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: equally, thereby affirming the district court’s ruling by operation of law. See Elliott v. U.S., 37 F.3d 617 (11th Cir.1994) (in banc). 6 . See Paul C. Weiler, Workers’ Compensation and Product Liability: The Interaction of a Tort and a Non-Tort Regime, 50. Ohio St.L.J. 825, 852 (1989) ("|T|he long-standing presence of exclusivity in [workers’ compensation] had a persuasive influence on the U.S. Supreme Court when, in Feres v. United States, the Court developed a comparable immunity doctrine for the United States government which immunized tire government from any liability for ‘injuries to servicemen when the injuries arise out of or in the course of activity incident to [military] service.’ "); Cf. Johansen v. United States, 343 U.S. 427, 432, 72 S.Ct. 849, 853, 96 L.Ed. 1051 (1952) (<HOLDING>). 7 . Of course, even if Congress insisted, the Options: A. holding that when an employee suffers an injury from an unexplained fall while the employee is on the job and performing the duties of his employment that injury is eligible for compensation under the workers compensation act B. holding that public use of a beach was presumed to have originated by permission and to have continued as a license until some act of the public or public official asserted the use to be exercised as a matter of right rather than privilege C. holding that the public use exception was not applicable because the injury to the tenants employee occurred in an area of the leased premises that was not open to the public but was used only by employees D. holding that plaintiff could recover damages under both the lanham act and the copyright act because the profits awarded under the federal trademark statute constitute compensation rather than a penalty while statutory damages are awarded under the copyright act are designed to serve a variety of purposes other than compensation including deterrence and punishment E. holding that an injured civilian crew member of a public vessel was not permitted relief under the public vessels act but rather was eligible for compensation under the federal employees compensation act it is the duty of this court to attempt to fit the public vessels act as intelligently and fairly as possible into the entire statutory system of remedies against the government available to seamen for personal injuries

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an injured civilian crew member of a public vessel was not permitted relief under the public vessels act but rather was eligible for compensation under the federal employees compensation act it is the duty of this court to attempt to fit the public vessels act as intelligently and fairly as possible into the entire statutory system of remedies against the government available to seamen for personal injuries
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement has been duly executed and delivered by the Guarantor and constitutes a legal, valid and binding obligation of the Guarantor, enforceable against the Guarantor in accordance with its terms, except as limited by bankruptcy, insolvency or other laws of general application relating to or affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights generally and general principles of equity.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: murder. “Knowledge of a co-conspirator’s violent propensity or intent to commit aggravated assault is not an element of the offense under either theory of party liability, so the lack of evidence of such knowledge is not dispositive of sufficiency.” Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 14. Accordingly, appellant’s purported lack of knowledge of Levy’s violent nature or intent does not render the evidence insufficient. Moreover, appellant’s claim that he had no reason to believe Levy was violent is contradicted by other evidence, including the coordinated use of force to subdue the complainant and appellant’s statement that he feared Levy. See Gonzalez v. State, No. 13-10-00086-CR, 2012 WL 361733, at *4 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi Feb. 2, 2012, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>). As to whether appellant was aware Levy had a Options: A. holding in part that robbery as a class b felony is not necessarily a lesserincluded offense of robbery as a class a felony B. holding defendants participation in violent robbery and his fear of codefendants among other facts provided sufficient evidence that murder should have been anticipated as result of robbery C. holding that circumstantial evidence that defendant drove the car and fled the scene after his brother committed robbery was insufficient to sustain defendants conviction absent other evidence of defendants intent to aid in the robbery D. holding it error to admit testimony where among other things there was no evidence that defendants appearance had changed since the time of the robbery E. holding that the defendants sentence for robbery was not inappropriate

assistant: The best answer is B. holding defendants participation in violent robbery and his fear of codefendants among other facts provided sufficient evidence that murder should have been anticipated as result of robbery
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: assertion of the right to a timely appeal; and 4) the prejudice occasioned by the delay. See Simmons, 898 F.2d at 868 (citing Barker, 407 U.S. at 530-33, 92 S.Ct. at 2191-93). While the projected delay in this ease is not as extreme as some of the previous cases in which appellate delay has given rise to a due process violation, see, e.g., Cody, 936 F.2d at 719 (nine to ten years); Simmons, 898 F.2d at 867 (six years), it is within the period of time considered by the courts to be indicative of a violation of due process. See, e.g., Burkett v. Fulcomer, 951 F.2d 1431, 1445-46 (3d Cir.1991) (eighteen-month delay between sentencing and appellate decision constituted due process violation), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 3055, 120 L.Ed.2d 921 (1992); see also Harris, 15 F.3d at 1561 (<HOLDING>); Coe v. Thurman, 922 F.2d 528, 531 (9th Options: A. holding twoyear delay created rebuttable presumption of due process violation and citing cases in which delays of seventeento eighteenmonths either gave rise to or warranted inquiry into possible due process violation B. holding that in similar factual situation no due process violation occurred C. holding that mere neglect for prisoners safety does not amount to a substantive due process violation implying that intent to do harm would be an abuse of government power and amount to a substantive due process violation D. holding habeas petition was not second or successive where first petition did not attack conviction but alleged due process violation due to delay in adjudication of direct appeal in state court E. holding that state postconviction delays do not give rise to independent due process claims that are cognizable under 2254

assistant: The best answer is A. holding twoyear delay created rebuttable presumption of due process violation and citing cases in which delays of seventeento eighteenmonths either gave rise to or warranted inquiry into possible due process violation
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: There is no pending Action against such PRIVCO Shareholder that involves the PRIVCO Shares or that challenges, or may have the effect of preventing, delaying or making illegal, or otherwise interfering with, any of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement or the business of PRIVCO and, to the knowledge of such PRIVCO Shareholder, no such Action has been threatened, and no event or circumstance exists that is reasonably likely to give rise to or serve as a basis for the commencement of any such Action.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event of any conversion, stock split, stock dividend, recapitalization, reclassification, reorganization, merger, consolidat ion, spin-off, combination, exchange of shares, liquidation or other similar change in capitalization or event, or any distribution to holders of Common Stock other than a regular cash dividend, the number and class of shares subject to the Award shall be appropriately and equitably adjusted by the Committee. If such adjustment would result in a fractional share being subject to the Award, the Company shall pay the Employee, on the date that the shares with respect to the Award are delivered (if any), an a mount in cash determined by multiplying (i) the fraction of such share (rounded to the nearest hundredth) by (ii) the Fair Market Value of a share on the date that the Award became vested. The decision of the Committee regarding such adjustment and the Fa ir Market Value of any fractional share shall be final, binding and conclusive.

assistant: Adjustments
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: requires probable cause under the circumstances before us, we address Bousman’s argument that chapter 810 itself requires that the order be based on probable cause. Section 810.6(2) requires a showing of “reasonable grounds to suspect that the person named or described in the application committed the felony.” Iowa Code § 810.6(2). It is well established in the area of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence that “reasonable grounds to suspect” is something less than probable cause. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1883, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 909 (1968); State v. Cline, 617 N.W.2d 277, 282 (Iowa 2000). Probable cause requires “reasonable ground[s] for belief” that the person to be arrested has committed a crime. State v. Harris, 490 N.W.2d 561, 563 (Iowa 1992) (emphasis added) (<HOLDING>); accord State v. Ceron, 573 N.W.2d 587, 592 Options: A. holding that it is unreasonable to search individuals who are in the same general area as someone being searched under a valid warrant without something more to establish probable cause B. holding that probable cause is something more than mere suspicion C. holding that something more than a mere error of law is required to constitute misconduct D. holding something more than denial of receipt is required E. holding that a factual finding must be supported by more than mere surmise or suspicion

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that probable cause is something more than mere suspicion
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: gravestone); Morro, 1999-NMCA-118, ¶ 1, 127 N.M. 763, 987 P.2d 420 (upholding multiple convictions for damaging gravestones even though all damage occurred in a single incident). {33} Further, that Defendant may have fulfilled some sort of overall plan or scheme to obtain funds from many victims by deceiving different victims at different times does not somehow mesh or coagulate his actions into but two offenses by labeling an activity to carry out the scheme a “course of conduct.” Thus, the double jeopardy proscription does not require the separate convictions to be merged into one for punishment purposes with respect to either Defendant’s unlicensed status or the unregistered security status relating to each transaction. See Bernal, 2006-NMSC-050, ¶ 20, 140 N.M. 644, 146 P.3d 289 (<HOLDING>); State v. Stone, 2008-NMCA-062, ¶¶ 19-25, 144 Options: A. holding that the evidence supported two separate convictions and punishments for two attempted robberies of two different victims who suffered separate and distinct harms B. holding that congress envisioned two separate petitions filed to review two separate final orders C. holding unanimity requirement not violated when charge stated two separate counts with two separate and distinct offenses in each case D. holding that two robberies of different people at the same time are two separate offenses calling for two judgments and two sentences when the defendants were convicted of taking a grandfathers wallet pistol and car and taking a grandsons fishing equipment E. holding that under the former rules congress envisioned two separate petitions filed to review two separate final orders

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the evidence supported two separate convictions and punishments for two attempted robberies of two different victims who suffered separate and distinct harms
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: found in the safe should have been suppressed because it was discovered as the result of his pre-Miranda statement providing the officers with the combination to the safe. The statements themselves made by defendant prior to being advised of his Miranda rights, including his statement regarding the combination to the safe, were properly suppressed at trial. However, our Supreme Court has held that physical evidence obtained as a result of statements by a defendant made prior to receiving the necessary Miranda warnings need not be excluded. State v. May, 334 N.C. 609, 612, 434 S.E.2d 180, 182 (1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1198, 127 L. Ed. 2d 661 (1994), see, State v. Goodman, - N.C. App. -, 600 S.E.2d 28, 30-31, disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 193, N.C. LEXIS 1262 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004) (<HOLDING>). We find the trial court’s holding that the Options: A. recognizing the importance of counties as political subdivisions of the state of north carolina and observing that the state constitutions limitations upon redistricting and apportionment uphold what the united states supreme court has termed traditional districting principles such as compactness contiguity and respect for political subdivisions citation omitted quoting shaw i 509 us at 647 113 s ct at 2827 125 l ed 2d at 528 B. holding that may is still controlling in north carolina in light of united states v pataneus 159 l ed 2d 667 124 s ct 2620 2004 in which the us supreme court held that the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine did not apply to physical evidence discovered as a result of statements made by the defendant when no miranda warning was given C. holding that fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies to both physical evidence and verbal statements D. holding that almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 s ct 1219 140 l ed 2d 350 1998 expressly held that a prior conviction need not be proved to a jury and the united states supreme court has not held otherwise since E. holding that the court of appeals lacks the authority to overrule decisions of the supreme court of north carolina and has a responsibility to follow those decisions until otherwise ordered by the supreme court

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that may is still controlling in north carolina in light of united states v pataneus 159 l ed 2d 667 124 s ct 2620 2004 in which the us supreme court held that the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine did not apply to physical evidence discovered as a result of statements made by the defendant when no miranda warning was given
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 Restricted Stock Units or dividend equivalents awarded to the Participant under this Grant may be transferred, assigned, pledged, or encumbered by the Participant and a Restricted Stock Unit shall be redeemed and a dividend equivalent distributed during the lifetime of the Participant only for the benefit of the Participant. Any attempt to transfer, assign, pledge, or encumber the Restricted Stock Unit or dividend equivalent by the Participant shall be null, void and without effect. The rights and protections of the Company hereunder shall extend to any successors or assigns of the Company. This Grant may be assigned by the Company without the Participant’s consent.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: the licensee expressly acknowledges and agrees that use of the service is at the licensee 's sole risk and that the entire risk as to satisfactory quality , performance , accuracy and effort is with the licensee .

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: with Judge Campbell that “[t]he Forshees’ fail[ed] to explain how they supposedly were damaged other than as shareholders, and they ... presented no evidence in support of such a claim.” ApltApp. at 17. Finally, even if we were to overlook the deficiencies in the Forshees’ summary judgment opposition and assume that Manheim owed certain duties directly to the Forshees based on their guarantees, it is undisputed that the Forshees’ guarantees were never enforced. Instead, as noted above, Manheim used the proceeds it obtained from the sale of Forshee Auto’s vehicle inventory to satisfy Forshee Auto’s obligations under the promissory note and security agreement. Consequently, the Forshees did not suffer any sort of direct injury based on their guarantees. See Marchman, 898 P.2d at 717 (<HOLDING>). C. Bankruptcy Court Orders. This court does Options: A. holding under pennsylvania law that where fraud mismanagement or other wrong damages a corporations assets a shareholder does not have a direct cause of action however a corporation can suffer an injury unto itself and any claim it asserts to recover for that injury is independent and separate from the claims of shareholders creditors and others B. holding that a shareholders status as a guarantor of a corporations debts did not give him standing to assert individual claims against a creditor of the corporation where the guarantees were never enforced and all of the injuries alleged were indirect damages suffered by the parties in their capacities as shareholders or employees C. holding that a shareholderguarantor did not suffer direct injury for standing purposes where the guarantees entered into by the shareholder were never enforced D. holding that unless a shareholder can show personal cause of action and personal injury claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty belong to the corporation and not the shareholder E. holding that shareholder could not prevail on breachoffiduciaryduty claim against other shareholder because alleged mishandling of funds did not result in any injury to the corporation

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a shareholderguarantor did not suffer direct injury for standing purposes where the guarantees entered into by the shareholder were never enforced
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 will be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the Parties and their permitted successors and assigns, and nothing herein is intended to or shall confer any right, benefit or remedy on any other person or entity, except for the Affiliates of Goodyear and Licensee, which are intended beneficiaries of, and shall be entitled to enforce, this Agreement and the persons and entities entitled to indemnification hereunder, which are intended beneficiaries of, and shall be entitled in enforce, the indemnity obligations set forth herein. Licensee may not assign its rights under this Agreement or delegate performance hereunder to another person or entity without the written consent of Goodyear; provided, however, that Goodyear will be deemed to have given its consent to an assignment in connection with Licensee’s Change of Control if Goodyear fails to exercise its termination right provided in Section 11.1(b).

assistant: Assignments
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: Interest is payable monthly on the Payment Date of each month and shall be computed on the basis of a three hundred and sixty (360) day year for the actual number of days elapsed. In computing interest, (i) all payments received after 12:00 p.m. Pacific time on any day shall be deemed received at the opening of business on the next Business Day, and (ii) the date of the making of any Credit Extension shall be included and the date of payment shall be excluded; provided, however, that if any Credit Extension is repaid on the same day on which it is made, such day shall be included in computing interest on such Credit Extension.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Amendment may be executed by the parties hereto individually or in combination, in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement. Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page by telecopier or electronic mail (in a .pdf format) shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed 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: or great bodily harm and did have a duty to try to retreat before using deadly force if in fear of death or great bodily harm. As noted, Floyd’s only defense at trial was that he had used deadly force to defend himself and others. The conflicting jury instructions negated each other in their effect, and therefore negated their possible application to Floyd’s only defense. As the court in Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 194, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), explained: [W]here, as here, a trial judge gives an instruction that is an incorrect statement of the law and necessarily misleading to the jury, and the effect of that instruction is to negate the defendant’s only defense, it is fundamental error and highly prejudicial to the defendant. See also Richards v. State, 39 So.3d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (<HOLDING>); Grier v. State, 928 So.2d 368 (Fla. 3d DCA Options: A. holding that instruction on justifiable use of nondeadly force was of the essence of appellants defense and clearly should have been given B. holding that the erroneous use of an outdated jury instruction on the justifiable use of deadly force requiring the defendant to retreat if possible negated defendants claim of selfdefense and rose to the level of fundamental error C. holding that apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure D. holding the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that defendant claiming selfdefense had no duty to retreat E. holding that where use of reasonable nondeadly force causes death defendant entitled to instruction on selfdefense

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the erroneous use of an outdated jury instruction on the justifiable use of deadly force requiring the defendant to retreat if possible negated defendants claim of selfdefense and rose to the level of fundamental error
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 Purchaser covenants that neither it nor any Affiliate acting on its behalf or pursuant to any understanding with it will execute any purchases or sales, including Short Sales of any of the Company’s securities during the period commencing with the execution of this Agreement and ending at such time that the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are first publicly announced pursuant to the initial press release as described in Section 4.4. Each Purchaser covenants that until such time as the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are publicly disclosed by the Company pursuant to the initial press release as described in Section 4.4, such Purchaser will maintain the confidentiality of the existence and terms of this transaction and the information included in the Disclosure Schedules. Notwithstanding the foregoing and notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement to the contrary, the Company expressly acknowledges and agrees that (i) each Purchaser makes no representation, warranty or covenant hereby that it will not engage in effecting transactions in any securities of the Company after the time that the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are first publicly announced pursuant to the Form 8-K as described in Section 4.4, (ii) each Purchaser shall not be restricted or prohibited from effecting any transactions in any securities of the Company in accordance with applicable securities laws from and after the time that the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are first publicly announced pursuant to the Form 8-K as described in Section 4.4 and (iii) each Purchaser shall not have any duty of confidentiality or duty not to trade in the securities of the Company to the Company or its Subsidiaries after the issuance of the Form 8-K as described in Section 4.4, unless the Company discloses to such Purchaser material non-public information and, in connection with such disclosure, such Purchaser executes a written agreement with the Company regarding the confidentiality and use of such information. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the case of a Purchaser that is a multi-managed investment vehicle whereby separate portfolio managers manage separate portions of such Purchaser’s assets and the portfolio managers have no direct knowledge of the investment decisions made by the portfolio managers managing other portions of such Purchaser’s assets, the covenant set forth above shall only apply with respect to the portion of assets managed by the portfolio manager that made the investment decision to purchase the Securities covered by 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Effective as of the Separation Date, Executive resigned from his employment and all other positions Executive held with the Company and its subsidiaries and affiliates, including, without limitation, (i) Executive’s position as Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company and (ii) Executive’s service on the Board of Directors of the Company (the “ Board ”). As of the Separation Date, Executive has delivered to the Company all property of the Company or any of its affiliates (and all copies thereof), including, without limitation, any containing Confidential Information (as defined in the Employment Agreement), that were in Executive’s possession or actual or constructive control.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 20, 2006 Trial Test, of James Keeling. 79 . Vine St. Exhibit 104 (J. Keeling 07/12/05 Dep. at 28). 80 . Mar. 20, 2006 Trial Test, of James Keeling; Vine St. Exhibit 40 at 001947. 81 . Mar. 20, 2006 Trial Test, of James Keeling; Vine St. Exhibit 104 (J. Keeling 07/12/05 Dep. at 38-39, 58). 82 . Mar. 20, 2006 Trial Test, of James Keeling; Vine St. Exhibit 104 (J. Keeling 07/12/05 Dep. at 62, 67). 83 . Mar. 20, 2006 Trial Test, of James Keeling. 84 . Id.; Vine St. Exhibit 104 (J. Keeling 7/12/05 Dep. at 64-65, 67-78). 85 . Mar. 20, 2006 Trial Test, of 589, 596 n. 12, 598 (S.D.Tex.1996) (indicating but not directly holding that the arranger need not have owned or possessed the substance); United States v. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., 881 F.Supp. 1432, 1451 (E.D.Cal.1995) {"Iron Mountain I") (<HOLDING>). 100 . New York v. Shore Realty Corp., 759 Options: A. holding that defendant had standing to challenge the seizure of a box regardless of who owned it because it was in a house owned and possessed by defendant B. holding without discussion that a cercla arranger must own or possess the hazardous substance at issue C. holding authority to control limits duty to control D. holding that defendant was potentially liable as an arranger when it discharged hazardous substances into a river E. holding that an arranger must have owned or possessed or had the authority to control or duty to dispose of the hazardous materials at issue

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an arranger must have owned or possessed or had the authority to control or duty to dispose of the hazardous materials at issue
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provision hereof shall, for any reason, be held to be invalid or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision hereof, and this Agreement shall be construed as if such invalid or unenforceable provision had not been included herein. If any provision hereof shall for any reason be held by a court to be excessively broad as to duration, geographical scope, activity or subject matter, it shall be construed by limiting and reducing it to make it enforceable to the extent compatible with applicable law as then in effect.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Joinder Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and by different parties hereto on separate counterparts, each of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be an original, but all of which shall together constitute one and the same instrument.

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: The Employers, on their own behalf or on behalf of the trustee of the Trust, and, in their sole discretion, may apply for and procure insurance on the life of the Participant, in such amounts and in such forms as the Trust may choose. The Employers or the trustee of the Trust, as the case may be, shall be the sole owner and beneficiary of any such insurance. The Participant shall have no interest whatsoever in any such policy or policies, and at the request of the Employers shall submit to medical examinations and supply such information and execute such documents as may be required by the insurance company or companies to whom the Employers have applied for insurance.

assistant: Insurances
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 represents the entire understanding and agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement and supersedes and replaces all previous agreements, arrangements, understandings, rights, obligations and liabilities between the parties in respect of such matters.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: had the burden to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a prima facie defense of lack of a reasonable relationship in order to test the legality of the search. See In re Alberto L., 2002-NMCA-107, ¶ 10, 133 N.M. 1, 57 P.3d 555 (“A defendant has [the] burden of coming forward with evidence sufficient to raise an issue as to the illegal search and seizure claimed.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). On appeal, Defendant must persuade us that the first trial court abused its discretion in imposing the search, gun, and drug-related conditions of probation, or that the second trial court erred by holding that a reasonable relationship existed between Defendant’s assault conviction and his conditions of probation. See McCoy, 116 N.M. at 499-500, 864 P.2d at 315-16 (<HOLDING>). {17} A New Mexico district court has Options: A. holding a warrantless probation search condition that is reasonably related to a probationers rehabilitation is a valid limitation to a defendants fourth amendment rights B. holding that probationer failed to satisfy the donaldson test for determining if a probation condition is not reasonably related to the probationers rehabilitation and therefore the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing random urinalysis as a condition of probation C. holding that warrantless search as probation condition was a valid limitation to the defendants fourth amendment rights when defendant asserted the condition was not reasonably related to rehabilitation D. holding that it is sufficient grounds to revoke a probation if only one condition of the probation is broken E. holding that a probationers challenge to a condition of his probation was moot in light of the supreme courts reversal of the underlying conviction and the probationers apparent completion of probation

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that probationer failed to satisfy the donaldson test for determining if a probation condition is not reasonably related to the probationers rehabilitation and therefore the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing random urinalysis as a condition of probation
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 provision of this Agreement may be modified, waived or discharged unless such waiver, modification or discharge is agreed to in writing signed by you and such officers as may be specifically designated by the Board. No waiver by either party hereto at any time of any breach by the other party hereto, or of failure to comply with any condition or provision of this Agreement to be performed by such other party shall be deemed a waiver of similar or dissimilar provisions or conditions at the same or at any prior or subsequent time. No agreements or representations, oral or otherwise, express or implied, with respect to the subject matter hereof have been made by either party that are not expressly set forth in this Agreement. The obligations of the Company under Section 4 shall survive the expiration of the term of this Agreement. All reference to sections of any statute, including the Code, shall be deemed also to refer to any successor provisions thereof. The validity, interpretation, construction and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This Agreement is made under seal.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Participant and the Company acknowledge that the restrictions imposed by this Section 6 are reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interests of the Company, and that the Company would not be willing to offer the Restricted Stock pursuant to this Agreement in the absence of such agreement. The Participant agrees that any breach of this Section 6 by the Participant would cause irreparable damage to the Company and that in the event of such breach the Company shall have, in addition to any and all remedies of law, the right to an injunction, specific performance or other equitable relief to prevent the violation of any obligations hereunder, without the necessity of posting a bond, plus if the Company prevails with respect to any dispute between the Company and the Participant as to the interpretation, terms, validity or enforceability of this Section 6 , the recovery of any and all costs and expenses incurred by the Company, including reasonable attorneys’ fees in connection with the enforcement of this Section 6 . The Participant further acknowledges and agrees that any period of time during which he or she is in violation of the covenants set forth in this Section 6 shall be added to the applicable restricted period. Resort to such equitable relief shall not be construed to be a waiver of any other rights or remedies that the Company may have for damages or otherwise.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: only for clear error. Id. “This standard requires us to affirm a district court’s findings of fact unless the record lacks substantial evidence to support that determination.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Charest filed the instant habeas petition on May 8, 2003, seeking to challenge the validity of his state court convictions and two consecutive life-term sentences, which became final on February 6,1996, for first-degree rape, first-degree sodomy, and causing the delinquency or dependency of a child or causing a child to be in need of supervision. Absent tolling, the limitations period would have expired one year from the April 24, 1996 effective date of the AEDPA, or on April 24, 1997. See Wilcox v. Fla. Dept. of Corr., 158 F.3d 1209, 1211 (11th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). The district court dismissed the petition as Options: A. holding aedpa applicable to petition filed on or after aedpas effective date B. holding that prisoners had one year from the effective date of aedpa april 24 1996 to file their habeas petitions before they could be considered timebarred by the operation of 2244d1 C. 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 D. 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 E. 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

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: During Executive’s employment with the Company pursuant to this Agreement, Executive will be permitted to participate in any group medical, life, hospitalization or disability insurance plans, health programs, pension and profit sharing plans, 401(k) plan, relocation programs and similar benefits that may be available to other senior executives of the Company generally, with the adoption or maintenance of such plans to be in the discretion of the Company, on the same generally-applicable terms and conditions of the plan or program as applicable to such other senior executives, in each case to the extent that Executive is eligible under the terms of such plans or programs. The Company reserves the right to change or terminate its employee benefit plans and programs at any time, not including any vested equity rights or awards granted to Executive.

assistant: 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the Debtor’s Motion to Remand, argued that the Debtor’s claim was primarily one for violation of the automatic stay, stating that “[t]he only reason why a claim exists at all is because of the bankruptcy stay.” Now, in a stunning about-face, GTR joins GFC in arguing that the Complaint should be read as asserting state law claims only. GTR was right the first time, and it should be cautious about taking such contradictory positions in the same action. As admitted by the Defendants, any rights arising from a violation of the automatic stay are substantive rights created by the Bankruptcy Code and are thus quintessentially core matters. Banks v. Kam’s Auto Sales (In re Banks), 521 B.R. 417, 420 (Bankr.M.D.Ga.2014); see also, e.g., MBNA Am. Bank v. Hill, 436 F.3d 104 (2nd Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Fortune & Faal v. Zumbrun (In re Zumbrun), 88 Options: A. holding that a lawsuit by a third party creditor against the estate is a core proceeding B. holding that ordinary statelaw claims for fraud against creditor were not core proceedings C. holding that 362k claims are core D. holding that claims are related if they involve a common core of facts or they are based on related legal theories E. holding that facilitating small claims is the policy at the very core of the class action mechanism

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that 362k claims are core
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: 363 (N.D.Ala.1997) (Acker, J.) (same as Farrior); Lackey v. Gateway Homes, Inc., 944 F.Supp. 870 (N.D.Ala.1996) (Haltom, J.) (same as Farrior); Roberts v. Beaulieu of Am., Inc., 950 F.Supp. 1509 (N.D.Ala.1996) (Smith, J.) (same as Farrior); Wiggonton v. Keystone Foods, No. CV 93-N-1865-M, 1993 WL 840293 (N.D.Ala.1993) (Nelson, J.) (same as Farrior); with Moreland v. Gold Kist, Inc., 908 F.Supp. 898, 900 (N.D.Ala.1995) (Propst, J.) (<HOLDING>); Traylor v. Lee Brass Co., No. CV 95-H-2639-E Options: A. holding that a retaliation claim under ala code 255111 arises under alabamas workers compensation laws B. holding that retaliation claim did not arise under states workers compensation laws C. holding that 255111 claim does not arise under alabamas workers compensation laws D. holding the retaliation claim did arise under states workers compensation laws E. holding that texas cause of action for retaliation does arise under its workers compensation laws

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that 255111 claim does not arise under alabamas workers compensation 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: Any and all notices or other communications or deliveries required or permitted to be provided hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed given and effective on the earliest of: (a) the date of transmission, if such notice or communication is delivered via facsimile at the facsimile number or e-mail attachment at the email address set forth on the signature pages attached hereto at or prior to 5:30 p.m. (New York City time) on a Trading Day, (b) the next Trading Day after the date of transmission, if such notice or communication is delivered via facsimile at the facsimile number or e-mail attachment at the e-mail address as set forth on the signature pages attached hereto on a day that is not a Trading Day or later than 5:30 p.m. (New York City time) on any Trading Day, (c) the second (2 nd ) Trading Day following the date of mailing, if sent by U.S. nationally recognized overnight courier service or (d) upon actual receipt by the party to whom such notice is required to be given. The address for such notices and communications shall be as set forth on the signature pages attached hereto.

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: is “doubtful that the judicial interpretation of advisory Sentencing Guidelines promulgated by an independent commission implicates either of the twin concerns that motivate the rule of lenity.,” United States v. Wright, 607 F.3d 708, 719 (11th Cir. 2010) (William Pryor, J., concurring). And in any event, the text of the guideline is clear—“ ‘prior sentence’ means a sentence imposed prior to sentencing on the instant Qffense,” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 cmt. 1. ' Burke’s alternative'ground for appeal— that the district court erred in calculating his sentence because his 1999 Florida conviction for armed robbery is not a “crime of violence” as that term is used in section 2K2.1(4)(A) of the Guidelines—is foreclosed by binding precedent. United States v. Fritts, 841 F.3d 937, 938 (11th Cir. 2016) (<HOLDING>); Lockley, 632 F.3d at 1246 (holding that a Options: A. holding that armed robbery suspect was entitled to bail hearing even though armed robbery was considered capital offense under mississippi law because maximum sentence was life imprisonment B. holding that a conviction for florida armed robbery is a crime of violence under the armed career criminal act C. holding that the illinois crime of failure to report for imprisonment is not a violent felony for purposes of the armed career criminal act D. holding that violence is synonymous with force in affirming armed robbery conviction E. holding that attempted burglary under florida law qualified as a crime of violence under the armed career criminal act 18 usc 924e2biihereinafter acca because it involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a conviction for florida armed robbery is a crime of violence under the armed career criminal act