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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The covenants, agreements and obligations herein contained, except as herein otherwise specifically provided, shall extend to, bind and inure to the benefit of the parties here to and their respective personal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns of Tenant (but in the case of assigns only to the extent that assignment is permitted hereunder). No third party, other than such successors and assigns, shall be entitled to enforce any or all of the terms of this Lease or shall have rights hereunder whatsoever. The submission of this document for examination does not constitute an offer to lease, or a reservation of, or option for, the Premises and this document becomes effective and binding only upon the execution and delivery hereof by both Landlord and Tenant. Tenant confirms that Landlord has made no representations or promises with respect to the Premises or the making or entry into of this Lease except as are expressly set forth herein, and agrees that no claim or liability shall be asserted by Tenant against Landlord for, and Landlord shall not be liable by reason of breach of any representations or promises not expressly stated in this Lease. This Lease can be modified or altered only by agreement in writing between Landlord and Tenant.

assistant: Binding Effects
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: enforce” this limitation. Pacemaker Plastics Co., Inc., 139 F.Supp.2d at 855. Here the trial court failed to “carefully enforce” this important limitation, and committed reversible error in doing so. Id. B. Factors to be Applied in Determining Fair and Adequate Representation in This Case ¶ 41 The question of whether a derivative plaintiff fairly and adequately represents the interests of similarly situated members re cher Indus., Inc., 52 Ohio St.3d 168, 556 N.E.2d 484, 489 (1990); see also Blum v. Morgan Guar. Trust Co. of N.Y., 539 F.2d 1388, 1390 (5th Cir.1976) (taking into account outside entanglements that i*endered it likely that derivative plaintiff would disregard interests of other class members); Newell Co. v. Vermont Am. Corp., 725 F.Supp. 351, 368-69 (N.D.Ill.1989) (<HOLDING>). Application of these factors leads to the Options: A. holding that an interest obtained through an agreement supported by consideration is superior to that of a named beneficiary who has given no consideration B. recognizing that the right of redemption is one of the most important rights provided by the states to owners of real property C. recognizing that the third factor permanence is the most important D. holding that the most important consideration should be the existence of an antagonistic economic interest E. recognizing floridas substantial interest in promoting tourism one of floridas most important economic industries

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the most important consideration should be the existence of an antagonistic economic interest
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 Release may be executed simultaneously in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. A faxed or e-mailed copy of a Party’s signature shall constitute an original signature.

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: Adversary Complaint, the Court concludes that under the law of either jurisdiction, Plaintiffs-Appellees have sufficiently alleged individual damages to state non-derivative claims. See e.g., Kramer v. Western Pacific Indus., Inc., 546 A.2d 348, 351 (Del.1988) (recognizing that “the distinction between derivative and individual actions rests upon the party being directly injured by the alleged wrongdoing and holding that an individual action requires the plaintiff to allege either an injury which is separate and distinct from that suffered by other shareholders, or a wrong involving a contractual right of a shareholder which exists independently of any right of the corporation”); Bio-Scientific Clinical Lab., Inc. v. Todd, 149 Ill.App.3d 845, 103 Ill. Dec. 171, 501 N.E.2d 192 (1986) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs-Appellees’ Adversary Complaint Options: A. holding that majority shareholders had legitimate business reasons for terminating a shareholder which included the reason that the shareholder was not working well with other employees B. holding under maryland law that a breach of fiduciary duty claim alleging loss in share value shareholder must allege an injury distinct from an injury to the corporation C. holding that shareholders claim is derivative if the alleged injury affects the shareholder indirectly in his or her capacity as a shareholder and describing the inquiry as whether the gravamen of the pleadings alleges injury to the plaintiff upon an individual claim as distinguished from an injury which directly affects the shareholders as a whole D. holding that a shareholder lacks standing to bring a suit based on loss in value to his or her shares as this injury derives from and thus is not distinct from the injury to the corporation E. holding that cause of action for injury to corporations property or for impairment or destruction of its business is vested in corporation as distinguished from its shareholders

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that shareholders claim is derivative if the alleged injury affects the shareholder indirectly in his or her capacity as a shareholder and describing the inquiry as whether the gravamen of the pleadings alleges injury to the plaintiff upon an individual claim as distinguished from an injury which directly affects the shareholders as a whole
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: that where paternity is contested, temporary orders for the care and custody of the child may be made, but no temporary child support can be awarded. Upon a finding of paternity, as opposed to final judgment, the statute goes on to say that child support may be awarded retroactive to the date of filing the petition. It does not state that upon final judgment, child support can not be awarded prior to the date of filing the petition. To interpret this statute as allowing the award of child support back to the date of birth would be to construe the statute in a constitutional light as is our charge and as is our instruction from the legislature. Shoppers World, Inc., 380 S.W.2d at 111; see also City of West Tawakoni v. Williams, 742 S.W.2d 489, 491 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1987, writ denied) (<HOLDING>). Interpreting the statute in a constitutional Options: A. holding that the dominant rule to be observed in construction of statute is to give effect to intention of legislature B. recognizing that the cardinal rule in statutory construction is to give effect to the intent of the legislature and to avoid construing a statute in a manner that produces an absurd unjust or unreasonable result C. recognizing that a contract is to be construed to give reasonable effect to each of its provisions D. holding that in order for there to be state debt in the constitutional sense one legislature in effect must obligate a future legislature to appropriate funds to discharge the debt created by the first legislature E. holding principle of statutory construction is to give effect to every clause and word of a statute

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the dominant rule to be observed in construction of statute is to give effect to intention of legislature
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: use of excessive force.” Because we are reviewing the district court's dismissal on the pleadings, we only look to the allegations contained therein and view them as true. Even if we'were to consider the conspiracy allegation Lanigan now makes in his appellate brief, we would regard it as having no merit. 5 . Our discussion of the municipal liability claim pertains both to Lanigan's claim against the Village and to his claims against Officer Wasek, Sergeant Krane and Chief Robertson in their official capacities. "An official capacity suit against a municipal official is merely another way of asserting a claim against the municipality.” Gibson v. City of Chicago, 910 F.2d 1510, 1519 n. 14 (7th Cir.1990); see also Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985) (<HOLDING>); Rascon v. Hardiman, 803 F.2d 269, 274 (7th Options: A. holding that a state officer sued in his individual capacity may be held personally liable for damages under 42 usc 1983 based upon actions taken in his official capacity B. holding that a defendant can only be sued in his official capacity under 1983 if he acted pursuant to an official policy or custom in causing the constitutional injury C. holding that punitive damages are not recoverable against a state official sued in his or her official capacity D. holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is a suit against the state itself and not cognizable under 1983 E. holding state of north carolina and state official sued in their official capacity are immune from 1983 and 1985 actions in federal court

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a defendant can only be sued in his official capacity under 1983 if he acted pursuant to an official policy or custom in causing the constitutional injury
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: Brief át 20 n. 10. Defendants, however, cite no casé where a court has refused to apply Royal Printing on those grounds, and this Court is not inclined to become the first to do so. Though there is some intuitive appeal to refusing to apply the exception in cases where enforcement by other parties is ongoing or likely, the better course is to apply the Royal Printing exception to any plaintiff who meets the formal criteria. To do otherwise is to engage in the very case-by-case recalibration of Illinois Brick that the cases so frequently disapprove. Having been warned against the ad hoc creation or expansion of exceptions, this Court sees no reason why ad hoc disregard or narrowing of the established exceptions is any more justifiable. Cf. UtiliCorp, 497 U.S. at 216-217, 110 S.Ct. 2807 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Defendants’ interpretation of Royal Options: A. holding that illinois wage law did not apply to nonresident employee who worked outside the state even though eim ployers primary place of business was in illinois B. recognizing that rationales behind illinois brick might not be apply in all cases but standing by illinois brick regardless C. holding that illinois brick did not preempt state laws that permit suits by plaintiffs with passedon injuries D. holding that geographic limitation in illinois franchise law prevents its application to dispute with outofstate franchisor notwithstanding express illinois choiceoflaw clause E. holding there was no personal jurisdiction over nonresident guarantor of equipment lease although payments were made to illinois bank the guaranty was accepted in illinois and it provided that it would be gov erned by illinois law

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that rationales behind illinois brick might not be apply in all cases but standing by illinois brick regardless
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 's rights under the license shall terminate automatically without notice from the licensor if the licensee fails to comply with any term or condition of these terms of use .

assistant: 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: 6. If any of the Parties determine that they do not wish to proceed or continue with the Business Under Discussion, it will promptly advise the other Party of that decision in writing or by email. Upon receipt of such communication the Receiving Party shall destroy promptly all documents furnished and will not retain any copies, extracts or other reproductions in whole or in part of such Information. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Receiving Party shall be entitled to retain that portion of the Information for legal, regulatory or internal compliance purposes, which will continue to be treated as confidential on the terms hereof.

assistant: Yes
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: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, each Investor covenants that the Securities may be disposed of only pursuant to an effective registration statement under, and in compliance with the requirements of, the Securities Act, or pursuant to an available exemption from, or in a transaction not subject to, the registration requirements of the Securities Act, and in compliance with any applicable state and federal securities Laws. In connection with any transfer of the Securities other than (i) pursuant to an effective registration statement, (ii) to the Company, (iii) pursuant to Rule 144 (provided that the Investor provides the Company with reasonable assurances (in the form of seller and, if applicable, broker representation letters) that the Securities may be sold pursuant to such rule), or (iv) to its Affiliates, the Company may require the transferor thereof to provide to the Company an opinion of counsel selected by the transferor and reasonably acceptable to the Company, the form and substance of which opinion shall be reasonably satisfactory to the Company, to the effect that such transfer does not require registration of such transferred Securities under the Securities Act. As a condition of transfer, any such transferee shall agree in writing to be bound by the terms of this Agreement and shall have the rights of an Investor under this Agreement with respect to such transferred Securities.

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: The Corporation expressly reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to cease or suspend Employer Contributions under the Plan at any time, in whole or in part. The Corporation expressly reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to amend or terminate the Plan at any time by an appropriate written instrument executed by its Vice President – Human Resources. Any amendment may provide different amounts of Employer Contributions from those herein set forth. However, no such termination, suspension or amendment will adversely affect either the amount of Employer Contributions which have been made on behalf of the Participant prior to the date of such amendment or termination of this Plan or Employer Contributions scheduled to be paid on behalf of any Participant whose Retirement or Disability occurred before the date of such amendment or termination of this Plan.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: requires more than showing some metaphysical doubt-— there must be an issue for trial.” Meyers v. M/V Eugenio C, 919 F.2d 1070, 1072 (5th Cir.1990). A dispute about a material fact is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 250, 106 S.Ct. at 2510; E.E.O.C. v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 100 F.3d at 1180; Stults v. Conoco, Inc., 76 F.3d at 654; Cormier v. Pennzoil, 969 F.2d 155 and Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc., 953 F.2d 909, 913 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 832, 113 S.Ct. 98, 121 L.Ed.2d 59 (1992). 45 . Turco v. Hoechst Celanese Chemical Group, Inc., 101 F.3d 1090, 1093 (5th Cir.1996). 46 . See Exxon Corp. v. Baton Rouge Oil, 77 F.3d 850, 853 (5th 25, 29 (5th Cir.1992), (<HOLDING>); Hanks v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Options: A. holding that in summaryjudgment context nonmovant must expressly present to the trial court those issues that would defeat the movants right to a summary judgment and failing to do so may not later assign them as error on appeal B. holding that trial court may not grant summary judgment by default when the movants summary judgment proof is legally insufficient C. holding that on appeal a nonmovant need not have answered or responded to the motion for summary judgment to contend that the movants summaiy judgment proof is insufficient as a matter of law to support summary judgment D. holding that the parly opposing summary judgment must do more than merely suggest possible error in the movants summary judgment evidence he must submit facts which demonstrate that the movants summary judgment evidence is questionable or that the movants allegations are not properly supported E. holding that nonmovants failure to except or respond cannot supply by default the grounds for summary judgment or the summary judgment proof necessary to establish the movants right

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the parly opposing summary judgment must do more than merely suggest possible error in the movants summary judgment evidence he must submit facts which demonstrate that the movants summary judgment evidence is questionable or that the movants allegations are not properly supported
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 business of the Company has been operated in compliance with all Legal Requirements, including all laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and orders of all Governmental Authorities and the NYSE MKT LLC, except where such failure would not have a Material Adverse Effect on the Company or its business. The Company has filed all reports and statements, including but not limited to the SEC Reports, together with any amendments required to be made with respect thereto, that it was required to file with any Governmental Authority or any other body having jurisdiction over the Company’s operations. The Company has not received any written communication from a Governmental Authority that alleges that the Company is not in compliance with any federal, state, local or foreign laws, ordinances and regulations or has not made all of the filings required by all such authorities, organizations and agencies.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and thereby rendered him ineligible for long-term disability benefits. B. Watson’s Eligibility to Sue Under ERISA § 404(a) 1. Equitable Relief Sought ERISA § 409(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1109(a), establishes that claims for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA § 404(a) are for the purpose of making “good to [an employee welfare] plan any losses to the plan resulting from each such breach” and “to restore to such plan any profits of such fiduciary which have been made through use of assets of the plan by the fiduciary,” id. Thus, compensatory damages are only available to restore a plan to its uninjured condition; individuals cannot obtain compensatory or punitive damages for breach of fiduciary duty. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134, 144, 105 S.Ct. 3085, 87 L.Ed.2d 96 (1985) (<HOLDING>); Degnan v. Publicker Indus., Inc., 42 Options: A. holding compensatory and punitive damages constitute legal remedies B. holding that because an erisa plan is not a participant beneficiary or fiduciary subject matter jurisdiction did not exist under 502e of erisa over a suit brought by such a plan C. holding that a plan participant or beneficiary may not recover extracontractual damages in an erisa suit for breach of fiduciary duty under 502a2 and 409a only the plan may recover damages in such cases D. holding that fiduciary could not be held personally liable to plan participant or beneficiary for extracontractual compensatory or punitive damages E. holding that punitive damages do not need to be proportional to compensatory damages

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that fiduciary could not be held personally liable to plan participant or beneficiary for extracontractual compensatory or punitive damages
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: Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted). Whether this entry and search were conducted reasonably is a close question. The police had legitimate concerns about their safety in entering and searching the house. Defendant had a substantial criminal record, which included violent crimes; there was reliable evidence that he was armed and aggressive; there were several other people in the house, including a former prison inmate; and certain physical characteristics of the house made it difficult to secure. Officers testified at the suppression hearing that the element of surprise was very important due to those factors and t 1 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). And in Boyd, 374 F.3d at 779, we held that, Options: A. holding that it was unreasonable for officers to break down doors that they already knew were open B. holding that officer safety and other concerns authorize police officers to open car doors during an investigatory seizure C. holding that it was unreasonable for officers to cut a mailbox off its post jackhammer the sidewalk and break a refrigerator D. holding that officers order to roll down window or open door creates a temporary seizure E. holding that a detention was not unreasonable where officers though slowed down were diligent in their investigation

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that it was unreasonable for officers to break down doors that they already knew were open
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: order. Petitioner is correct that we have limited jurisdiction over reinstatement of deportation orders. See Garcia de Rincon v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 539 F.3d 1133, 1137-38 (9th Cir.2008). But we do not have a reinstatement of deportation order here. The government is enforcing the 1992 deportation order for the first time because Banuelos never left the country after the 1992 order was issued. The government concedes that it incorrectly filled out the 1-294 warning letter it gave Mr. Banuelos, making it appear that he was found “to have reentered the United States illegally.” The faulty form, however, does not change the legal status of Mr. Banuelos’s removal, it merely misstated the consequences attached to his removal. Cf. United States v. Ayala, 35 F.3d 423, 425 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Perez-Torres, 15 F.3d 403, Options: A. holding that any reliance by the parole board on inadmissible hearsay did not violate due process B. holding that a filing deadline under federal land policy and management act carrying a penalty of an automatic forfeiture of a mining claim did not violate due process C. holding that evidence obtained from valid search warrant did not violate constitutional due process provisions D. holding that doctrine does not violate due process E. holding that warning letter that incorrectly stated penalty for reentry did not violate due process

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that warning letter that incorrectly stated penalty for reentry did not violate due process
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Executive’s entitlement to the payments described in this Section 5 (it being understood that Executive shall be entitled to all such payments in accordance with the terms hereof) is expressly contingent upon Executive first providing the Company with a signed general release in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “ Release ”) and not revoking such release for a period of seven days after its execution or thereafter and is also contingent upon Executive’s continued compliance with the Non-Compete Agreement (defined in Section 7 below). In order to be effective, such Release must be (a) executed and delivered by Executive to the Company no later than forty-five (45) days following the Termination Date and (b) counter-signed and returned by the Company to Executive within ten (10) business days following the Company’s receipt thereof; provided , however , that if Executive delivers the executed Release to the Company on a timely basis and the Company does not return a counter-signed Release during the applicable time period allowed, such Release of Executive shall be null and void and the payments hereunder shall cease to be contingent on the Release and this Section 5.7.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: alleges that his presentence report contained irrelevant and inaccurate information. Specifically, petitioner contends that the presentence report (1) contained charges for which he was never convicted, (2) described an incident that never occurred, and (3) incorrectly mentioned that he had been released from a training school shortly before the offense for which he was tried. A sentence violates due process if it was carelessly or deliberately pronounced on an extensive and materially false foundation which the prisoner had no opportunity to correct. Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 741, 68 S.Ct. 1252, 1255, 92 L.Ed. 1690 (1948); see also United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 447, 92 S.Ct. 589, 591, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972); United States v. Sammons, 918 F.2d 592, 603 (6th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, petitioner must show that the Options: A. holding that error is not harmless if the defendant contested the omitted element and raised evidence to support a contrary finding B. holding that a defendant must prove an affirmative defense at sentencing stage by a preponderance of evidence C. holding that a constitutional question must be raised at the first available opportunity D. holding that a defendant must have a meaningful opportunity to rebut contested information at sentencing E. holding that sentencing under the mandatory guidelines regime creates a presumption of prejudice that the government must rebut with clear and specific evidence that the district court would not have sentenced the defendant to a lower sentence if it had treated the guidelines as advisory

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a defendant must have a meaningful opportunity to rebut contested information at sentencing
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 Company’s financial statements fairly present the financial condition of the Company at the dates of said statements and the results of its operations for the periods covered thereby and will be prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices consistently applied and consistent with the books and records of the Company.

assistant: Financial Statements
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: ¶84 Nonetheless, for reasons hereinafter discussed, I firmly believe that, independent of any federal jurisprudence, federal constitutional authority, the common law, or other authority, the foundation for private causes of action for damages for constitutional violations is found in the language of Montana’s 1972 Constitution and in the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention. I suggest that it is important to acknowledge this principle, because the greater guarantees of individual rights afforded by Montana’s Constitution may be neither bounded nor frustrated by federal court decisions which, with seeming increasing frequency, are weakening similar protections of the federal constitution. See Trankel v. Department of Military Affairs (1997), 282 Mont. 348, 362, 938 P.2d 614, 623 (<HOLDING>). ¶85 Moreover, Montana’s Constitution Options: A. holding that in the event that parties are from different states and the subject matter is national in scope and where the contract states it shall be deemed to be made under the laws of the state of new york and for all purposes construed in accordance with laws of said state new york law applies as the parties choice of law B. holding a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the constitution and laws of the united states to state a claim under 1983 C. holding that the sentence in article ii section 16 constitution of montana that guarantees an employee the right of full legal redress against third parties is mandatory and self executing and leaves no room for erosion based on what federal courts or the courts of other states would do pursuant to federal laws or the laws of other states D. holding that because the due process clause in the federal constitution is applicable to the states under the fourteenth amendment the right is also guaranteed to defendants pursuant to the identical provision in article i section 5 of the hawaii constitution E. holding that our courts are bound by the united states supreme courts interpretation of the federal constitution

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the sentence in article ii section 16 constitution of montana that guarantees an employee the right of full legal redress against third parties is mandatory and self executing and leaves no room for erosion based on what federal courts or the courts of other states would do pursuant to federal laws or the laws of other states
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: University of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston v. Estate of Darla Blackmon ex rel. Shultz, 195 S.W.3d 98, 100-01 (Tex.2006) (per curiam) (explaining that rule 162 protects substantive right of party to be heard on claim for affirmative relief after nonsuit and also provides trial court with discretion to defer signing order of dismissal for reasonable time to hold hearings on matters collateral to merits). 5 . The Polanskys have requested that we render an order tolling the statute of limitations on their claims from June 30, 2011 until the date of this opinion. We lack jurisdiction to decide whether the statute of limitations would be tolled and will not issue an advisory opinion on that issue. See O'Neal v. Ector Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 221 S.W.3d 286, 291-92 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2006) (<HOLDING>), aff'd on other grounds, 251 S.W.3d 50 Options: A. holding that declaratory judgment was inappropriate where after exhausting administrative remedies a contractor would have to bring separate actions against the state and other parties in state court B. holding that a procedural default in exhausting administrative remedies bars relief in federal court C. holding that a party may gain judicial review without exhausting its administrative remedies where pursuit of administrative remedies would be futile where strict compliance would cause irreparable harm and where the applicable statute is alleged to be void on its face D. holding that a plaintiff may not avoid exhausting the administrative remedies by requesting money damages E. holding limitations issue would not be a ripe controversy until party refiled claims after exhausting administrative remedies and opposing party raised limitations as defense

assistant: The best answer is E. holding limitations issue would not be a ripe controversy until party refiled claims after exhausting administrative remedies and opposing party raised limitations as defense
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: it indicated so unequivocally.” United States v. Picklesimer, 585 F.2d 1199, 1203 (3rd Cir.1978). It would violate both congressional intent and longstanding practice for us to infer quantity limitations where no such limitations are affirmatively stated. This straightforward interpretation of the provision makes sense of the language. Although the linguistic conventions of the regulation are not entirely consistent, it appears that phrases based on the effect of the substance are included in the legal description when the category is denominated by a term based on its effect on users — for example, “stimulant” or “depressant” — and not when the category is denomin ilar language was merely a description of the listed drugs); United States v. White, 560 F.2d 787, 789 (7th Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Nickles, 509 F.2d 810 (5th Options: A. holding that an unconstitutional act of congress has no legal effect B. holding that where congress has directed the agency to issue a rule without regard to any other provision of statute or regulation that applies to issuance of such rule congress has amended the law and does not offend the constitution C. holding that a customer list may be protectable as a trade secret if it is secret and the court examines and determines if it is protectable based on three factors 1 what steps if any an employer has taken to maintain the confidentiality of a customer list 2 whether a departing employee acknowledges that the customer list is confidential and 3 whether the content of the list is readily ascertainable D. holding that cfr 130812d is a list of drugs that congress has determined to have a stimulant effect on the central nervous system E. holding to the same effect

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that cfr 130812d is a list of drugs that congress has determined to have a stimulant effect on the central nervous system
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 historical audited consolidated financial statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 (the “ Audited Financial Statements ”) and the historical unaudited consolidated financial statements included in the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2016 (the “ Interim Financial Statements ” and, together with the Audited Financial Statements, the “ Financial Statements ”), present fairly in all material respects the financial position of the Company and its consolidated subsidiaries as of the dates shown and their results of operations and cash flows for the periods shown, and such financial statements have been prepared in all material respects in conformity with the generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (“ GAAP ”) applied on a consistent basis for the periods shown.

assistant: Financial Statements
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: medical reporting. 13 See NRS 616B.324 (explaining that a self-insured employer’s administrator is the employer’s agent). 14 See Schmidt v. Beeson Plumbing and Heating, 869 P.2d 1170, 1175, 1175 n.7 (Alaska 1994); Barrington v. Employment Sec. Com’n, 286 S.E.2d 576, 578 (N.C. Ct. App. 1982) (“It is well established that the doctrine of equitable estoppel may be applied in workers’ compensation cases.”); Appleby v. Workers’ Safety & Comp. Div., 47 P.3d 613, 619 (Wyo. 2002) (explaining that substantive legal issues like equitable estoppel may be determined by an administrative agency as part of a contested workers’ compensation case and has been applied to prevent strict application of statutory limitations periods); see generally Lentz v. McMahon, 777 P.2d 83, 88-91 (Cal. 1989) (<HOLDING>); Matter of Harrison Living Trust, 121 Nev. Options: A. recognizing that administrative agencies routinely apply equitable estoppel in administrative hearings and that permitting them to do so is consistent with administrative remedy exhaustion requirements and separation of powers B. recognizing that administrative agencies lack to power to consider or determine constitutional issues C. holding that requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies is appropriate where doing so can protect administrative agency authority and promote judicial efficiency D. recognizing the transition of the administrative hearing process from the division of motor vehicles to the office of administrative hearings E. recognizing that administrative agencies are not bound by rules of evidence

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that administrative agencies routinely apply equitable estoppel in administrative hearings and that permitting them to do so is consistent with administrative remedy exhaustion requirements and separation of powers
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: deliveroo.co.uk is a website operated by roofoods limited ( `` we '' or `` us '' or `` deliveroo '' ) , incorporated and registered in the england and wales , whose registered office is at 1 cousin lane , london , ec4r 3te , united kingdom .

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: of those sections. The anti-cutback provision also keeps plans from reducing an “optional form of benefit” offered in the pension plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1054(g)(l)(2)(B). The Act doesn’t define the phrase “optional form of benefit,” but the Treasury reg the Plan to violate § 401(a) and lose its tax-qualified status. IRS Notice 2007-8 (providing “a qualified pension plan is generally not permitted to pay benefits before retirement”). Thus, the benefit offered under Amendment 1 is not the type of promise that the Act’s anti-cutback provision protects from revision. 2. The Plan’s Anti-Cutback Clause That doesn’t mean the Plan’s own anti-cutback clause cannot give broader protection than the Act and keep the beneficiaries from having Amendment 1 taken away from them. See Call, 475 F.3d at 821 (<HOLDING>). Broadly written, the contract — Article Options: A. holding that the pension plans anticutback language offered more protection than the acts B. holding that more than notice to a defendant is required C. holding that erisaqualified pension plans were not intended by congress to be within the statutory exemption D. holding that to grant a new trial the error must be more than harmless E. holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the pension plans anticutback language offered more protection than the acts
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 Company will, and will cause each Significant Guarantor to, maintain, as appropriate, with insurance companies that the Company believes (in the good faith judgment of the management of the Company) are financially sound and responsible at the time the relevant coverage is placed or renewed, insurance in amounts (after giving effect to any self-insurance which the Company believes (in the good faith judgment of management of the Company) is reasonable and prudent in light of the size and nature of its business) and against at least such risks (and with such risk retentions) as the Company believes (in the good faith judgment of the management of the Company) are reasonable in light of the size and nature of its business.

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 shall terminate in its entirety upon the termination of the Merger Agreement in accordance with its terms or by the mutual written agreement of the parties hereto; provided , however , that the provisions of this Article II ( Miscellaneous ) shall survive any termination of this Agreement. In the event of termination of this Agreement, this Agreement shall become void and of no effect with no liability on the part of any party hereto; provided , however , that the termination of this Agreement shall not prevent any party hereto from seeking any remedies (at law or in equity) against any other party hereto for such party’s breach of any of the terms of this Agreement occurring prior to such termination.

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: During the term of this Agreement, neither Party shall assign any benefit or burden under this Agreement without prior written consent of the other Party, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned, except that (i) the Company may assign its rights and obligations under this Agreement to Modular or any company or person with which it may merge or consolidate or to any company or person to whom it may transfer substantially all of its assets or to any company or person which may acquire such Party (including, in each case, any company created as a new vehicle upon any such merger, transfer or acquisition), and (ii) DiPerna may freely assign his royalty payment amount (and related information access, audit and other rights) in whole or in part but not to any direct and/or indirect competitor of the Company and/or affiliate, officer, director, employee or shareholder of such competitor. Any assignment by any Party of any benefit or burden under this Agreement in accordance with the provisions of this Section 6 shall not release the assigning Party from any of its obligations under this Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective permitted successors and assigns.

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 shall accrue on each Loan for the day on which the Loan is made, and shall not accrue on a Loan, or any portion thereof, for the day on which the Loan or such portion is paid, provided that for purposes of calculating interest, all principal payments made by or on account of the Borrowers shall be deemed to have been applied to the Loans two (2) Business Day(s) after receipt. Each determination by the Agent of an interest rate or fee hereunder shall be conclusive and binding for all purposes, absent manifest error.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except for the representations and warranties contained in this Article 3 , neither Seller nor any other Person on Seller’s behalf makes any express or implied representation or warranty with respect to Seller, the Acquired Assets, the Assumed Liabilities, the Facility or the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, and Seller disclaims any other representations or warranties and any reliance thereon, whether made by Seller or any other Person.

assistant: Warranties