to [smokers] allegedly caused by the defendants’ conduct.” Regence Blueshield, 40 F.Supp.2d at 1184. Plaintiffs further allege that their special relationship with patients confers standing, relying in part upon the decisions in Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 112-13, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976) (ruling that respondent-physicians suffered concrete injury from an antiabortion statute that denied physicians Medicaid reimbursement for abortions not “medically indicated”); and Lee v. State of Oregon, 869 F.Supp. 1491, 1494-95 (D.Or.1994) (<HOLDING>). These cases have allowed doctors to challenge Options: A. holding doctors had third party standing to challenge physicianassisted suicide based on showing of direct financial impact on their practices B. holding that a litigant may not claim standing to assert the rights of a third party C. holding that a corporation had standing to challenge discriminatory practices that led to the cutting off of its grant funding D. holding that where a third partys conduct is closely related to the contractual relationship or the contractual dispute and where the third party enjoys financial benefit from the contract the forum selection clause applies to the third party E. holding that a third party has authority to consent to a search if the third party is a coinhabitant

assistant: The best answer is A. holding doctors had third party standing to challenge physicianassisted suicide based on showing of direct financial impact on their practices