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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: 8.5 third-party charges : using the software on mobile applications will use some of the data allowance available on the data package to which you have subscribed with your mobile network operator .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Guaranty Agreement and each Guaranty Joinder Agreement, together with the Credit Agreement and other Loan Documents, constitutes and expresses the entire understanding between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, agreements, understandings, inducements, commitments or conditions, express or implied, oral or written, except as herein contained. The express terms hereof control and supersede any course of performance or usage of the trade inconsistent with any of the terms hereof. Except as provided in Section 22 , neither this Guaranty Agreement nor any Guaranty Joinder Agreement nor any portion or provision hereof or thereof may be changed, altered, modified, supplemented, discharged, canceled, terminated, or amended orally or in any manner other than as provided in the Credit Agreement.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: as part of our service , we offer you to call your friends who use viber , through our service , free of charge ( calls use your data plan unless connected to wifi ) .

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 all taxes collected in violation of section 22(a). Rather, the Court’s remand instructions invoked only the inherent power of courts to order restitution of those taxes collected “by reason of’ the trial court’s erroneous judgment. When Beatty reached this Court for a third time, the Court acknowledged the conflict it had created by invoking the inherent equitable authority to remedy damages resulting from an erroneous judgment without identifying (or even discussing) whether there was a clear and unequivocal waiver of the state’s sovereign immunity that would allow such a money judgment. Beatty III, 914 S.W.2d at 796. Ultimately, the Court held that it did not need to resolve that issue in Beatty III because MSD’s own ordinance provided the plaintiffs a sufficient remedy. Id. (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court’s holding in the Options: A. holding that state of minnesota was immune from rico suit absent a waiver of its sovereign immunity B. holding that the sovereign immunity defense may be raised for the first time on appeal C. holding that state of nevada was immune from rico suit absent a waiver of its sovereign immunity D. holding that the court need not balance the courts inherent power to impose such a remedy against the states right to be immune from suit or determine whether the hancock amendment transcends the defense of sovereign immunity E. recognizing that the municipal function test is used to determine both whether municipalities are immune from suit and immune from running of statutes of limitations

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the court need not balance the courts inherent power to impose such a remedy against the states right to be immune from suit or determine whether the hancock amendment transcends the defense of sovereign immunity
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 Fact No. 16]. Because Swayne held that the proceeds of an insurance policy take the place of the property loss, the settlement proceeds paid by TWIA therefore take the place of the property loss associated with the Debtor’s homestead. Moreover, because a court may not limit the value of such proceeds under the homestead exemption, the Debt- or may exempt the entire settlement amount of $73,000.00. Nor does the fact that the State Court Lawsuit pleaded several causes of action change this conclusion. Texas case law discusses apportionment of settlement proceeds, holding that debtors do not have the initial burden of breaking down these awards into exempt proceeds and nonexempt proceeds for other state law claims. See, e.g., In re Harrington, 306 B.R. 172, 183 (Bankr.E.D.Tex.2003) (<HOLDING>)- In In re Harrington, the Chapter 7 trustee Options: A. holding that the objector must not only show that the facts do not support the exemption but must also prove that the debtor knowingly deceived the trustee and the creditors at the time the exemption was made B. holding that an insurer lacked standing to raise the issue of the intent of the parties to the settlement agreement to which it was not a party C. holding that the trustee objector cannot escape the burden of proof assigned to an objecting party under rule 4003c because the exemption claim relates to a settlement agreement which fails to allocate damages into specif ic categories of recovery D. holding that the burden of proof is initially placed upon the objector with respect to any objections he files and this burden does not shift to the debtor merely upon a showing that the debtor has failed to allocate the personal injury settlement into its various component parts E. holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the trustee objector cannot escape the burden of proof assigned to an objecting party under rule 4003c because the exemption claim relates to a settlement agreement which fails to allocate damages into specif ic categories of recovery
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 is found not in the text of the statute itself, but rather in the surrounding provisions of the Act that define the key terms of the statute. As these provisions are indispensable to the interpretation and application of the statute, we cannot separate the references to ERISA in those provisions from such references in the statute itself. 37 . See Travelers, - U.S. at-, 115 S.Ct. at 1678. 38 . See, e.g., Alessi, 451 U.S. at 524, 101 S.Ct. at 1906 (discussing a state statute that banned pension benefit offsets based on workers compensation awards, and holding that the statute related to ERISA plans pursuant to § 514(a) because it "eliminate[d] one method for calculating ... benefits ... that is permitted by federal law"); see also FMC Corp., 498 U.S. at 60, 111 S.Ct. at 408 (<HOLDING>). 39 . See Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Options: A. holding that statute related to erisa plans pursuant to 514a because it prohibited plans from being structured in a manner requiring reimbursement in the event of a recovery from a third party B. holding that a statute relates to erisa plans for the purposes of preemption if it requires the plans to purchase the benefits specified in the statute when they purchase a certain kind of common insurance policy C. holding that a termination of an erisa plans benefits must be based upon the plans terms and language D. holding that a state law requiring benefit plans to include minimum benefits related to erisa plans E. holding that a statute regulating only hospital rates did not relate to erisa plans merely because it had the net result of increasing insurers and selffunded plans costs of providing benefits

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that statute related to erisa plans pursuant to 514a because it prohibited plans from being structured in a manner requiring reimbursement in the event of a recovery from a third party
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: create such a doubt, it is material even if it would not convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Gates was the killer. Under the circumstances presented by the record before us, we cannot be confident that the result of Harrington’s murder trial would have been the same had the exculpatory information been made available to him. We hold, therefore, that Harrington’s due process right to a fair trial was violated by the State’s failure to produce the police reports documenting their investigation of an alternative suspect in Schweer’s murder. See Mazzan, 993 P.2d at 74-75 (finding Brady violation where withheld “police reports provided support for [the defendant’s] defense that someone else murdered” the victim); Davis v. Commonwealth, 25 Va.App. 588, 491 S.E.2d 288, 293 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s Options: A. holding that the prosecutions failure to disclose information regarding a witnesss past cooperation with law enforcement did not constitute a brady violation in light of other impeachment evidence in the record including testimony regarding the witnesss extensive drug use and past cooperation with the dea B. holding claim based on failure to disclose information to the epa preempted C. holding prosecutions failure to disclose information of other africanamerican females in vicinity of drug sale constituted a brady violation D. holding as brady violation prosecutions failure to disclose to defense that prosecution had agreed not to prosecute key witness in exchange for his testimony at trial E. holding that the failure to disclose evidence known to the defense cannot form the basis of a brady violation

assistant: The best answer is C. holding prosecutions failure to disclose information of other africanamerican females in vicinity of drug sale constituted a brady 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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you have the ability to disable the connection between your airbnb account and your sns account at any time , by accessing the `` settings '' section of the airbnb platform .

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: looked to the proportion of federal funding to non-federal funding to determine whether there is a major federal action. If the amount of federal funding is insignificant or only provided with respect to a small segment of the project, the involvement of the federal agency may not constitute a “major federal action.” See, e.g., Rattlesnake Coal. v. EPA, 509 F.3d 1095, 1101 (9th Cir.2007) (“While significant federal funding can turn what would otherwise be a state or local project into a major federal action, consideration must be given to a great disparity in the expenditures forecast for the local and federal portions of the entire program.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Ka Makani, 295 F.3d at 960 (same); Sancho v. Dep’t of Energy, 578 F.Supp.2d 1258, 1267 (D.Haw.2008) (<HOLDING>); but cf. Sierra Club v. Fish & Wildlife Serv., Options: A. holding that merely reporting concerns of mischarging a government project or investigating an employers noncompliance with federal or state regulations was insufficient to constitute protected activity under the fca B. holding that vermonts licensing scheme was preempted by the fpa because it enabled the state to thwart a federal project by withholding a state permit C. holding that permitting a state official to proceed with a highway project despite alleged nepa violations by federal participants in the project would make a sham of the reconsideration required by federal law D. holding that the contribution by a federal agency of 531 million toward a project did not constitute a major federal action because the funding represented less than 10 of the 584 billion project cost E. holding that federal express despite the use of the word federal in its name is not a federal agency and therefore cannot be sued in this court

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the contribution by a federal agency of 531 million toward a project did not constitute a major federal action because the funding represented less than 10 of the 584 billion project cost
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, and the obligations of the Stockholders hereunder (including, without limitation, Section 2.2 hereof), shall terminate and be of no further force or effect immediately upon the earlier to occur (the “ Expiration Time ”) of (a) the Effective Time, (b) the date of valid termination of the Merger Agreement in accordance with its terms, and (c) at any time upon the written agreement of the Company (acting at the direction of the Independent Committee) and Parent; provided , that, for the avoidance of doubt, to the extent the termination of the Merger Agreement is contested, no party shall be released from liability for violating the terms of this Agreement if a court of competent jurisdiction finally determines that the Merger Agreement had not, in fact, been validly terminated and, therefore, this Agreement had not been validly terminated. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, Section 4.2(e) , this Article VI and Article VII hereof shall survive any termination of this Agreement. Nothing in this Article V shall relieve or otherwise limit any party’s liability for any breach of this Agreement prior to the termination of this Agreement. If for any reason the Merger fails to occur but the Rollover Closing contemplated by Section 3.3 hereof has already taken place, then Parent shall promptly take all such actions as are necessary to restore each Stockholder to the position it was in with respect to ownership of the Rollover Shares prior to such Rollover Closing.

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: Any Lender may at any time, without the consent of, or notice to, the Borrower or the Administrative Agent, sell participations to any Person (other than a natural person (or a holding company, investment vehicle or trust for, or owned and operated for the primary benefit of a natural person), a Defaulting Lender or the Borrower or any Affiliates or Subsidiaries of the Borrower) (each, a “ Participant ”) in all or a portion of such Lender’s rights and/or obligations under this Agreement (including all or a portion of its Commitment and/or Loans (including such Lender’s participations in L/C Obligations and/or Swing Line Loans) owing to it); provided that (i) such Lender’s obligations under this Agreement shall remain unchanged, (ii) such Lender shall remain solely responsible to the other parties hereto for the performance of such obligations and (iii) the Borrower, the Administrative Agent, the Lenders and the L/C Issuers shall continue to deal solely and directly with such Lender in connection with such Lender’s rights and obligations under this Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, each Lender shall be responsible for the indemnity under Section 10.04(c) without regard to the existence of any participation.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each party to this Agreement, in addition to being entitled to exercise all rights granted by law, including recovery of damages, will be entitled to specific performance of its rights under this Agreement. Each party hereto agrees that monetary damages would not be adequate compensation for any loss incurred by reason of a breach by it of the provisions of this Agreement and each party hereto agrees to waive the defense in any action for specific performance that a remedy at law would be adequate.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) There exists no default by any Credit Party in the performance, observance or fulfillment of any of the obligations, covenants or conditions contained in any agreement or instrument (including, without limitation, any Distribution Agreement) to which it is a party which would reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Upon payment of the Indebtedness in full when permitted or required hereunder, Lender shall execute instruments prepared by Borrower and reasonably satisfactory to Lender, which, at Borrower’s election and at Borrower’s sole cost and expense, either (a) release and discharge all Liens on all Collateral securing payment of the Indebtedness (subject to Borrower’s obligation to pay any associated fees and expenses), including all balances in the Collateral Accounts; or (b) assign such Liens (and the Loan Documents) to a new lender designated by Borrower. Any release or assignment provided by Lender pursuant to this Section shall be without recourse, representation or warranty of any kind.

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: that Bartholdi’s claims of privilege were not properly raised before the Commission. Section 405 of the Communications Act provides that the Commission must be afforded an “opportunity to pass” on an issue as a condition precedent to judicial review. 47 U.S.C. § 405(a)(2). In this case, Bartholdi raised its privilege claims, if at all, only before the WTB. Bartholdi’s application for review to the Commission made no mention of either the attorney-client or work-product privilege. Under the plain language of Section 405, an issue cannot be preserved for judicial review simply by raising it before a Bureau of the FCC. It is “the Commission” itself that must be afforded the opportunity to pass on the issue. Id.; cf. Parsippany Hotel Management Co. v. NLRB, 99 F.3d 413, 418 (D.C.Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Bartholdi contends that it preserved the Options: A. holding that issue raised before alj but not nlrb was not preserved B. holding that despite the merits of the argument the appellant raised on appeal the issue was not preserved for judicial review because it was not raised before the administrative agency C. holding issues not raised before the district court are not preserved for appeal D. holding that because the appellant did not present to the administrative agency the argument it raised before this court the issue was not preserved and holding that even if preserved the argument failed E. holding an issue not raised to the family court is not preserved for appellate review

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that issue raised before alj but not nlrb was not preserved
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Upon the occurrence of a Change in Control, the applicable Performance Period which contains the date of the Change in Control shall end, and the Committee shall determine the achievement of the Performance Goal in compliance with Section 4.1. Any remaining forfeiture restrictions on the Performance Shares for that Performance Period shall lapse on the date of the Committee’s determination, and the Company shall promptly issue the Shares to the Participant. In addition, all previously credited shares within outstanding Restriction Periods shall be released to the Participant. All remaining Performance Shares for any future Performance Period(s) remaining in the Award Period shall be forfeited.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the City lacked the necessary jurisdiction to undertake the annexation, it was null and void. ¶ 11 In an analogous United States Supreme Court case, land owners contested the attempted annexation of noncontiguous lands by a town. Ocean Beach Heights, 302 U.S. at 614, 58 S.Ct. 385. The Court held that the controlling statute did not permit the annexation of noncontiguous lands. Id. at 617, 58 S.Ct. 385. Having failed to comply with the statute, the Court found that the town lacked both de jure and de facto authority to tax lands within the purportedly annexed area. Id. at 617-19, 58 S.Ct. 385. Accordingly, the Court held that the town could not “restrain the petitioners from defending against levy and collection of the taxes de, 213 Ariz. 1, 7-8, ¶ 31, 137 P.3d 309, 315-16 (App.2006) (<HOLDING>); Peterson, 477 P.2d at 155 (holding that the Options: A. holding the mda did not preempt plaintiffs state common law claims for defective design defective manufacture and failure to warn B. holding that plaintiffs negligence defective manufacturing defective design breach of warranty and failure to warn claims were preempted by the mda and fdca defined below C. holding that petitions failure to avow the absence of a prior competing petition as required by ars 9471a6 rendered it defective D. holding that notice of removal was defective on its face because it failed to contain a copy of the process as required by the removal statute E. holding that notice of foreclosure that failed to provide a reinstatement balance was not defective in the absence of harm caused by the omission

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that petitions failure to avow the absence of a prior competing petition as required by ars 9471a6 rendered it defective
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 provides a competitive benefits package for its eligible employees. You will be eligible to participate in the employee benefit plans and programs generally available to the Company's employees, including group medical, dental, vision, life insurance, disability, and Flexible Spending Plan (Healthcare Reimbursement Account and/or Dependent Care Reimbursement Account) benefits in addition to Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 401(k) plan, all in accordance with and subject to the eligibility and other terms and conditions of such plans and programs. You will be entitled to 3 weeks of paid vacation annually, and the Company currently provides eligible employees with designated company paid holidays each year. Please note that regarding health/medical insurance, the Company’s present policy is to provide an option for dependent coverage at an additional charge, if you should require such coverage. You will have to affirmatively elect dependent coverage if you desire it. Also, please note that if your spouse is employed and has medical insurance coverage available through her/his employer, he/she will be required to elect that coverage as primary coverage. The Company reserves the right to amend, modify or terminate any of its benefit plans or programs at any time and for any reason.

assistant: Vacations
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 law better left for the court to decide.”). We reverse the district court’s order insofar as it grants the defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiffs claim for arrest without probable cause under § 1983. In this case, the district court erred by considering the jury verdict' from the common law false arrest claims in its qualified immunity analysis. As explained above, whether a right is “clearly established” — ’that is, whether an objectively reasonable officer would have believed his conduct to be law ful, in light of clearly established law — is a question of law that must be resolved by the court, not the jury. We reverse the district court on this issue and remand for a determination of whether the defendants are entitled to 178, 183-84 (4th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Castellano v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939, 953-54 Options: A. holding that a 1983 due process claim that essentially contests the fairness of the plaintiffs prosecution is similar to his malicious prosecution claim and claims resembling malicious prosecution do not accrue until the prosecution has terminated in the plaintiffs favor B. holding that the fourth amendment right implicated in a malicious prosecution action is the right to be free of unreasonable seizure of the person C. holding that a plaintiffs allegations that the defendant seized him pursuant to legal process that was not supported by probable cause and that the criminal proceedings terminated in his favor are sufficient to state a 1983 malicious prosecution claim alleging a seizure that was violative of the fourth amendment D. holding that section 1983 claims alleging due process violations stemming from malicious prosecution are unavailable when a state malicious prosecution action exists E. holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a plaintiffs allegations that the defendant seized him pursuant to legal process that was not supported by probable cause and that the criminal proceedings terminated in his favor are sufficient to state a 1983 malicious prosecution claim alleging a seizure that was violative of the fourth amendment
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 generally accepted accounting principles. 54 Fed. Reg. at 29,974. 4 19 C.F.R. § 177.10(c) appears to apply to rates of duty rather than appraisement issues. 5 Defendant’s Reply Brief did not clarify the Cheurón deference discussion in its brief-in-chief to note the refinement of Chevron found in the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Christensen. The government cannot pick and choose which Supreme Court cases it will follow. 6 Although the court concludes that TD 85-111 is not entitled to Chevron deference under a Christensen analysis, the court does not decide whether a similar policy promulgated through adjudication with the attendant procedural safeguards would warrant greater deference than that granted TD 85-111. Cf. INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 416 (1999) (<HOLDING>) (quoting INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, Options: A. holding that where statute is ambiguous deference is appropriately accorded to agencys interpretation B. holding regulations entitled to chevron deference C. holding that in the absence of a statutory definition a term should be accorded its ordinary meaning D. recognizing that board of immigration appeals should be accorded chevron deference as it gives ambiguous statutory terms concrete meaning through a process of casebycase adjudication E. holding contract with ambiguous terms should not be dismissed on pleadings

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that board of immigration appeals should be accorded chevron deference as it gives ambiguous statutory terms concrete meaning through a process of casebycase adjudication
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 Guarantor agrees that, as between such Guarantor and the Guaranteed Parties, the obligations of any Obligor under this Agreement and the other Loan Documents may be declared to be forthwith due and payable as provided therein (and shall become automatically due and payable in the circumstances provided therein) for purposes of paragraph (a) of this Section 9.14, notwithstanding any bar, stay, injunction or other prohibition preventing such declaration (or such obligations from becoming automatically due and payable) as against such Obligor, and that, in the event of such declaration (or such obligations becoming automatically due and payable), such obligations shall forthwith become due and payable by such Guarantor for purposes of said paragraph (a) of this Section 9.14.

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: denied, 514 U.S. 1003, 115 S.Ct. 1312, 131 L.Ed.2d 194 (1995); United States v. Joseph, 510 F.Supp. 1001, 1005 (E.D.Pa.1981). In determining whether to grant a motion for a bill of particulars, a trial court must strike a “prudent balance” between the defendant’s interest in securing information and the government’s interest in not committing itself to facts before it is in a position to do so. Rosa, 891 F.2d at 1066. A bill of particulars is not intended to provide the defendant with the fruit of the government’s investigation, but is instead intended to give the defendant the minimum amount of information necessary to permit the defendant to conduct his own defense. United States v. Smith, 776 F.2d 1104 (3d Cir.1985); see United States v. Sourlis, 953 F.Supp. 568, 579 (D.N.J.1996) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Caruso, 948 F.Supp. 382, 393 Options: A. holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law B. holding that a bill of particulars unlike discovery is not intended to provide the defendant with the results of the governments investigation C. recognizing that the facts that a bill of particulars is discretionary with the judge pursuant to hrpp rule 7a and that other discovery rules are limited in scope might prevent a defendant from discovering the states position D. recognizing that while summary judgment is improper if the nonmovant is not afforded a sufficient opportunity for discovery it is the nonmovants responsibility to inform the district court of the need for discovery by filing an affidavit pursuant to rule 56f of the federal rules of civil procedure or filing a motion requesting additional discovery E. recognizing the fact that a bill of particulars is discretionary with the judge pursuant to hawaii rules of penal procedure hrpp rule 7a and the fact that other discovery rules given to the defendant are limited might prevent a defendant from discovering the states position

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a bill of particulars unlike discovery is not intended to provide the defendant with the results of the governments investigation
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: infra at 28-30. 5 . See Purchase of Service Agreement (R.R. at 64a, 71a). 6 . Moreover, the underlying complaint against COLT alleged direct negligence by COLT for the authority’s role in the events leading up to the January 11, 1988 automobile accident injuring Paula Jo Lehman. The trial court dismissed COLT from the underlying action based solely on the authority's immunity from liability under the facts of the case and the court's interpretation of the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. Whether a jury would have ultimately found COLT directly negligent in the underlying tort action, thereby precluding Carolina Casualty’s defense, need not be decided here, nor will it absolve Carolina Casualty of its obligation to Lebanon Coach. See Daily Express v. Northern Neck Transfer, supra (<HOLDING>). 7 . In Lehman v. County of Lebanon Options: A. holding that officers observations of the speed of the truck coupled with the sound of the engine racing and the bouncing of the truck as it passed through the intersection gave officer probable cause to believe that truck was exceeding a speed greater than was reasonable and prudent under the conditions B. holding that a truck drivers injury from a fall in the shower of a truck stop while off duty was not compensable C. holding truck lessors liability to truck lessee existed without parties express indemnity clause in lease thus exclusion was inapplicable where carolina casualty alleged its insured truck lessor was precluded from coverage because lessors liability was assumed under contract with truck lessee D. holding that a lienor under a contract with a lessee is entitled to a lien against the lessors interest only where the lease expressly or impliedly requires the lessee to make improvements to the leased property E. holding that an insurance company did not have a duty to defend the plaintiff because providing directions to a concrete mixing truck does not constitute use of the truck

assistant: The best answer is C. holding truck lessors liability to truck lessee existed without parties express indemnity clause in lease thus exclusion was inapplicable where carolina casualty alleged its insured truck lessor was precluded from coverage because lessors liability was assumed under contract with truck lessee
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of the Borrower and its Subsidiaries has timely filed or caused to be filed all Tax returns and reports required to have been filed and has paid or caused to be paid all Taxes required to have been paid by it, except (a) Taxes that are being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings and for which the Borrower or such Subsidiary, as applicable, has set aside on its books adequate reserves with respect thereto in accordance with GAAP or (b) to the extent that the failure to do so could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: added). In this case, Yasquez’s lawsuit does not seek appellate review of the state court’s decision applying Florida’s forum non conveniens rules to his claims. Instead, Vasquez seeks review of the district court’s order that federal maritime law does not apply to his case, an issue not resolved by the state court. “[I]f United States law is applicable, the American court should retain jurisdiction rather than relegate the controversy to a foreign tribunal.” Szumlicz v. Norwegian Am. Line, Inc., 698 F.2d 1192, 1195 (11th Cir.1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). Vasquez is not asking a federal court to review and reject a judgment of the state court because the Florida court never addressed the issue Vasquez asks us to resolve. See Feldman, 460 U.S. at 487, 103 S.Ct. 1303 (<HOLDING>). Here, the district court determined that Options: A. holding rookerfeldman inapplicable where the district court could and did find that the plaintiffs constitutional claims had merit without also finding that the state court erred B. holding that the rookerfeldman doctrine is broad enough to bar all federal claims that were or should have been central to the state court decision C. holding rookerfeldman doctrine deprived district court of jurisdiction to review decision of west virginia state bar D. holding rookerfeldman doctrine inapplicable to claims that do not require review of a judicial decision in a particular case E. holding that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review a final state court decision in a particular case

assistant: The best answer is D. holding rookerfeldman doctrine inapplicable to claims that do not require review of a judicial decision in a particular case
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except for Maxim Group LLC, the fees and expenses of which will be paid by the Contributor Parent, no broker, investment banker, financial advisor or other Person is entitled to any broker’s, finder’s, financial advisor’s or other similar fee or commission, or the reimbursement of expenses relating thereto, in connection with the Transactions based upon arrangements made by or on behalf of the Contributor Parent or any of its Subsidiaries.

assistant: Brokers
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: irrelevant which of these two models is more elegant from a conceptual standpoint. What is important — indeed, determinative — for our inquiry is which of the two each state has adopted. Pennsylvania's high court unambiguously has held that Pennsylvania law supports no cause of action for increased risk of cancer or for present emotional distress arising from the fear of cancer. Thus, the court's statement about medical monitoring damages is best viewed as the authorization of a distinct cause of action for medical monitoring expenses. Reading the opinion otherwise would defy its plain language regarding Pennsylvania's nonrecognition of increased risk and emotional distress causes of action. 75 . See, e.g., Burns v. Jaquays Mining Corp., 156 Ariz. 375, 752 P.2d 28, 29-31 (Ct.App.1987) (<HOLDING>), review dismissed, 162 Ariz. 186, 781 P.2d Options: A. holding that damages resulting from directors misconduct destroying the value of the corporate stock does not qualify as a direct or personal injuiy to a shareholder and will not support a tort action B. holding that not all adverse action taken against a public employee in retaliation for exercising first amendment rights is sufficient to support a cause of action under 1983 C. recognizing cause of action D. recognizing the cause of action E. holding that subclinical asbestosrelated injuiy is not sufficient to support cause of action

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that subclinical asbestosrelated injuiy is not sufficient to support cause of action
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2) (providing that administrative expenses shall be allowed for “compensation and reimbursement awarded under section 330(a) of this title”); id. § 503(a) (“An entity may timely file a request for payment of an administrative expense .... ”). Additionally, we conclude that to interpret § 726(a) as urged by the Trustee (and followed by the minority view) would produce results at odds with Congress’s intention in drafting the legislation. The district court determined that it would “not be satisfied with a plain-meaning-of-the- language construction that yields an inequitable result, until it is convinced no equitable construction of that same language is possible.” Reed II, 312 B.R. at 838 (citing Crooks v. Harrelson, 282 U.S. 55, 60, 51 S.Ct. 49, 75 L.Ed. 156 (1930) (<HOLDING>)). To preclude recovery of all interest on a Options: A. holding that the scope and application of state exemptions are defined by the state courts and that we are bound by their interpretations B. holding that federal courts are bound by state interpretations of state law C. recognizing that although early interpretations of the act were narrow subsequent interpretations demonstrate that the act reaches a wide variety of deceptive commercial practices D. holding that interpretations of a statute which produce absurd results are to be avoided if alternative interpretations consistent with the legislative purpose are available E. holding that courts should avoid interpretations of statutes which would produce absurd results

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that interpretations of a statute which produce absurd results are to be avoided if alternative interpretations consistent with the legislative purpose are available
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 BORROWER IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY AGREES THAT IT WILL NOT COMMENCE ANY ACTION, LITIGATION OR PROCEEDING OF ANY KIND OR DESCRIPTION, WHETHER IN LAW OR EQUITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT OR IN TORT OR OTHERWISE, AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT, ANY LENDER, THE L/C ISSUER, OR ANY RELATED PARTY OF THE FOREGOING IN ANY WAY RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT OR THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING HERETO OR THERETO, IN ANY FORUM OTHER THAN THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS SITTING IN COOK COUNTY AND OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, AND ANY APPELLATE COURT FROM ANY THEREOF, AND EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF SUCH COURTS AND AGREES THAT ALL CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF ANY SUCH ACTION, LITIGATION OR PROCEEDING MAY BE HEARD AND DETERMINED IN SUCH ILLINOIS STATE COURT OR, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN SUCH FEDERAL COURT. EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO AGREES THAT A FINAL JUDGMENT IN ANY SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE AND MAY BE ENFORCED IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS BY SUIT ON THE JUDGMENT OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW. NOTHING IN THIS AGREEMENT OR IN ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT SHALL AFFECT ANY RIGHT THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT, ANY LENDER OR THE L/C ISSUER MAY OTHERWISE HAVE TO BRING ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT AGAINST ANY BORROWER OR ITS PROPERTIES IN THE COURTS OF ANY JURISDICTION.

assistant: Submission To Jurisdiction
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: upon several variables, such as: ... are you transferring your GARRETT SECURED BENEFIT ACCOUNT balance to the Retirement Plan? *!* •!* •S' •!* Q. What happens if I have a GARRETT SECURED BENEFIT ACCOUNT? A. You can transfer your GARRETT SECURED BENEFIT ACCOUNT (SBA) to the Retirement Plan, withdraw your SBA balance and invest it in the annuity, or withdraw your SBA balance and spend it. The NORMAL RETIREMENT benefit is calculated on the assumption that you transfer your SBA to the Retirement Plan. If you don’t make this transfer, your NORMAL RETIREMENT benefit will be somewhat reduced. (Dauphine Decl. Exh. A at HW 0000987-989 [Doc. # 60].) This description adequately discloses the Secured Benefit Account offset. See Stahl v. Tony’s Bldg. Materials, 875 F.2d 1404, 1408 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs argue that § 1022 required Options: A. holding plaintiffs could not obtain compensation for both lost value and lost profit B. holding that an spd need only be specific enough to enable ordinary employee to sense when there is a danger that benefits could be lost or diminished C. holding that such damages could be recovered but only if the plaintiffs were experienced in the business and if the lost profits could be ascertained with some certainty D. holding that a business owners testimony was insufficient to establish lost profits where he was not able to specify which contracts they lost how many they lost how much profit they would have had from the contracts or who would have awarded them contracts and explaining that the plaintiffs could have supported their lost profits with testimony that they had lost out on specific contracts but failed to do so E. holding that a summary plan description need only provide information about the general circumstances in which benefits could be lost

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an spd need only be specific enough to enable ordinary employee to sense when there is a danger that benefits could be lost or diminished
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: Senate receded because the “provision is not intended to create a new cause of action,” but “is merely intended-to provide protection for Department of Defense lawyers similar to [the medical malpractice protection] provided for [government] doctors in [10 U.S.C. § 1089].” Id.; United States v. Smith, 499 U.S. 160, 170 n. 11, 111 S.Ct. 1180, 113 L.Ed.2d 134 (1991) (explaining that § 1054 “was enacted to shield Defense Department attorneys from [personal liability for] claims of legal malpractice”). It is thus clear that § 1054 allows injured parties to pursue certain legal malpractice claims against the government without running afoul of the FTCA’s exception for claims premised on negligent or wrongful misrepresentations. See Devlin v. United States, 352 F.3d 525, 536 (2d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Mossow by Mossow v. United States, 987 F.2d Options: A. holding that there would be no exception to american rule on attorney fees for legal malpractice claims B. holding that the constitution can limit the discretion of federal officials such that the ftcas discretionary function exception will not apply C. holding that legal malpractice claims are not assignable D. recognizing that 1054 exempts legal malpractice claims from the ftcas misrepresentation exception E. recognizing exception

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that 1054 exempts legal malpractice claims from the ftcas misrepresentation exception