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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: plaintiffs to prove: (1) that Northshore violated federal antitrust law; and (2) that the antitrust violation caused them some injury. In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305, 311 (3d Cir.2008); Blades, 400 F.3d at 566; Bell Atlantic Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 339 F.3d 294, 302 (5th Cir.2003). The same cases, and many others, also show that plaintiffs also must show damages, but individual proof of this element of a claim under the Clayton Act is not an obstacle to a showing of predominance. It is well established that the presence of individualized questions regarding damages does not prevent certification under Rule 23(b)(3). See WalMart v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. at 2558 (deeming it “clear that individualized monetary claims belong in Rule 23(b)(3)”); Arreola, 546 F.3d at 801 (<HOLDING>); Hardy v. City Optical, Inc., 39 F.3d 765, 771 Options: A. holding that appeal from denial of rule 60b motion raised for review only the district courts order of denial and not the underlying judgment itself B. holding that class seeking monetary damages in addition to medical monitoring did not seek certification pursuant to 23b2 only 23b3 C. holding that certification under rule 23b3 was not appropriate because plaintiffs claims for compensatory and punitive damages must therefore focus almost entirely on facts and issues specific to individuals rather than the class as a whole D. recognizing that actions for damages are best certified under rule 23b3 E. recognizing that the need for individual damages determinations does not in and of itself require denial of a motion for certification under rule 23b3

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that the need for individual damages determinations does not in and of itself require denial of a motion for certification under rule 23b3
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: upon our receipt of a proper notice of claimed infringement under the dmca , we will respond expeditiously to remove , or disable access to , the material claimed to be infringing and will follow the procedures specified in the dmca to resolve the claim between the notifying party and the alleged infringer who provided the content in issue .

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: the scientific community.”). The vast majority of the federal courts have held that qualitative and differential diagnoses, as were conducted by the Plaintiffs experts in this instance, are valid means of determining causation. See, e.g., Hardyman, 243 F.3d at 261 (recognizing differential diagnosis as “an acceptable method of determining causation”); Westberry, 178 F.3d at 266 (“A reliable differential diagnosis provides a valid basis for an expert opinion on causation.”); Heller, 167 F.3d at 157 (allowing the admission of expert testimony based on a differential diagnosis and rejecting the view that medical experts must “always rely on published studies indicating the exposure necessary to cause a particular illness”); Kennedy v. Collagen Corp., 161 F.3d 1226, 1228-30 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Baker v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust, 156 Options: A. holding that trial court abused its discretion by excluding expert opinion on causation where the expert relied upon scientific and clinical studies of the connection between collagen and autoimmune disorders as well as an examination of the plaintiff and her medical history B. holding trial court acted within its discretion in excluding expert testimony C. holding that a trial court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of an expert witness where the testimony would have been relevant to show that the defendant breached a duty of care D. holding that the trial court had erred by excluding the expert testimony of a doctor E. holding that lower court abused its discretion in excluding plaintiffs expert where experts opinion was based on a differential diagnosis rather than epidemiologic evidence

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that trial court abused its discretion by excluding expert opinion on causation where the expert relied upon scientific and clinical studies of the connection between collagen and autoimmune disorders as well as an examination of the plaintiff and her medical history
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: they had already addressed in their instructions to the IT staff. The Court concludes that this factor tips against a finding of waiver in the present case. B. Scope of Discovery Versus Extent of Disclosure Courts generally decline to find waiver when “a relatively small number of privileged documents were disclosed in comparison to the total number of documents produced.” Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center v. Institute of International Education, 1995 WL 491491, at *7, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11776, at *23 & n. 6 (S.D.N.Y. August 17, 1995) (finding twenty pages of inadvertently disclosed documents a “relatively small” number relative to the total of 75,000 pages produced). See also Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co., 104 F.R.D. 103, 105 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (<HOLDING>). This factor recognizes the reality that “it Options: A. holding loss of documents and death of witness did not impair defense where both events occurred when there was no presumption of prejudice B. holding an agency need not demonstrate that all responsive documents were found and that no other relevant documents could possibly exist C. holding that pursuant to the best evidence rule trial testimony relying on documents was inadmissible without submission of such documents or an explanation as to why the documents were unavailable D. holding that unauthorized disclosure of documents does not constitute a waiver of the applicable foia exemption E. holding that no waiver occurred when twentytwo protected documents were accidentally produced out of a total of 16000 pages reviewed

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that no waiver occurred when twentytwo protected documents were accidentally produced out of a total of 16000 pages reviewed
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 anything herein to the contrary, this Agreement may be terminated at any time by any Purchaser (with respect to the obligations of such Purchaser) or the Company, upon written notice to the other party, if the Closing shall not have occurred on or before the date that is three months from the date hereof (the “ Outside Date ”); provided, however, that the right to terminate this Agreement under this Section 4.13 shall not be available to any party whose (i) breach of any provision of this Agreement, (ii) failure to comply with their obligations under this Agreement or (iii) actions not taken in good faith, shall have been the cause of, or shall have resulted in, the failure of a Closing to occur on or prior to the Outside Date or the failure of a condition in Section 2.3 to be satisfied at such time.

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: The representations and warranties set forth in this Agreement shall survive the Closing indefinitely. None of the covenants or other agreements contained in this Agreement shall survive the Closing other than those which by their terms contemplate performance after the Closing, and each such surviving covenant and agreement shall survive the Closing for the period contemplated by its terms.

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: Each Loan Party maintains the insurance and required services and financial assurance as required by Section 7.01(h). Schedule 6.01(s) sets forth a list of all insurance policies maintained by each Loan Party on the Effective Date. Each Loan Party shall take all actions required under the Flood Laws and/or reasonably requested by the Collateral Agent to assist in ensuring that each Lender is in compliance with the Flood Laws applicable to any Real Property that is subject to a Mortgage, if applicable, including, but not limited to, providing Collateral Agent with the address and/or GPS coordinates of each structure on any Real Property that is or will be subject to a Mortgage in favor of Collateral Agent, for the benefit of the Lenders, and, to the extent required, obtaining flood insurance for such property, structures and contents prior to or upon such property, structures and contents becoming Collateral, and thereafter maintaining such flood insurance in full force and effect for so long as required by the Flood Laws.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provision of the Plan or any Cash Incentive is determined to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any jurisdiction, or as to any person, or would disqualify the Plan or any Cash Incentive under any law deemed applicable by the Committee, such provision shall be construed or deemed amended to conform to applicable laws, or, if it cannot be so construed or deemed amended without, in the Committee's determination, materially altering the intent of the Plan or the Cash Incentive, such provision shall be stricken as to such jurisdiction, person or Cash Incentive, and the remainder of the Plan and any such Cash Incentive shall remain in full force and effect.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: skyscanner may in its absolute discretion immediately terminate any agreement with you under these terms at any time upon notice to you and/or , if you have a log-in account , by cancelling your membership and your access to your account .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and any dispute or controversy arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall, in all respects, be governed by and construed according to the laws of the State of North Carolina, without regard to its conflict of laws provisions. Any suit or other proceeding arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be instituted and maintained in the state or federal courts of North Carolina sitting in Mecklenburg County, and the parties hereby waive any objection to such jurisdiction and venue and irrevocably submit to the jurisdiction of such court in any such action or proceeding.

assistant: Governing 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: (D. Md. 2014). With no record of comprehensive state regulation or paying clients before us, we cannot say that the ordinance regulates professional speech. C. Because the commercial speech and professional speech doctrines are inapplicable in this case, the Baltimore ordinance’s compulsion “to utter or distribute speech bearing a particular message” receives heightened scrutiny. Turner Broad. Sys., 512 U.S. at 642, 114 S.Ct. 2445. As a result, the ordinance calls for more searching review than the relaxed standards advocated by the City. The essentially factual nature of the compelled disclaimer does not diminish the need and philosophical beliefs that the state wishes to have said. See W. Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943) (<HOLDING>). These adjunct rights have become crucial to Options: A. holding that school district policy requiring that students obtain the review and approval of school officials prior to distributing any written material violated free speech rights of students B. holding that students refusal to stand during the pledge of allegiance was constitutionally protected by first amendment C. holding that school could not compel students to salute american flag D. holding that a public school cannot compel students to perform the pledge of allegiance E. holding that the government may not compel school students to recite the pledge

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a public school cannot compel students to perform the pledge of allegiance
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: marks omitted). ¶16 Applying that definition here, we conclude that, under all of the circumstances presented, the City had a reasonable suspicion that LaMont had consumed alcohol. As noted, Supervisor and Attorney both observed that LaMont smelled like alcohol, that his eyes were bloodshot and his face puffy, that his speech was slow, and that he appeared agitated. These circumstances, taken together, have been held to constitute reasonable articulable suspicion in the criminal context. See, e.g., State v. Perkins, 2009 UT App 390, ¶ 14, 222 P.3d 1198 (concluding that officers had reasonable suspicion where the defendant exhibited “red eyes and slurred speech, was slow to respond ... and stumbled upon leaving the vehicle”); see also State v. Morris, 2011 UT 40, ¶ 27, 259 P.3d 116 (<HOLDING>). We draw a similar conclusion here. ¶17 Options: A. holding that the court of appeals properly concluded that the odor of marijuana emanating from defendants vehicle constituted probable cause to search the vehicle B. holding that the smell of alcohol emanating from the defendants vehicle was enough to generate reasonable suspicion C. holding that the smell of marijuana gave the police probable cause to search the vehicle D. holding that a smell associated with pcp was enough to establish probable cause E. holding that alcohol odor provided probable cause to search vehicle for open container and smell of burnt marijuana justified search of entire vehicle for drugs

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the smell of alcohol emanating from the defendants vehicle was enough to generate reasonable suspicion
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: grandchild through visitation rights can be a precious component of successful child rearing. Id. at 1017-18. The Bakers also contend that Lee's visitation was not "grandparent visitation" under the GVA and so could not survive the adoption because the pre-existing visitation order originated in the trial court overseeing the (subsequently terminated) guardianship. We find this argument to be a disingenuous attempt to defeat Lee's rights as a grandparent. It is because Lee is a grandparent of children born out of wedlock, and thus a qualifying relative under the GVA, that he was able to seek and obtain an order from the Scott Cireuit Court for visitation with the Children. See Ind.Code § 31-17-5-1(a)(8). See also In re Guardianship of J.E.M., 870 N.E.2d 517, 519 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007) (<HOLDING>). The visitation order from the guardianship Options: A. holding even when a request for an attorney is ambiguous it is incumbent upon law enforcement to seek clarification of the ambiguity before denying the statutory right to counsel B. recognizing right of prisoners to seek relief under 42 usc 1983 for denial of access to the courts C. recognizing that section 5 is inapplicable when the parties have specified an exclusive arbitral forum but that forum is no longer available D. holding that a twoyear suspension of visitation privileges did not violate either the first amendments right to freedom of association E. recognizing we have consistently held that the gva is the exclusive method for grandparents to seek visitation with their grandchildren and that there is no longer an independent common law right for grandparents to seek visitation

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing we have consistently held that the gva is the exclusive method for grandparents to seek visitation with their grandchildren and that there is no longer an independent common law right for grandparents to seek visitation
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: There are no actions, suits or proceedings by or before any arbitrator or Governmental Authority pending against or, to the knowledge of the Borrower, threatened against or affecting the Borrower or any Subsidiary (i) as to which there is a reasonable possibility of an adverse determination and that, if adversely determined, could reasonably be expected, individually or in the aggregate, to result in a Material Adverse Effect (other than the Disclosed Matters) or (ii) that involve any of the Loan Documents or the Transactions.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: to register for a paid subscription , you must be 18 or older , or be 13 or older and have parent or guardian consent ( your parents/guardians will enter into contract on behalf of you ) .

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: ... shall exist within the United States,” U.S. Const, amend. XIII, § 1, and empowers Congress to enforce its provisions, see U.S. Const, amend. XIII, § 2. The Supreme Court has interpreted this grant of power broadly, finding that Congress can affirmatively enforce the ban on slavery and involuntary servitude, and enact legislation to erase “all badges and incidents of slavery in the United States.” Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 20, 3 S.Ct. 18, 27 L.Ed. 835 (1883). Moreover, in Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 88 S.Ct. 2186, 20 L.Ed.2d 1189 (1968), the Supreme Court opened the door to the inclusion of private acts of racial discrimination within the “badges and incidents of slavery” language as stated in the Civil Rights Cases. See Jones, 392 U.S. at 413, 88 S.Ct. 2186 (<HOLDING>). Although the Thirteenth Amendment was Options: A. holding that 42 usc 1982 a provision of the civil rights act of 1866 which allows victims of racial discrimination to sue private defendants was a valid exercise of congress thirteenth amendment authority B. holding official immunity is available in claims of discrimination if plaintiff fails to establish his treatment by defendants was so at variance with what would reasonably be anticipated absent racial discrimination that racial discrimination is the probable explanation C. holding that civil rights claims under 42 usc 1981 and 1982 are personal injury tort claims D. holding that the retaliation provision of title vii is an adequate exercise of congress authority under section 5 of the fourteenth amendment E. holding that 18 usc 245 a statute passed on the same day as 42 usc 3631 and for similar purposes constituted a valid enactment under congress thirteenth amendment authority as applied to racially motivated interference with federallyprotected rights

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that 42 usc 1982 a provision of the civil rights act of 1866 which allows victims of racial discrimination to sue private defendants was a valid exercise of congress thirteenth amendment authority
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: be admissible as evidence in a civil action for the recovery of a stolen vehicle, or in any other civil action arising out of the theft of a motor vehicle. NMSA 1978, § 66-7-353 (1978). {12} The purpose of Section 66-7-353 is to protect the welfare and safety of the public by requiring owners of cars to take reasonable measures “to prevent acts which could lead to an automobile inadvertently moving without intention that it should,” Bouldin v. Sategna, 71 N.M. 329, 332, 378 P.2d 370, 372 (1963), and we believe that the provision, by requiring that one in possession of an automobile take reasonable measures to avoid leaving the keys in the ignition, implicitly contains a policy to deter theft. See Richardson v. Carnegie Library Rest., Inc., 107 N.M. 688, 701, 763 P.2d 1153, 1166 (1988) (<HOLDING>), limited on other grounds by Trujillo v. City Options: A. holding that the scope of a government employees first amendment rights depends on the balance between the interests of the employee as a citizen in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the state as an employer in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees B. holding public safety exception to miranda warning requirement did not apply where there was no evidence gun had been left in public place C. recognizing that preventing the theft of automobiles left unlocked and unattended with the keys in the ignition would be conducive to promoting public safety D. holding that even without expert testimony the grand jurors common knowledge of the nature of fire would have allowed them to conclude that a fire spreads and becomes more dangerous the longer it is left unattended E. holding that an automobiles title history was admissible under the public records exception

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that preventing the theft of automobiles left unlocked and unattended with the keys in the ignition would be conducive to promoting public safety
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: 831, 838 (Alaska 2015) (quoting Bigley v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 208 P.3d 168, 187 (Alaska 2009)). 15 . Cowan, 255 P.3d at 974. 16 . Penn v. Ivey, 615 P.2d 1, 4 n.4 (Alaska 1980) (quoting Albert v. Declue, 526 S.W.2d 39, 40 (Mo.App.1975)) (first citing Knapp v. Wise, 122 Ariz. 327, 594 P.2d 1023 (App.1979); then citing Gospel Echos Chapel Inc. v. Wadsworth, 19 Ariz.App. 382, 507 P.2d 994 (1973); then citing Cole v. Burleson, 375 So.2d 1046 (Miss.1979); and then citing Swecker v. Dorn, 181 Mont. 436, 593 P.2d 1055 (1979)). 17 . Peters v. Juneau-Douglas Girl Scout Council, 519 P.2d 826, 830 (Alaska 1974). 18 . See Penn, 615 P.2d at 4. 19 . Vezey v. Green, 35 P.3d 14, 22 (Alaska 2001) (quoting Nome 2000 v. Fagerstrom, 799 P.2d 304, 309 (Alaska 1990)) (citing Peters, 519 P.2d at 831) (<HOLDING>); see also Nome 2000, .799 P.2d at 310 (holding Options: A. holding that use of traffic signal equipment was inconsistent with sellers ownership and constituted acceptance B. recognizing that a temporary use of property does not automatically create an expectation of privacy in that property C. holding evidence which established that use of property was permissive showed use of property was not adverse D. holding that allowing moderate use of the resources on the property was not inconsistent with exclusive use E. holding that the amendment was a use regulation which was in effect a condition on the use of property in the affected zone

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that allowing moderate use of the resources on the property was not inconsistent with exclusive use
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: or as a false statement.” I read the comment to imply that it could be similarly “punished” under North Dakota law but that the Bureau was seeking specific declaration to that effect. Thus, I believe this is an amendment intended to clarify existing law under Efferiz v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 525 N.W.2d 691 (N.D.1994). [¶ 18] We should not discourage clarification of statutes with the threat that clarifications may be used to render useless existing law. [¶ 19] When the statute is clear and unambiguous, we look only to the face of the statute to determine legislative intent, In re Craig, 545 N.W.2d 764 (N.D.1996), and when the statute is clear and unambiguous, we cannot disregard it under the pretext of pursuing legislative intent. Ad 998 ND 40, 575 N.W.2d 436 (<HOLDING>). [¶ 21] It is elementary that under separation Options: A. holding that an attorney who made false representations to a court did not violate okla rpc 33 because that rule addresses professional misconduct as an advocate for making false statements to a tribunal not false statements by a lawyer as a witness B. holding that false statements are constitutionally protected C. holding that defendant could be charged for making false statements to treasury officials under the tax evasion statute or the statute prohibiting false statements to government officials D. holding alj did not specifically find false statements to be willful for purposes of forfeiting future benefits under ndcc 650533 E. holding that good faith is a defense to the willful filing of false statements under 18 usc 1001

assistant: The best answer is D. holding alj did not specifically find false statements to be willful for purposes of forfeiting future benefits under ndcc 650533
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: Time Warner, 9 F.3d at 268-69; Beck v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 820 F.2d 46. 50 (2d Cir.1987), overruled on other grounds United States v. Indelicato, 865 F.2d 1370 (2d Cir.1989) (en banc). The current debate percolating in federal district courts, and represented by the parties’ respective positions in this case, is whether the PSLRA adopted a “strong inference” standard which incorporates (in part or in whole) the Second Circuit’s precedent or whether the PSLRA adopted a standard more stringent than the Second Circuit’s, rendering that precedent inapplicable. Compare Rehm v. Eagle Finance Corp., 954 F.Supp. 1246 (N.D.Ill.1997) (following prePSLRA Second Circuit case law), with In re Silicon Graphics, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 96-0393, 1996 WL 664639 (N.D.Cal. Sept. 25, 1996) (<HOLDING>). Even assuming arguendo that Congress intended Options: A. holding that congress intended to adopt a standard more stringent than the prepslra second circuit standard B. holding the pslra standard for pleading scienter is more stringent than the second circuits standard prior to the act and that motive and opportunity is not an independent basis to show defendants had scienter C. holding that terry parental unfitness standard is more stringent than the dependency best interests standard D. recognizing the circuit split and applying the subjective standard as more stringent without deciding which standard applies E. recognizing that the federal pleading standard is a less stringent standard than the delaware pleading standard

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that congress intended to adopt a standard more stringent than the prepslra second circuit standard
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 Indemnified Parties may enforce the obligations of Indemnitor without first resorting to, or exhausting any security or collateral under, or without first having recourse to, the Note, the Loan Agreement, the Security Instruments or any other Loan Documents or any of the Individual Properties, through foreclosure proceedings or otherwise; provided, however, that nothing herein shall inhibit or prevent Indemnitee from suing on the Note, foreclosing, or exercising any power of sale under the Security Instruments, or exercising any other rights and remedies thereunder. This Agreement is not collateral or security for the Debt, unless Indemnitee expressly elects in writing to make this Agreement additional collateral or security for the Debt, which Indemnitee is entitled to do in its sole and absolute discretion. It is not necessary for an Event of Default to have occurred for Indemnified Parties to exercise their rights pursuant to this Agreement. Notwithstanding any provision of the Loan Agreement, Indemnitor is fully and personally liable for such obligations under this Agreement, and such liability is not limited to the original or amortized principal balance of the Loan or the value of each Individual Property.

assistant: Enforcements
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 and each Subsidiary (a) is duly incorporated or otherwise organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the jurisdiction of its formation, (b) is duly qualified to do business as a foreign entity and is in good standing in each jurisdiction where the nature of the property owned or leased by it or the nature of the business conducted by it makes such qualification necessary, except where the failure to be so qualified would not have a Material Adverse Effect, and (c) has all requisite corporate power and authority to own or lease and operate its assets and carry on its business as presently being conducted as disclosed in the SEC Reports.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Executive shall receive an initial annual base salary of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00), payable according to the Company’s normal payroll policies and procedures (the “Base Salary”) and subject to all federal, state, and municipal withholding requirements. The Base Salary shall be reviewed by the Board annually.

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: CDC will notify promptly Company if it becomes aware of a Claim (actual or potential) by any third party (a “ Third Party Claim ”) for which indemnification may be sought by CDC and will give such information with respect thereto as Company shall reasonably request. If any proceeding (including any governmental investigation) is instituted involving any Party for which a CDC Indemnified Party may seek an indemnity under Section 9.1, the CDC Indemnified Party shall not make any admission or statement concerning such Third Party Claim, but shall promptly notify Company orally and in writing and Company and CDC Indemnified Party shall meet to discuss how to respond to any Third Party Claims that are the subject matter of such proceeding. Company shall not be obligated to indemnify the CDC Indemnified Party to the extent any admission or statement made by the CDC Indemnified Party or any failure by such CDC Indemnified Party to notify Company of the claim materially prejudices the defense of such claim.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: any request for payment of fees by ebay should be submitted by mail to the aaa along with your demand for arbitration and ebay will make arrangements to pay all necessary fees directly to the aaa .

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 these witnesses would have been unreasonably burdensome, impractical, and costly given the considerable distance they would have been required to travel. See, e.g., Bell, 785 F.2d at 644 (noting that “considerable expense” to secure the personal appearance of Kansas officers at a revocation hearing in Arkansas weighed in favor of finding good cause not to require appearance, but declining to reach the issue). The facts presented here are distinguishable from those presented in United States v. Johnson, 710 F.3d 784, 786 (8th Cir. 2013), where the government offered no explanation for the arresting officer’s unavailability, even though the defendant’s revocation hearing was held in the same state in which the absent officer’s duty station was located. See Bell, 785 F.2d at 644-45 (<HOLDING>). In addition, the government demonstrated that Options: A. holding that a judges constitutional challenges to commissions admonition would have been considered by the arkansas supreme court had such matters been on the record B. holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity where defendant officers could have reasonably believed that they were given sufficient third party consent to search C. holding that there was no show of authority when two officers repeatedly asked an individual where is your girls house but where the two officers were still in their car neither officer displayed his weapon there was no physical touching and no indication as to the language or tone of the officers voice that might have signaled a clear show of authority D. holding that the government failed to show that presenting live testimony of officers at revocation hearing in arkansas would have caused significant difficulty when those officers were also located in arkansas E. holding that compliance with an officers orders is a material fact when deciding whether the officers use of force was reasonable

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the government failed to show that presenting live testimony of officers at revocation hearing in arkansas would have caused significant difficulty when those officers were also located in arkansas
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: (6th Cir.), reh’g detiied (6th Cir.1997); Schagene v. United States, 37 Fed.Cl. 661, 663 (1997) (finding that it was not the intent of Congress to eliminate the in forma pauperis right of access to federal courts of eligible, indigent, non-prisoners), appeal dismissed, 152 F.3d 947, 1998 WL 187786 (Fed.Cir.1998); see also In re Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1134 (6th Cir.1997) (discussing how to administer in forma pauperis rights to a non-prisoner, thereby acknowledging the rights of non-prisoners to apply for in forma pauperis status); Leonard v. Lacy, 88 F.3d 181, 183 (2d Cir.1996) (using "sic" following the word “prisoner” in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) seemingly to indicate that the use of that word was too narrow); Powell v. Hoover, 956 F.Supp. 564, 566 (M.D.Pa.1997) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) refers to Options: A. holding that where jurisdiction was based on 28 usc 2201 venue was determined as per 28 usc 1391 B. holding that venue for litigation was proper based on 28 usc 1441 regardless of whether defendant was doing business in the district within the meaning of 28 usc 1391 C. holding a bankruptcy court is not a court of the united states entitled to waive filing fees pursuant to 28 usc section 1915a D. holding that 28 usc 2401 is a jurisdictional statute of limitations E. holding that a fair reading of the entire section 28 usc 1915a1 is that it is not limited to prisoner suits

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a fair reading of the entire section 28 usc 1915a1 is that it is not limited to prisoner suits
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 disclosed in the SEC Documents, there is no action, suit, arbitration, proceeding, inquiry or investigation before or by the Principal Market, any court, public board, other Governmental Entity, self-regulatory organization or body pending or, to the knowledge of the Company, threatened in writing against or affecting the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, the Common Stock or any of the Company's or its Subsidiaries' officers or directors, whether of a civil or criminal nature or otherwise, in their capacities as such, which would reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect. After reasonable inquiry of its employees, the Company is not aware of any event which might result in or form the basis for any such action, suit, arbitration, investigation, inquiry or other proceeding. Without limitation of the foregoing, there has not been, and to the knowledge of the Company, there is not pending or contemplated, any investigation by the SEC involving the Company, any of its Subsidiaries or any current or former director or officer of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries. Neither the Company nor any of its Subsidiaries is the subject of any order, writ, judgment, injunction, decree, determination or award of any Governmental Entity that would reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Purchaser shall have received written consents in accordance with Section 8.5(c) from all Material Clients and from Clients and Intermediaries which, in the aggregate, comprise a minimum of ninety (90%) percent of the revenue of the Seller’s Business as of the Execution Date, and Purchaser shall have received reasonably satisfactory assurance from each Material Client that such Material Client expects to continue to maintain its accounts with Purchaser after the Closing in the same amounts and on the same terms as were in effect on the Execution Date, subject to changes by Material Clients in the ordinary course of business.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No ERISA Event has occurred and is continuing or is reasonably expected to occur that, when taken together with all other such ERISA Events for which liability is reasonably expected to occur, could reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect. The present value of all accumulated benefit obligations under all underfunded Plans (determined for each Plan based on the assumptions used for purposes of Accounting Standards Codification Topic 715) did not, as of the date of the most recent financial statements reflecting such amounts, exceed the fair market value of the assets of all such underfunded Plans by an amount that, if required to be paid by the Borrower and its Subsidiaries, could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. The minimum funding standards of ERISA and the Code with respect to each Plan have been satisfied except to the extent the failure to satisfy such standards could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Erisa
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: why Andrews could not rely on Monick’s testimony (regardless of whether Monick’s testimony was substantively true or false). Monick’s testimony established not that the truck was actually traveling 56 mph, but that it had to reach 56 mph for improperly stacked totes to tip. If Andrews’ eyewitnesses said the truck was going 35 mph, no expert testimony could support Andrews’ load-shift theory. With that the district court denied Andrews’ second Rule 59(e) motion as successive and untimely. The order denying Andrews’ second Rule 59(e) motion was entered on July 12, 2004, so Andrews still had two days to timely file a notice of appeal (thirty days from June 14 is July 14). See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A); FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a); see also Charles v. Daley, 799 F.2d 343, 347-48 (7th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Andrews did not appeal until July 19, 2004. Options: A. holding that an argument raised for the first time in a rule 59e motion is waived on appeal B. holding that successive new trial or jnov motions do not toll the time for serving the notice of appeal C. holding that successive rule 59e motions unlike timely filed ones do not toll the time for appealing D. holding that a motion filed as a rule 59e was not a motion to alter or amend the judgment and did not toll the time to file an appeal because the motion for costs was wholly collateral to thejudgment on the merits E. holding that successive posttrial motions do not toll the time for appeal

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that successive rule 59e motions unlike timely filed ones do not toll the time for appealing
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 he was responsible. Our conclusion that the district judge did not violate Rule 11 and that Lucas’s guilty plea was valid does not dispose of this issue, because Apprendi applies to cases on direct review involving sentences imposed before Apprendi was decided. See United States v. Flowal, 234 F.3d 932, 936 (6th Cir.2000) (applying Apprendi where the district court sentenced the defendant before Apprendi was decided). We must therefore determine whether Lucas’s sentence of 210 months (17.5 years) in prison and a five-year term of supervised release withstands review under Ap-prendi. If Lucas had admitted responsibility for either the 595.8 grams of crack cocaine that the district court attributed to him, or the 54.2 grams that were in Horton’s car when Lucas -52 (6th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). C. Amount of drugs attributable to Lucas Options: A. holding that the defendants sentence did not violate apprendi where the actual sentence imposed did not exceed the maximum penalty corresponding to the quantity of drugs for which the defendant acknowledged responsibility nor was the sentence at the bottom end of a higher statutory range of penalties B. holding that the defendants rights under apprendi were violated where the sentence was at the mandatory minimum for the judgedetermined drug quantity and the judge felt constrained by the statute to impose this sentence C. holding that even if the minimum mandatory exceeds the statutory maximum the court must impose the minimum mandatory D. holding where the statutory minimum sentence exceeds the guidelines sentence a substantialassistance downward departure begins at the mandatory minimum sentence E. holding that a sentence was based on a mandatory statutory minimum sentence even though it was lowered under another statute

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the defendants rights under apprendi were violated where the sentence was at the mandatory minimum for the judgedetermined drug quantity and the judge felt constrained by the statute to impose this sentence
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 and its Subsidiaries have filed all Federal, state and other material Tax returns and reports required to be filed, and have paid all Taxes, assessments, fees and other governmental charges levied or imposed upon them or their properties, income or assets otherwise due and payable, except those which are being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings diligently conducted and for which adequate reserves have been provided in accordance with GAAP. As of the date hereof, no Tax Lien has been filed against the Company, any Subsidiary, or any assets of either that could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. There is no proposed tax assessment against the Company or any Subsidiary that would, if made, have a Material Adverse Effect. Neither the Company nor any Subsidiary thereof is party to any tax sharing agreement.

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: of his wrongful conduct.” (citing U.S. Concrete Pipe Co. v. Bould, 437 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 1983))). But that is not what Ms. Herendeen seeks. She correctly observes that no public policy absolves Mandelbaum from the toll of the lawyers’ alleged malpractice. This makes sense. Punitive damages “operate as ‘private fines’ intended to punish the defendant and to deter future wrongdoing.” Engle v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 945 So.2d 1246, 1262 (Fla. 2006) (quoting Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Grp., Inc., 532 U.S. 424, 432, 121 S.Ct. 1678, 149 L.Ed.2d 674 (2001 , App. 1990) (same); Picadilly, Inc. v. Raikos, 555 N.E.2d 167, 169-70 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (same but client failed to prove essential elements of legal malpractice claim) (vacated on other grounds, 582 N.E.2d 338, 345 (Ind. 1991) (<HOLDING>)). If a lawyer is hired to represent someone in Options: A. holding that erisa does not preempt professional malpractice claims B. holding that there would be no exception to american rule on attorney fees for legal malpractice claims C. holding that plaintiffs could not sue attorneys for legal malpractice so long as underlying medical malpractice action out of which legal malpractice claim arose was still pending on appeal D. holding that legal malpractice claims are not assignable E. holding that a claim of legal malpractice under alabama law did not present a federal question

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that legal malpractice claims are not assignable