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: Any issuance of shares of Stock to the Grantee pursuant to this Award shall be subject to any applicable tax withholding requirements. The Grantee shall, not later than the date as of which the transfer of shares of Stock pursuant to this Award becomes a taxable event for Federal income tax or other applicable withholding tax purposes, pay to the Company or make arrangements satisfactory to the Committee for payment of any Federal, state, local, non U.S., or other taxes required by law to be withheld on account of such taxable event. The Company shall have the authority to cause the required minimum tax withholding amount to be satisfied, in whole or in part, by withholding from shares of Stock to be issued to the Grantee a number of shares of Stock with an aggregate Fair Market Value that would satisfy such minimum withholding obligation.

assistant: Tax Withholdings
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: refuses to provide it does not change the fact that Plaintiff must exhaust a claim, however styled, that is “a backdoor attempt to enforce the Act’s requirements and to secure a remedy for [the insurer’s alleged failure to provide benefits.” Id. Phillips, 2011 3047475, at *7 n. 12. That logic applies to this case. Because Plaintiffs’ claims, in essence, are claims seeking the retention of benefits, they arise under the Medicare Act, and Plaintiffs were obligated to exhaust their administrative remedies before bringing this action. Thus, the Court is without subject matter jurisdiction to consider those claims. B. To the Extent That Any Claims Are Not Subject to Exhaustion Requirements, They Are Dism rnia, Inc., 98 F.3d 496 (9th Cir.1996) (same). But see Phillips, 2011 WL 3047475, at *7 (<HOLDING>). There is also authority for the proposition Options: A. holding that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies by failing to include issue in case brief B. holding that a plaintiff need not exhaust his administrative remedies to bring a retaliation claim C. holding that the plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to gender discrimination and retaliation claims where she had only asserted discrimination based on race and disability in her eeoc complaint D. holding that the plaintiff must exhaust her administrative remedies and it does not matter that the plaintiff was using state law as the vehicle to press her assertion E. holding that plaintiff could not look to the courts for relief because he did not exhaust his administrative remedies under the adea

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the plaintiff must exhaust her administrative remedies and it does not matter that the plaintiff was using state law as the vehicle to press her assertion
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: e.g., Kennedy v. Dir. of Rev., 73 S.W.3d 85, 87 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002) (con.1uding that there were sufficient facts to support court’s finding that there was an insufficient foundation for breath test results after officer used machine that had returned an error message), overruled on other grounds by Verdoorn v. Dir of Rev., 119 S.W.3d 543 (Mo. 2003). The Missouri statute differs from the Vermont statute, however, in that it in.1udes a provision requiring an operator to cease using a machine that is not functioning properly. See id. 5 We have held that a disparity in two test results does not make the results inadmissible in at least two nonprecedential three-justice memorandum decisions. See State v. Howe, Nos. 2006-429, 2006-432, 2007 WL 5313288, at *3 (Vt. Mar. 28, 2007) (unpub. mem.) (<HOLDING>); State v. Springer, Nos. 2006-433, 2006-434, Options: A. holding that our liberal rules of notice pleading do not require that specific evidentiary detail be alleged in the complaint B. holding that department of health rules do not require agreement between two successive results C. recognizing the 48hour standard as a department of health regulation D. holding that hiring of only two mental health experts was not deficient E. holding that where department of transportation regulations did not require department officials to enforce vehicle regulations the departments decision not to do so was discretionary

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that department of health rules do not require agreement between two successive results
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Joint Lead Arrangers and the Agents shall have received all reasonable and documented out-of-pocket costs and expenses required to be paid, including without limitation, the reasonable and invoiced fees and disbursements of Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP. The Borrower and its Subsidiaries shall have paid all fees required to be paid on the Closing Date under (i) that certain Engagement Letter dated March 20, 2017, (ii) any fee letters delivered in connection with such Engagement Letter and (iii) Section 3.5(c) .

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: The Company shall pay Executive a base salary of Two Hundred and Sixteen Thousand Dollars ($216,000) per annum, beginning on the Effective Date (the “Base Salary”), payable in accordance with the payroll practices of the Company for its executives, but no less than once per each month.

assistant: Base Salary
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: Immediately after the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Agreement, the fair value and present fair saleable value of the assets of each of the Issuers and the Guarantors will exceed the sum of its stated liabilities and identified contingent liabilities. Each of the Issuers and the Guarantors is not now nor, after giving effect to the issuance of the Securities and the execution and delivery of this Agreement and the Registration Rights Agreement and the performance of this Agreement, the Registration Rights Agreement and the Indenture and the consummation of the transactions contemplated thereby or described in the Offering Memorandum, will be (i) insolvent, (ii) left with unreasonably small capital with which to engage in its anticipated business or (iii) incurring debts or other obligations beyond its ability to pay such debts or obligations as they become due.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: aid, and the protection of acquired personal rights. The Treaty shall also recognize the sovereign capacity of Puerto Rico to enter into covenants and other international treaties.” 8 . In addition to seeking removal of the above-captioned case, defendants have also requested that this Court consolidate this action with a parallel federal action currently pending in this district, Civil Case No. 98-203 l(CCC), which they allege has similar questions of law and fact as the instant case. However, the Court need not address the issue of the propriety of consolidation because it is well-settled that an action which is improvidently removed may not be consolidated with another over which the Court does have jurisdiction. See, e.g., United States v. Brandt Construction Co., 826 F.2d 643, 647 (<HOLDING>); McKenzie v. United States, 678 F.2d 571, 574 Options: A. holding that it is axiomatic that remanding a case to state court terminates the jurisdiction of a federal bankruptcy or district court over that case B. holding that district court had supplemental jurisdiction over claims challenging administrative decision once case was properly removed based on original jurisdiction arising from constitutional claims C. holding that it is not D. holding the antiinjunction act does not bar an injunction of a state court proceeding which purports to exercise jurisdiction over a removed case E. holding that a district court does not acquire jurisdiction over an improvidently removed case by consolidating it with one properly before it

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a district court does not acquire jurisdiction over an improvidently removed case by consolidating it with one properly before it
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, the Option Agreements and the Indemnification Agreement contain the entire agreement between the Parties, and, except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement and the Option Agreements and the Indemnification Agreement supersede any other oral or written agreements or understandings between the Parties, including without limitation the Employment 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: potential liabilities and whether the purchasing corporation has “substantial ties” to the selling corporation. See Mexico Feed & Seed Corp., 980 F.2d at 489; Louisiana-Pacific Corp., 909 F.2d at 1265-1266; Elf Atochem North America v. United States, 908 F.Supp. 275, 282-283 (E.D.Pa.1995); United States v. Peirce, 1995 WL 356017 (N.D.N.Y. Feb.21, 1995); United States v. Atlas Minerals and Chemicals, Inc., 824 F.Supp. 46, 51 (E.D.Pa.1993). The Court agrees with the district court in Peirce that these factors, while not dispositive, should be considered along with the other factors set forth in Carolina Transformer Co. in determining whether successor liability should attach under the substantial continuity test. Cf. Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Blosenski, 847 F.Supp. 1261 (E.D.Pa.1994) (<HOLDING>). Although the appropriateness of these two Options: A. holding that strict compliance is not required B. holding that notice not required because cercla is a strict liability statute C. recognizing cercla successor liability D. holding that apportionment of cercla liability is a matter of federal common law E. recognizing strict product liability actions

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that notice not required because cercla is a strict liability statute
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 14 of the New Mexico Constitution guarantee a criminal defendant the right to be present at his trial and to confront the witnesses against him face-to-face. Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 844, 110 S.Ct. 3157, 3162, 111 L.Ed.2d 666 (1990); State v. Rodriguez, 114 N.M. 265, 267, 837 P.2d 459, 461 (Ct.App.1992). The rights that the Confrontation Clause confers, however, are not absolute. Craig, 497 U.S. at 844, 110 S.Ct. at 3162. The defendant does not have an absolute right to be present and to confront witnesses against him, and his counsel may be restricted in his interrogation of those witnesses when there is a fair and reasonable substitute therefor. See State v. Taylor, 103 N.M. 189, 195, 704 P.2d 443, 449 (Ct.App.1985) (<HOLDING>); But see Rodriguez, 114 N.M. at 267, 837 P.2d Options: A. holding that the confrontation clause does not apply to the sentencing hearing B. holding that doctrine does not violate right of confrontation C. holding that despite district courts restriction on crossexamination of government witness concerning the sentencing benefits he would earn through testifying for the government it did not violate defendants confrontation rights because of defense counsels effective impeachment of the government witnesses credibility and sentence reduction D. holding that hearsay argument for admission of evidence did not preserve confrontation clause challenge on appeal argument could have referred either to rules of evidence or confrontation clause but failed to identify confrontation clause as basis and thus did not put trial court on notice of issue E. holding that defendants absence from and defense counsels restriction to written questions in hearing on competency of child complainant did not violate confrontation clause

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that defendants absence from and defense counsels restriction to written questions in hearing on competency of child complainant did not violate confrontation clause
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: therefore , you must not send to linden lab ( even within any of your user content that we may request ) , in any form and by any means , any unsolicited ideas and materials .

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: quotation marks omitted)). 11 . NCR argues that Policy 422 was adopted four years before Tomlinson was hired, but does not indicate that it was subsequently revoked or amended. 12 . NCR's Corporate Management Policy Numbers 101 and 102 contain general provisions defining "policy development," "deviations from corporate management policies," and the distinction between policies and procedures. 13 . Other jurisdictions have held that a clear and conspicuous contract disclaimer can prevent an employee manual from limiting an employer's right to terminate its employees, even in the absence of a corresponding at-will statement, when the language is clear and definitive. See McCloud v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 543 F.Supp.2d 391, 403 (E.D.Pa.2008), aff'd, 328 Fed.Appx. 777 (3d Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>) reasonable person in [pllaintiff's situation Options: A. holding that employee guidebook did not create an implied employment contract as it contained a clearlystated boldfaced disclaimer and statement that employment was atwill B. holding that a disclaimer stating this particular code or policy handbook is not an expressed or implied contract of employment and does not create any contractual rights of any kind between employer and its employees was clear enough that a C. holding that language in employee handbook stating that it was not to be considered as creating terms and conditions of an employment contract and that the employment relationship was employment atwill was sufficiently explicit to preclude the creation of implied contractual obligations as a matter of law D. holding that the statement this employee handbook is not intended to create any contractual rights in favor of you or the company the company reserves the right to change the terms of this handbook at any time was sufficient to disclaim any implied contract to engage in progressive discipline E. holding that employee handbook did not give rise to implied contract where it stated that it was not a contract and that employment was terminable at will

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a disclaimer stating this particular code or policy handbook is not an expressed or implied contract of employment and does not create any contractual rights of any kind between employer and its employees was clear enough that a
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 arbitrator shall be a retired judge or justice of any new york state or federal court with substantial experience in the internet industry and shall follow new york substantive law in adjudicating the dispute , except that this section 8 ( a ) shall be construed as a `` written agreement to arbitrate '' pursuant to the federal arbitration act ( `` faa '' ) .

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: Each Party shall perform its obligations under this Contract, and Buyer shall transport and use the gypsum to be delivered hereunder, in accordance with all applicable federal, state, county, municipal and local laws, ordinances and regulations, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency final rule “Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities,” 40 CFR Parts 257 and 261, as published at 80 Fed. Reg. 21,302 (April 17, 2015) and subsequently amended at 80 Fed. Reg. 37,988 (July 2, 2015) (the “ CCR Rule ”) (collectively, “ Applicable Laws ”). Buyer represents that it is a sophisticated user of gypsum, it is aware of the regulated (including but not limited to arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, lead, chromium, mercury and nickel) and unregulated elements and materials which may be contained in gypsum, and it agrees to comply with all Applicable Laws which protect its employees, third parties, consumers and the environment relating to the use of the gypsum to be delivered hereunder.

assistant: Applicable 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: Notwithstanding the foregoing, any right of the Executive to receive termination payments and benefits hereunder will be forfeited if the Executive breaches Sections 8, 9, or 10; provided that, before invoking this paragraph, the Company will provide the Executive a reasonable time (not to exceed 30 days) to respond to such assertion and, to the extent curable, a right to cure such breach within such time. For the avoidance of doubt, any reasonable time to cure a breach referenced as provided in this Section 6.7 shall not extend the payment dates referenced in Section 6.6.

assistant: Forfeitures
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 specific representations and warranties contained in this Section 3 and in any certificate or agreement delivered pursuant hereto, none of the Company Parties has made, makes or shall be deemed to make any other express or implied representation or warranty with respect to the Company, this offering, the proposed IPO or a potential Business Combination, and the Company Parties disclaim any such representation or warranty. Except for the specific representations and warranties expressly made by the Option Holders in Section 2 of this Agreement and in any certificate or agreement delivered pursuant hereto, the Company Parties specifically disclaim that they are relying upon any other representations or warranties that may have been made by the Option Parties.

assistant: Warranties
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 hereby agrees to employ Executive, and Executive hereby accepts such employment, as the Chief Operating Officer of the Company. In his role as Chief Operating Officer of the Company, Executive shall perform and be responsible for such duties and functions commensurate with such title as may be directed from time to time by the Chief Executive Officer of the Company. Executive agrees that he shall, during the term of this Agreement, except during reasonable vacation periods, periods of illness and the like, devote all of his business time attention and ability to his duties and responsibilities hereunder. During the Employment Term, the Executive shall also serve, without additional compensation, in such other executive-level positions or capacities as may, from time to time, be reasonably requested by the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”). Executive acknowledges that he may be required to travel to Company and/or customer sites at locations outside of Houston, Texas as part of his duties as Chief Operating Officer of the Company.

assistant: Duties
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 as expressly set forth in this Amendment No. 4, the execution, delivery and effectiveness of this Amendment No. 4 shall not operate as a waiver of any Default or Event of Default whether now existing or hereafter arising or of any right, power or remedy of the Administrative Agent or the Lenders under the Credit Agreement, under any of the other Loan Documents or under applicable law.

assistant: No Waivers
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: It provided mere conclusions that Employee suffered work-related stress. Nothing in the letter showed a foundation for the doctor’s opinion or diagnosis, i.e., the doctor’s report was devoid of any history given him by Employee regarding work conditions. There was no evidence the doctor had training or experience as a mental health professional. Moreover, Employee admitted that, as late as June 2000, her doctor had not diagnosed her as “depressed,” nor had he prescribed medication for depression. In summary, this letter simply was not sufficient competent and substantial medical evidence to show the necessary relationship between the conditions of employment and the medical reasons for unemployment. Reed v. Labor and Indus. Relations Comm’n, 664 S.W.2d 650, 653[8] (Mo.App.1984) (<HOLDING>); see also Searcy, 28 S.W.3d at 896[6]. Options: A. holding law court will not overturn conclusions supported by competent and substantial evidence B. holding review of whether evidence is competent and substantial tests only its legal sufficiency and not its weight C. holding that attorneys affidavit was not competent evidence of his clients agreement or communications with the defendants because it was not based on personal knowledge D. holding that the evidence that the defendant violated a probation condition was not competent and substantial because the state presented only hearsay evidence E. holding conclusory affidavit by doctor regarding alleged workrelated depression and anxiety was not substantial and competent evidence

assistant: The best answer is E. holding conclusory affidavit by doctor regarding alleged workrelated depression and anxiety was not substantial and competent evidence
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that FHLMC is a United States agency fo onsequential] damages are in the nature of expectancy damages: they place [plaintiff] in the position it claims it would have been had the promises been kept. Such damages are not recoverable through promissory estop-pel.”). 18 . Wells v. Hico Indep. Sch. Dist., 736 F.2d 243, 251 n. 9 (5th Cir.1984). 19 . Brown v. Slenker, 220 F.3d 411, 421 n. 9 (5th Cir.2000). 20 . Gomez v. St. Jude Med. Daig Div. Inc., 442 F.3d 919, 927 (5th Cir.2006). 21 . Mayo v. Tri-Bell Indus., Inc., 787 F.2d 1007, 1012 (5th Cir.1986). 22 . Washington v. Dep't of Transp., 8 F.3d 296, 299 (5th Cir.1993). 23 . See Young v. Repine (In re Repine), 536 F.3d 512, 518 n. 5 (5th Cir.2008). 24 . Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(g)(2). 25 . See Coco v. United States, 569 F.2d 367, 372 (5th Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>). 26 . See Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(a)(3) ("A matter is Options: A. holding that the district court did not err by concluding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance motion to withdraw and motion for reconsideration and rehearing B. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to strike when movant failed to show prejudice C. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply laches where the only prejudice shown by the government was attributable to its own delay rather than to that of the movant D. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a rule 56f motion for a continuance where the movant had ample time in which to pursue the discovery that it now claims is essential E. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion for continuance when not in proper affidavit form

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to strike when movant failed to show prejudice
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 constitutes the sole and entire agreement of the Parties to this Agreement with respect to the subject matter contained herein, and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous understandings, agreements, representations and warranties, both written and oral, with respect to such subject matter.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: she is free to leave, State v. Kemmerlin, 356 N.C. 446, 457, 573 S.E.2d 870, 880 (2002), whether the suspect is handcuffed, we do not find that “a reasonable person in defendant’s position would have believed that he was under arrest or was restrained in his movement to that significant degree.” Garcia, 358 N.C. at 396-97, 597 S.E.2d at 737. As a result, defendant was not in custody when he arrived at the Raleigh Police Station on the morning of 9 November 2005, nor was he placed in custody upon entering the interview room or during the interviews prior to his acknowledgment that he stabbed the victim. Because these statements were voluntary and would have been admissible if offered into evidence, no issue arises under Missouri v. Seibert. 542 U.S. 600 passim, 159 L. Ed. 2d 643 passim (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the statements made after Options: A. holding that statements elicited during custodial interrogation of child are inadmissible unless parents are present B. holding that in the absence of police coercion a subsequent administration of miranda warnings to a suspect who has given a voluntary but unwarned statement ordinarily should suffice to remove the conditions that precluded admission of the earlier statement C. holding that a statement given after miranda warnings have been administered may be inadmissable when police have elicited a previous unwarned statement during a custodial interrogation D. holding that although defendants voluntarily given initial statement was inadmissible because of miranda violation subsequent statement made after careful miranda warnings were given and waiver was obtained was admissible E. holding that police officers sworn affidavit that miranda warnings were given was held sufficient to deny suppression of defendants postarrest statement in the absence of properlysupported statement by defendant to the contrary

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a statement given after miranda warnings have been administered may be inadmissable when police have elicited a previous unwarned statement during a custodial interrogation
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: 789 F.3d 335, 341 (4th Cir. 2015). In Doctor, the Fourth Circuit held that South Carolina strong arm robbery categorically falls under the ACCA’s force clause and thus still constitutes a violent felony even after Johnson. 842 F.3d at 312. Courts’ interpretations of the ACCA’s violent-felony definition “apply with equal force” to § 4B1.2(1)’s crime-of-violence definition. United States v. Jarmon, 596 F.3d 228, 231 n.* (4th Cir. 2010). South Carolina strong arm robbery is a lesser-included offense of armed robbery. State v. Scipio, 283 S.C. 124, 322 S.E.2d 15, 16 (1984). As that lesser-included offense is categorically a crime of violence under the force clause, “it necessarily follows” that armed robbery is, too. Cf. United States v. Chisolm, 579 Fed.Appx. 187, 195-96 (4th Cir. 2014) (<HOLDING>). So is South Carolina attempted armed robbery. Options: A. holding that 215 is categorically a crime of violence for purposes of ussg 2l12 B. holding that previous domestic violence finding did not have res judicata effect in proceeding to modify visitation because domestic violence and visitation modification proceedings are different causes of action C. holding that battery under wyoming law did not necessarily qualify as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence D. holding that bank robbery by force and violence or intimidation under 18 usc 2113a is a crime of violence E. holding south carolina crime of criminal domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature was categorically a crime of violence under ussg 4b121 because its lesserincluded offense criminal domestic violence fell entirely within 4b12ls force clause

assistant: The best answer is E. holding south carolina crime of criminal domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature was categorically a crime of violence under ussg 4b121 because its lesserincluded offense criminal domestic violence fell entirely within 4b12ls force clause
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: petitioner had ruled out alternative causes for his alleged vaccine injury. The special master did not apply the law correctly in this instance. The binding precedent of de Bazan, 539 F.3d at 1352 n. 3, Walther, 485 F.3d at 1151, and Pafford, 451 F.3d at 1357-59, permits a petitioner to rule out alternative causes as a supplement to other evidence that goes to the three Althen prongs. Here, the court has no finding of the special master as to whether or not petitioner successfully ruled out alternative causes for Jessie’s illness, and it cannot determine whether such a finding would have aided petitioner in meeting his burden to establish a prima facie case. Because the special master’s legal analysis was deficient in this respect, remand is required. See Walther, 485 F.3d at 1151 (<HOLDING>) (citation and footnote omitted). The court Options: A. holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence B. holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review C. holding that although a jury instruction that included the phrase prima facie case and referred to defendants burden of production created a distinct risk of confusing the jury in certain instances it would be appropriate to instruct the jury on the elements of a prima facie case D. holding that the question of causation in a prima facie case of retaliation brought under general statutes 46a60 is factual in nature and thereby subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review E. holding that a petitioner is certainly permitted to use evidence eliminating other potential causes to help carry the burden on causation and may find it necessary to do so when the other evidence on causation is insufficient to make out a prima facie case and in such instances clearly the special master must evaluate what evidence a claimant presents as part of determining whether the claimant makes a prima facie case

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a petitioner is certainly permitted to use evidence eliminating other potential causes to help carry the burden on causation and may find it necessary to do so when the other evidence on causation is insufficient to make out a prima facie case and in such instances clearly the special master must evaluate what evidence a claimant presents as part of determining whether the claimant makes a prima facie 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the petitioner’s “subsequent release from custody does not itself deprive the federal habeas court of its statutory jurisdiction.” Tyars v. Finner, 709 F.2d 1274, 1279 (9th Cir.1983). Physical custody is not indispensable to confer jurisdiction. “History, usage, and precedent can leave no doubt that, besides physical imprisonment, there are other restraints on a man’s liberty, restraints not shared by the public generally, which have been thought sufficient in the English-speaking world to support the issuance of habeas corpus.” Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 240, 83 S.Ct. 373, 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963). “[T]he boundary that limits the ‘in custody’ requirement is the line between a ‘restraint on liberty’ and a ‘collateral consequence of a conviction.’ ” Williamson, 151 F.3d at 1183-84 (<HOLDING>). These above precedents go to the first Options: A. recognizing for the first time that the habeas court had the power to retain the petitioner in conditional custody before granting relief B. recognizing that federal habeas statutes require petitioner to be in custody when petition filed C. holding habeas petition challenging denial of custody credits is not related to the conditions of confinement and was properly brought in the district of conviction D. holding that compliance with registration statute did not abrogate common law and statutory trademark law E. holding that a habeas petitioner challenging washingtons sexoffender registration law did not meet the in custody requirement because the law did not impose a significant restraint on the petitioners liberty

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a habeas petitioner challenging washingtons sexoffender registration law did not meet the in custody requirement because the law did not impose a significant restraint on the petitioners liberty
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: Employee has the right to revoke this Agreement within seven (7) calendar days of its execution. To revoke this Agreement, Employee must hand-deliver or email the revocation to Scot F. Rogers, Executive V.P. and General Counsel at s.rogers@f5.com by no later than 5:00 p.m. Pacific time on the seventh day after Employee signs this Agreement. If Employee effectively revokes this Agreement, all of the promises made by Employee and Employer through or related to this Agreement will not be effective. This Agreement shall become effective on the eighth day after delivery of this executed Agreement by Employee to Employer, provided that Employee has not revoked the Agreement and provided that the conditions precedent have been met, including execution of the Letter of Resignation (“Effective Date”).

assistant: Effective Dates
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 as provided in Section 9.3 of the Plan, upon the Participant’s Payment Date, any amounts payable under the Plan shall be paid in a lump sum or in substantially equal annual installments over the Installment Payment Period, in accordance with the Participant’s Distribution Election or Change Election, as applicable. Installment payments shall be treated as a single payment for purposes of Code Section 409A.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Pay its obligations in respect of all Tax liabilities, assessments and governmental charges, before the same shall become delinquent or in default, except where (i) Parent or a Subsidiary thereof has set aside on its books adequate reserves therefor in accordance with GAAP and, to the extent due and payable pursuant to a governmental assessment, the amount thereof is being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings or (ii) the failure to make payment could not reasonably be expected, individually or in the aggregate, 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Subject to the ReadyCap Limitation on Liability, each Borrower agrees to pay as and when billed by the Lender (a) all reasonable and documented out-of-pocket expenses of the Lender associated with the Facility (including but not limited to a collateral audit and originator/servicing review to be performed by a third party auditor/appraiser selected by Lender) and the preparation, execution, delivery and administration of this Loan Agreement and the Loan Documents and any amendment or waiver with respect thereto (including the reasonable fees, disbursements and other charges of counsel, (b) all reasonable and documented out-of-pocket expenses of the Lender and the Lender’s counsel (including the fees, disbursements and other charges of counsel) in connection with the enforcement of the Loan Documents, (c) reasonable and documented on-going audit and due diligence expenses (including small business loan file and appraisal or other valuation reviews and inspections) including, but not limited to, those costs and expenses incurred by the Lender pursuant to Section 14 hereof, (d) all documented fees and expenses of the Custodian and (e) all the Costs pursuant to Section 11.01 .

assistant: Expenses
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: Holdings and each of its Subsidiaries has conducted its businesses in compliance with the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, the UK Bribery Act 2010, and other similar anti-corruption legislation in other jurisdictions and have instituted and maintained policies and procedures designed to promote and achieve compliance with such laws.

assistant: Anti-Corruption 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: Southern Milk Sales, Inc. v. Martin, T.C. Jacoby & Co., 924 F.2d 98, 103 (6th Cir.1991); cf. 19 Charles Wright, Arthur Miller & Edward Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4513 (2009) (noting that federal standards apply to preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders because they are “neither final determinations of the parties’ rights nor final relief’ in contrast to permanent injunctions which “involve entirely different considerations, and in general may be granted in a diversity ease only if authorized by the relevant state law”). Even if application of federal standards were to lead to a different result than Colorado law, the Court would apply federal preliminary injunction standards. See Ferrero v. Associated Materials Inc., 923 F.2d 1441, 1448 (11th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Here, Big O requests a preliminary injunction Options: A. holding that when there are no other remedies it is appropriate for the courts to imply one under the state constitution B. holding that under alabama law the law of the forum applies to procedural matters and that in most instances the statute of limitations is considered to be a procedural rule C. holding that equitable relief is only appropriate where legal remedies are inadequate D. holding that in diversity cases federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law E. holding that fedrcivp 65 is a procedural rule and applying it in a case arising out of a covenant not to compete where the state law presumed that injunctions are appropriate remedies and that they should issue except in limited cases

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that fedrcivp 65 is a procedural rule and applying it in a case arising out of a covenant not to compete where the state law presumed that injunctions are appropriate remedies and that they should issue except in limited cases
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: direct financial benefit from the infringing activity and ‘has the right and ability to supervise’ the infringing activity.” Id. (quoting Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir.2004)). Bridgeport argues that Universal is liable for both vicarious and contributory infringement of Change Gone Come. The vicarious liability, it argues, arose because Universal “has the right to police the infringements” of T-Funk. It, however, has not supported this assertion with evidence. While Universal entered into an exclusive publishing agreement with Hutton, the agreement merely provides Universal with the right to own and exploit his works, not to control his song writing activities. Cf. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 750-51, 109 S.Ct. 2166, 104 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989) (<HOLDING>). There is no vicarious liability because Options: A. holding that conversion and unjust enrichment claims were preempted by the copyright act since they were not qualitatively different from a copyright claim because they contained no extra element beyond those necessary to show copyright infringement B. holding that while the computer program at issue was within the subject matter of copyright the right sought under state law pursuant to a license was not equivalent to the exclusive rights under copyright as such copyright preemption did not apply C. recognizing that copyright offices interpretation of copyright act should ordinarily receive deference D. holding that a plaintiff may recover damages under both the lanham act and the copyright act provided the copyright damages serve a purpose other than compensation E. holding that the copyright act distinguishes between employees and independent contractors for copyright possession

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the copyright act distinguishes between employees and independent contractors for copyright possession
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: With respect to Tenant's use and occupancy of the Premises and Project (including the Common Areas), Tenant shall indemnify, defend (by counsel reasonably acceptable to Landlord), protect, and hold Landlord and each of Landlord's Representatives, free and harmless from and against any and all Losses for death of or injury to any person or damage to any property whatsoev-er (including, without limitation, diminution in value), related to, arising from or caused in whole or in part, directly or indi-rectly, by (i) the presence in, on, under or about the Premises, or discharge in or from the Premises, of any Hazard-ous Mate-rials during the Term of this Lease by Tenant or Tenant’s Representative, expressly excluding Hazardous Materials used, released or discharged by Landlord, any Landlord Representatives, any previous tenant of the Premises and/or any adjacent landowner or easement holder (except as otherwise described below regarding any ACM in, on, under or about the Premises); (ii) the use, analysis, generation, manufacture, production, storage, release, transpor-ta-tion, dispos-al, release, threatened release, dis-charge or generation of Hazardous Materials to, in, on, under, about or from the Premises or Project caused or contributed to by Tenant; or (iii) Tenant's failure to comply with any Hazardous Materials Law. Tenant's obligations here-under shall include, without limitation, and whether foreseeable or unfore-seeable (a) all costs of any required or necessary repair, cleanup or detoxification or decontamination of the Premises and/or Project, (b) the preparation and imple-mentation of any closure, remedial action or other required plans in connection therewith, and (c) any claims, liabili-ties, penalties, forfei-tures, losses or expenses (includ-ing attorneys' fees and costs), however described, to the extent related to, arising from or caused in whole or in part, directly or indi-rectly, by any operations, work, or other acts or omissions of Tenant, including any Alterations, which damages, disturbs, makes friable, or otherwise adversely affects any ACM located in, on, under or about the Premises, and all such obligations shall sur-vive the expiration or earlier termination of the this Lease. For purposes of the release and indemnity provisions hereof, any acts or omissions of Tenant and/or Tenant’s Representatives or others acting for or on behalf of Tenant (whether or not they are negligent, intentional, willful or unlawful) shall be strictly attributable to Tenant.

assistant: Indemnity