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: Seller complies, and has at all times since its inception complied, in all material respects with all applicable Laws. Seller has not, nor to Seller’s knowledge has any other Person, received any notice or other written communication at any time regarding any actual or alleged failure of Seller (as it relates to the Business) to comply with any applicable Law. Neither Seller nor any retained representative thereof has offered or given, and to Seller’s knowledge, no Person has offered or given on its behalf, anything of value to, in violation of applicable Law: (a) any official of a Governmental Entity, any political party or official thereof or any candidate for political office; (b) any customer or member of any Governmental Entity; or (c) any other Person, in any such case while knowing or having reason to know that all or a portion of such money or thing of value may be offered, given or promised, directly or indirectly, to any customer or member of any Governmental Entity or any candidate for political office for the purpose of the following: (i) influencing any action or decision of such Person in such Person’s official capacity, including a decision to fail to perform such Person’s official function; (ii) inducing such Person to use such Person’s influence with any Governmental Entity to affect or influence any act or decision of such Governmental Entity to assist Seller or any Equityholder in obtaining or retaining business for, with, or directing business to, any Person; or (iii) where such payment would constitute a bribe, kickback or illegal or improper payment to assist Seller or any Equityholder in obtaining or retaining business for, with, or directing business to, any Person, except for an immaterial political contribution (in an amount which was less than $1,000) by a political action committee which was fully disclosed to the appropriate Governmental Entity (without any resulting fine or penalty to Seller).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 2. Local Law Claims Lastly, Defendants request that the court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims if the federal law claims are dismissed. Plaintiff asserts several causes of action under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Specifically, she alleges claims under Puerto Rico Laws 17, 69,100 and 80. With the dismissal of federal claims against Defendant, there are no pending claims giving rise to federal jurisdiction. 12 U.S.C. § 1819(b)(2)(A). As such, dismissal of pending state law claims is proper because an independent jurisdictional basis is lacking. Exercising jurisdiction over pendent state law claims once the federal law claims are no longer present in the lawsuit is discretionary. See Newman v. Burgin, 930 F.2d 955, 963 (1st Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, the court chooses not to Options: A. holding that the power of a federal court to hear and to determine statelaw claims in nondiversity cases depends upon the presence of at least one substantial federal claim in the lawsuit B. holding that the power of a federal court to hear and to determine statelaw claims in nondiversity cases depends upon the presence of at least one substantial federal claim in the lawsuit and the district court has considerable authority whether or not to exercise this power in light of such considerations as judicial economy convenience fairness to litigants and eomity C. holding if the legislature had the power to confer upon the county commissioners jurisdiction to hear and determine the question as to whether or not a town was of undue extent and to deprive it of a part of its territory then the proceeding being statutory before a body of limited powers the record must show affirmatively that such a case was brought before them as they were authorized to hear and determine and that all the jurisdictional facts were found to exist where the jurisdiction and power to hear and determine depends upon the existence of a fact that fact must appear or the proceedings are coram non judice and void D. holding that in the interest of judicial economy we exercise our discretionary power to suspend the rules pertaining to interlocutory appeals and address the remainder of the defendants appeal E. recognizing a distinction between the power of a federal court to hear statelaw claims and the discretionary exercise of that power

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the power of a federal court to hear and to determine statelaw claims in nondiversity cases depends upon the presence of at least one substantial federal claim in the lawsuit and the district court has considerable authority whether or not to exercise this power in light of such considerations as judicial economy convenience fairness to litigants and eomity
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: (i) “Representatives” means (i) with respect to the Potential Relationship Party, the Potential Relationship Party’s officers, managers, directors, general partners, employees, outside counsel, accountants, consultants, financial advisors, and potential sources of equity or debt financing (and their respective counsel), and (ii) with respect to the Company, will include its officers, directors, employees, agents, partners and advisors and those of its subsidiaries, Affiliates and/or divisions (including attorneys, accountants, consultants and financial advisors). The Receiving Party further agrees that it will and will cause its Representatives to take those steps the Receiving Party takes to protect its own similar proprietary and confidential information (which will not be less than a reasonable standard of care) to keep the Confidential Information of the Disclosing Party confidential; provided, however, that (ii) any of the Confidential Information may be disclosed to the Receiving Party’s Representatives who need to know such information for the purpose of evaluating a Possible Transaction, who are provided with a copy of this Agreement and who agree to be bound by the terms this Agreement.

assistant: No
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 and the Company agree that they will not disclose, or direct or assist those acting on their behalf to disclose, any aspect of the proceedings under Section 8(a) and Section 8(b), including but not limited to the resolution or the existence or amount of any award, to any person, firm, organization, or entity of any character or nature, unless divulged (i) to an agency of the federal or state government, (ii) pursuant to a court order, (iii) pursuant to a requirement of law, (iv) pursuant to prior written consent of the other party, (v) pursuant to a legal proceeding to enforce a settlement agreement or arbitration award, (vi) in connection with the arbitration ( e.g., to the parties, their respective counsel, legal assistants, support staff, experts, consultants, potential witnesses, court reporters) and/or (vii) to Employee’s family and/or accountant(s), legal, financial and/or tax advisor(s). This provision is not intended to prohibit nor does it prohibit Employee’s or the Company’s disclosures of the terms of any settlement or arbitration award to their attorney(s), accountant(s), financial and/or tax advisor(s), or family members, provided that they comply with the provisions of this paragraph.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Recipient acknowledges and agrees that the Company has the right to deduct from payments of any kind otherwise due to the Recipient the amount of any federal, state, local or other taxes of any kind required by law to be withheld with respect to the actions contemplated by this Agreement in any manner permitted by the Plan. At such time as the Recipient is not aware of any material nonpublic information about the Company or the Common Stock, the Recipient shall execute the instructions set forth in Schedule A attached hereto (the “ Automatic Sale Instructions ”) as the means of satisfying such tax obligation. If the Recipient does not execute the Automatic Sale Instructions prior to an applicable vesting date, then the Recipient agrees that if under applicable law the Recipient will owe taxes at such vesting date on the portion of the Award then vested the Company shall be entitled to immediate payment from the Recipient of the amount of any tax required to be withheld by the Company. The Company shall not deliver any shares of Common Stock to the Recipient until it is satisfied that all required withholdings have been made.

assistant: 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: with proposed charges to the District Attorney. On June 26, 2007, the District Attorney approved all charges. On July 2, 2007, Guth filed the approved charges against Schell with respect to both the R.T. and J.S. matters. (R.R. at 274a-80a (R.T.), 300a-04a (J.S.).) Guth supported the police criminal complaints with affidavits of probable cause. Contrary to Schell’s claim, the affidavit of probable cause with respect to the R.T. charges relies, at least in part, on the statement that the alleged victim, R.T., gave on February 19, 2007, during which R.T. confirmed the events that supported the criminal charges and corroborated the statements of friends and others interviewed as part of the criminal investigation. See Commonwealth v. Dickerson, 468 Pa. 599, 608, 364 A.2d 677, 682 (1976) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, the affidavit for probable cause Options: A. holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same B. holding that hearsay evidence is considered valuable evidence in testing probable cause to arrest C. holding that probable cause is a complete defense to an action for false arrest D. holding that hearsay evidence may be considered on summary judgment if the same evidence would be admissible in another form at trial E. holding that the district court did not err in relying on hearsay evidence where the government offered reasons why its hearsay evidence had indicia of reliability and the court considered the reliability of the evidence in deciding the weight to give the hearsay evidence

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that hearsay evidence is considered valuable evidence in testing probable cause to arrest
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 bankruptcy plan). Choosing to exercise the right to prepayment, while allowed under the Code, does not alter the Mortgage’s original payment schedule. The last payment due under the Mortgage remains April 1, 2022. [Claim No. 11-1]. Irrespective of what happens during the life of the Debtors’ bankruptcy, Debtors will be able to pay the Mortgage until April 1, 2022. Debtors will complete their plan in 2021, one year before the last Mortgage payment is due. [ECF No. 99]. Therefore, as the Mortgage matures outside the life of the plan, § 1822(c)(2) is inapplicable to Debtors’ Sixth Amended Plan. Thus, as Debtors’ Mortgage cannot be modified pursuant to the Code, the Mortgage must be paid according to the contract interest rate of 17% per annum. See In re Gaetje, 2015 WL 3825972 at *4-5 (<HOLDING>). The Sixth Amended Plan seeks to pay the Options: A. holding that bankruptcy plan of reorganization rather than 1961 controlled the setting of the interest rate B. holding that modifying an interest rate in a bankruptcy plan constitutes an impermissible modification under 1322b2 C. holding that 1322b2 prohibits modification of the interest rate on the loan on the debtors principal residence D. holding that the proper rate for prejudgment interest is the rate fixed by the parties in a contract E. holding that nonconsensual oversecured tax claim is entitled to the statutory rate of interest unless the statutory rate constitutes a penalty

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that modifying an interest rate in a bankruptcy plan constitutes an impermissible modification under 1322b2
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: dilute , tarnish or otherwise harm the airbnb brand in any way , including through unauthorized use of collective content , registering and/or using airbnb or derivative terms in domain names , trade names , trademarks or other source identifiers , or registering and/or using domains names , trade names , trademarks or other source identifiers that closely imitate or are confusingly similar to airbnb domains , trademarks , taglines , promotional campaigns or collective content ;

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Copyright Security Agreement is a Loan Document. This Copyright Security Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and by different parties on separate counterparts, each of which, when executed and delivered, shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which, when taken together, shall constitute but one and the same Copyright Security Agreement. Delivery of an executed counterpart of this Copyright Security Agreement by telefacsimile or other electronic method of transmission shall be equally as effective as delivery of an original executed counterpart of this Copyright Security Agreement. Any party delivering an executed counterpart of this Copyright Security Agreement by telefacsimile or other electronic method of transmission also shall deliver an original executed counterpart of this Copyright Security Agreement but the failure to deliver an original executed counterpart shall not affect the validity, enforceability, and binding effect of this Copyright Security Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: would not have drawn the release so narrowly — confining it to “contractual” and “subsequent” matters, with no mention of tort claims or bad faith. Surely, State Farm knew what language would effectively release it from Taylor’s potential bad faith claim. It can be inferred that sophisticated parties in the business of settling insurance claims, faced with the task of releasing a claim as large as Taylor’s, would have used more specific or at least broader language if that was their agreement. This is especially true in light of the conspicuous nature of the claim, the parties’ obvious knowledge of its existence, and the very recent supreme court authority characterizing the claim as a tort. Compare Edwards v. Comstock Ins. Co., 205 Cal.App.3d 1164, 252 Cal.Rptr. 807, 808, 810 (1988) (<HOLDING>) with Asare v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 1 Options: A. holding that a bad faith claim is a tort B. holding that a state law tort of bad faith was necessarily based on breach of duties contained in the cba and was therefore preempted C. holding that a bad faith claim arises out of contract for attorney fee statute D. holding that broad language releasing all claims whether in contract tort or otherwise necessarily included a bad faith claim E. holding that whether in tort or contract all malpractice claims are covered by the same statute of limitations

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that broad language releasing all claims whether in contract tort or otherwise necessarily included a bad faith claim
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: 125 S.Ct. 738. In the Booker remedial opinion, the Supreme Court determined that the constitutional violation would be cured by modifying the federal sentencing statute to make the Guidelines effectively advisory. Id. at 245, 125 S.Ct. 738. The range of choice in sentencing dictated by the facts of the case has been significantly broadened. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. -, -, 128 S.Ct. 586, 602, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (finding a sentence outside the Guidelines to be reasonable); Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. -, -, 128 S.Ct. 558, 570, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007) (noting that courts may vary from Guidelines ranges based solely on policy considerations, including disagreements with the Guidelines); Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. -, -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2465, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (<HOLDING>); Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270, -, Options: A. holding that a district court may consider arguments that the guidelines sentence itself fails properly to reflect 3553a considerations B. holding that plain error review is used for unpreserved challenges to the method by which the district court arrived at a sentence including arguments that the sentencing court failed to explain adequately the sentence imposed under the statutory factors in 3553a C. holding that although the guidelines should be the starting point and the initial benchmark of calculating a proper sentence the district court should then consider all of the 3553a factors to determine whether they support the sentence requested by a party D. holding that sentence is reasonable when the district court properly addresses sentencing factors of 3553a E. holding that district court adequately considered the 3553a factors when it cited defendants demonstrated violence and all the other considerations that went in to the establishment of this defendants sentence

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a district court may consider arguments that the guidelines sentence itself fails properly to reflect 3553a considerations
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: was beyond the scope of the proceedings before the superior court. CONCLUSION We hold that 1-776 embraced a single subject and expressed that subject in its title, that 1-776 did not “substantially impair” King County’s contractual obligations to its bondholders, and that the additional constitutional claims that the superior court did not reach were unavailing. We therefore reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remand the matter for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Salish’s request for attorney fees at trial and on appeal is denied. Alexander, C.J., and Johnson, Madsen, Sanders, and Fairhurst, JJ., concur. 1 Regarding the prior license tab initiative, see Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State, 142 Wn.2d 183, 256, 11 P.3d 762, 27 P.3d 608 (2000) (<HOLDING>). 2 The original plaintiffs (now respondents Options: A. holding that one agreement cannot be taken to be several agreements and therefore several conspiracies because the agreement envisages the violation of several statutes rather than one B. holding that the official proponents of an initiative measure are recognized as having a distinct role involving both authority and responsibilities that differ from other supporters of the measure C. recognizing that where liability is joint and several among multiple parties complete relief may be granted with respect to any one of them D. holding that initiative measure 695 violated several state constitutional provisions among them the requirement that a bill embrace no more than one subject E. holding that it was plain error for trial court to allow more than one conviction of grossly negligent operation of a vehicle where more than one person was injured

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that initiative measure 695 violated several state constitutional provisions among them the requirement that a bill embrace no more than one subject
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: activity and an adverse employment action as sufficient evidence of causality to establish a prima face case uniformly hold that the temporal proximity must be ‘very close.’ ” Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 273, 121 S.Ct. 1508, 149 L.Ed.2d 509 (2001). Courts have generally accepted time periods of a few days up to a few months, and have seldom accepted time lapses outside of a year in length. See Brodetski v. Duffey, 141 F.Supp.2d 35, 43 (D.D.C.2001). The District Court for the District of Columbia has held that a matter of weeks, and of three to five months is a short enough time lapse between the protected activity and the alleged retaliatory conduct to establish a causal connection. See, e.g., Goos v. Nat’l Ass’n of Realtors, 715 F.Supp. 2, 3-4 (D.D.C.1989) (<HOLDING>); Castle v. Bentsen, 867 F.Supp. 1, 3 Options: A. holding that a lapse of two months as is the case here is sufficient to show a causal connection and the district court erred in holding otherwise B. holding that five weeks between protected activity and adverse employment action insufficient to establish a causal connection C. holding that three to five months is a short enough time lapse between eeo activity and reprisal to establish a causal connection D. holding that the plaintiff cannot establish pretext because she is unable to show any causal connection E. holding that five weeks constituted a short enough time lapse to establish a causal connection

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that five weeks constituted a short enough time lapse to establish a causal connection
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 Governmental Consent is required in connection with the execution and delivery by Buyer of this Agreement or any of the Transaction Documents to which it is a party or the performance by Buyer of its obligations hereunder or thereunder (excluding Governmental Consents, if any, which Seller is required to obtain or make, as to which no representations or warranties are made).

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: because the complaint seeks only an injunction against future enforcement of the helmet law. Any past injury suffered by the plaintiffs does not give them standing to enjoin future enforcement of the helmet law. Insofar as the complaint seeks an injunction against future enforcement of the helmet law based on the possible vague application of the law to the individual plaintiffs, such a claim is not ripe for review. Where there are insufficient facts to determine the vagueness of a law as applied, the issue is not ripe for adjudication. See Freedom to Travel Campaign v. Newcomb, 82 F.3d 1431, 1441 (9th Cir.1996) (concluding that vagueness of one provision of a regulation was not ripe for review due to insufficient facts); Mack v. United States, 66 F.3d 1025, 1033 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>), cert. granted, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 2521, 135 Options: A. holding that the act violates neither separation of powers nor principles of due process by allowing a victim veto that precludes application of the act as well as holding that the act is not void for vagueness and does not constitute a form of cruel or unusual punishment B. holding that the statute of limitations in a criminal case is a nonjurisdictional affirmative defense that is waived if not raised in the trial court C. holding as brady violation prosecutions failure to disclose to defense that prosecution had agreed not to prosecute key witness in exchange for his testimony at trial D. holding that in an action for malicious prosecution the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages not only for his unlawful arrest and imprisonment but also for expenses of his defense E. holding that the vagueness of brady handgun act not ripe for adjudication in suit for injunction but could be raised as a defense in the case of an unlikely criminal prosecution of law enforcement agents

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the vagueness of brady handgun act not ripe for adjudication in suit for injunction but could be raised as a defense in the case of an unlikely criminal prosecution of law enforcement agents
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: presented above, the district court erred in considering his incriminating statements during sentencing. A review of the record reveals that the district court clearly stated that, even without Brent’s own incriminating statements, life imprisonment was appropriate given his history as a violent career offender. Thus, even if any — or all — incriminating statements made by Brent during his arrests were erroneously admitted at sentencing, it was harmless and the conviction stands. C. Government’s Explanation for Striking a Juror Brent argues that the district court erred in accepting the government’s nondiscriminatory reason for striking a minority juror and that his rights under Batson were thereby violated. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) (<HOLDING>). Brent asserts that, while the court had a Options: A. holding that the equal protection clause forbids the prosecution from challenging potential jurors solely on the basis of race or assumptions drawn from their race B. holding that a criminal defendant can bring a third party challenge to the peremptory striking of jurors based on race whether or not he is of the same race as the jurors who are struck C. holding that plaintiff stated viable equal protection clause claim where officer humiliated and harassed the plaintiff on basis of race prior to and during a lawful arrest D. recognizing that certain forms of race consciousness do not lead inevitably to impermissible race discrimination E. holding that the race of the prosecutor is irrelevant

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the equal protection clause forbids the prosecution from challenging potential jurors solely on the basis of race or assumptions drawn from their race
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except for the representations and warranties expressly set forth in this Article III or in the Transaction Documents, none of the Sellers or any other Person has made, makes or shall be deemed to make any other representation or warranty of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, written or oral, at law or in equity, on behalf of any Seller or any of its Affiliates, including any representation or warranty regarding any Seller, the Purchased Interests of such Seller, or any assets or Liabilities of such Seller or any of its Affiliates, and each Seller hereby disclaims all other representations and warranties of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, written or oral, at law or in equity.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: in certain cities and regions , booking.com operates a preferred partnership program , allowing certain suppliers that meet and maintain the preferred program terms to be listed ahead of the rest of the suppliers in the default `` recommended '' ranking for the relevant city/region .

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: contends that Locke and Red Top unambiguously establish a “calendar year” rule. We disagree. Neither Locke nor Red Top necessarily rules out the possibility that early filings are timely. Nevertheless, we find that Department of Interior regulations, which clearly contemplate calendar year filings for all of § 1744(a), i.e., BLM and county filings, are reasonable. See 43 C.F.R. § 3833.0-5(n) (“For the purpose of complying with the requirements of section 314(a) of the Act, the calendar year in which the assessment year ends is the year for which the evidence of annual assessment shall be filed.”) (emphasis add ed). See also Webb v. Lujan, 960 F.2d 89, 92 (9th Cir.1992) (“We must uphold an agency’s construction of a statute ... if it is reasonable.”); James v. Joyce, 56 IBLA 327 (1981) (<HOLDING>). Huntley asks us to find that § 1744(a) Options: A. holding that policy coverage is triggered in each year that the plaintiff inhaled asbestos B. holding that 1744a requires filings be submitted each calendar year C. holding that the issue of waiver requires an analysis of the specific facts in each case D. holding that substantial participation requires particular facts relating to each djefendants specific role in the preparation of each of the allegedly misleading statements E. holding that time spent over the course of a year for a particular client is reasonable because the plaintiffs tied each charge to a subsequent hearing and it often takes up to a year for an administrative idea case to be resolved

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that 1744a requires filings be submitted each calendar year
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 appeals relied upon a reference in the record to a non-existent "page 207 of the policy" as the basis for concluding that American Family had not directed the trial court to the PIP definitions with "sufficient specificity." Allen, 80 P.3d at 801-02. This reference appears in the record after both sides rested and when American Family was arguing against Allen's motion for a directed verdict, not when making its motion for a directed verdict. We suspect the court reporter made a typographical error and was in fact referencing "page 2 of 7" not "page 207" as it appears in the record. C.A.R. 10(e) provides that when the record does not conform materially to what occurred at trial, then the trial court is to correct the omission or misstatement unless the parties stipula Ala.1991) (<HOLDING>); Groce v. Fidelity Gen. Ins. Co., 252 Or. 296, Options: A. holding that expert testimony is not required to corroborate a claim for emotional distress B. holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive C. holding expert testimony is not required as a per se rule in bad faith actions D. holding expert testimony was not required where jury is capable of determining existence of duty E. holding the touchstone of determining existence of erisa plan is whether an administrative scheme is required

assistant: The best answer is D. holding expert testimony was not required where jury is capable of determining existence of duty
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: All notices, demands, requests, consents, approvals and other communications required or permitted hereunder (“ Notices ”) must be in writing (except as may be agreed otherwise above with respect to borrowing requests) and will be effective upon receipt. Notices may be given in any manner to which the parties may separately agree, including electronic mail. Without limiting the foregoing, first-class mail, facsimile transmission and commercial courier service are hereby agreed to as acceptable methods for giving Notices. Regardless of the manner in which provided, Notices may be sent to a party’s address as set forth above or to such other address as any party may give to the other for such purpose in accordance with this section.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: By the issuance of a Letter of Credit (or an amendment to a Letter of Credit increasing the amount thereof) under the Revolving Facility Commitments of any Class and without any further action on the part of the applicable Issuing Bank or the Revolving Facility Lenders, such Issuing Bank hereby grants to each Revolving Facility Lender under such Class, and each such Revolving Facility Lender hereby acquires from such Issuing Bank, a participation in such Letter of Credit equal to such Revolving Facility Lender’s applicable Revolving Facility Percentage of the aggregate amount available to be drawn under such Letter of Credit (calculated, in the case of Alternate Currency Letters of Credit, based on the Dollar Equivalent thereof). In consideration and in furtherance of the foregoing, each Revolving Facility Lender hereby absolutely and unconditionally agrees to pay to the Administrative Agent, for the account of the applicable Issuing Bank, in Dollars, such Revolving Facility Lender’s applicable Revolving Facility Percentage of each L/C Disbursement made by such Issuing Bank and not reimbursed by the Borrower on the date due as provided in paragraph (e) of this Section, or of any reimbursement payment required to be refunded to the Borrower for any reason (calculated, in the case of any Alternate Currency Letter of Credit, based on the Dollar Equivalent thereof). Each Revolving Facility Lender acknowledges and agrees that its obligation to acquire participations pursuant to this paragraph in respect of Letters of Credit is absolute and unconditional and shall not be affected by any circumstance whatsoever, including any amendment, renewal or extension of any Letter of Credit or the occurrence and continuance of a Default or Event of Default or reduction or termination of the Commitments or the fact that, as a result of changes in currency exchange rates, such Revolving Facility Lender’s Revolving Facility Credit Exposure at any time might exceed its Revolving Facility Commitment at such time (in which case Section 2.11(g) would apply), and that each such payment shall be made without any offset, abatement, withholding or reduction whatsoever.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: these services. We conclude that section 574.037 applied to the trial court’s order for extended outpatient mental health services. The trial court did not comply with this section in designating Evans as the person responsible for the ordered services. Therefore, the trial court lacked authority to order the Bexar County Parties to provide the court-ordered outpatient services. Accordingly, we sustain their second issue, reverse the trial court’s June 30, 2003 order, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. C. Should this court conditionally grant Evans’s petition for writ of mandamus? After finding that Evans was willfully disobeying the June 80, 2008 order, the trial court held Evans in contempt and ordered him p.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we conclude that Evans is Options: A. holding that a defendant cannot be punished by contempt proceedings for disregarding a void order B. holding provision in contempt order void because it punished relator for violating order that trial court lacked authority to enter C. holding that mothers failure to appeal prior contempt order precluded her challenge to prior order in appeal from later order entered based upon prior contempt order D. holding the court has the inherent authority to enter an order of confidentiality E. holding that circuit court that had no jurisdiction to modify georgia custody determination could not enter valid contempt judgment against husband for violating void modification judgment

assistant: The best answer is B. holding provision in contempt order void because it punished relator for violating order that trial court lacked authority to enter
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: as “strong medicine” to be employed “sparingly and only as a last resort.” Id. at 613, 93 S.Ct. 2908. Thus, before the doctrine may be invoked, the overbreadth must be real and substantial, “judged in relation to the [law’s] plainly legitimate sweep.” Id. at 615, 93 S.Ct. 2908; see also New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 767-73, 102 S.Ct. 3348, 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982). A law is unconstitutional in every application if the law itself — as opposed to some number of its applications — contains a defect that renders it unconstitutional under the applicable substantive constitutional standard. See Munson, 467 U.S. at 967 n. 13, 104 S.Ct. 2839; see also Schultz v. Frisby, 807 F.2d 1339, 1349 (7th Cir.1986), rev’d on other grounds by 487 U.S. 474, 108 S.Ct. 2495, 101 L.Ed.2d 420 (1988) (<HOLDING>). In Munson, the Court noted that courts Options: A. recognizing that the possibility of a tradeoff between merits relief and attorneys fees is often implicit in class action settlement negotiations B. recognizing difference between tolling and equitable estoppel C. recognizing distinction between two types of waiver D. recognizing difference in elements between offense of actual entry and attempted entry E. recognizing difference between two forms of facial challenges and stating that they are often conflated

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing difference between two forms of facial challenges and stating that they are often conflated
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: living in the park at the time it takes effect. This one-time benefit also conflicts with the City’s rationale regarding the protection of low income tenants because, after the end of the initial tenancy, it is unlikely that any low income tenant could ever become a resident of either park. 16 . Adamson's inverse condemnation claim is resolved here in conjunction with the plaintiffs' federal takings claims. In the context of takings by regulation, the prohibition against uncompensated takings under the California Constitution has been interpreted by the California courts to be narrower than that imposed by the United States Constitution. Agins v. Tiburon, 24 Cal.3d 266, 157 Cal.Rptr. 372, 598 P.2d 25 (1979), affirmed on other grounds, 447 U.S. 255, 100 S.Ct. 2138, 65 L.Ed.2d 106 (1980) (<HOLDING>); First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Options: A. recognizing that publicly targeting a property for condemnation resulting in economic damage to the owner generally does not give rise to an inverse condemnation cause of action unless there is some direct restriction on use of the property B. holding ripe a claim for a pre1987 taking because prior to first english california law did not permit landowners to seek compensation for a regulatory taking through an action in inverse condemnation C. holding that there is no right to monetary compensation for a regulatory taking in an inverse condemnation action D. holding that allegations that states lease and actions that resulted in taking of oil and gas were sufficient to state claim for inverse condemnation E. holding that inverse condemnation claim challenging as a regulatory taking the states placement of a guard rail that blocked former access was not ripe for adjudication where owners had failed to apply for permit for alternative approach and it therefore was not possible to assess whether a taking had occurred as a result of a deprivation of all reasonable access

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that there is no right to monetary compensation for a regulatory taking in an inverse condemnation action
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: None of the Parties hereto shall issue or make, or cause to have issued or made, any public release or announcement concerning this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby, without the advance approval in writing of the form and substance thereof by each of the other Parties, except: (a) as required by any applicable Legal Requirement, and (b) the Buyer and/or its Affiliates may make customary disclosures to the investment community and to their banks and advisors; provided that such disclosures shall not include the terms or amount of the Purchase Price, provided further that in each of (a) and (b), the Party required to make the release or announcement shall consult with the other Party about, and allow the other Party reasonable time to comment on, such release or announcement in advance of such issuance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties understand and acknowledge that as a publicly-held Company, the Buyer will be required to file a Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC to disclose the acquisition contemplated by this Agreement (the “ Form 8-K ”), and all of the Parties expressly consent to such timely filing. In addition, the Sellers and the Company understand and acknowledge that in connection with such filing, the Buyer will be required to disclose the previous two (2) years audited financial statements, along with required pro-forma financial statements in accordance with Rule 3-05 of Regulation S-X, within seventy-one (71) days of the Form 8-K’s due date.

assistant: Publicity
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: Just as this court should "respect and carefully weigh the views of other circuits,” United States v. Stone, 9 F.3d 934, 941 (11th Cir.1993), a district court should do likewise. However, only the decisions of the Supreme Court and this court are binding on the district courts of this circuit. 16 . It should also be noted that the caselaw is replete with opinions that conflict with the standard asserted by the Growers. In many cases involving the FLSA, courts found that a certain item, which was obviously not directly connected to the performance of the employee’s principal activity, was nevertheless primarily for the benefit of the employer. See, e.g., Brennan v. Modern Chevrolet Co., 363 F.Supp. 327, 333 (N.D.Tex.1973), aff'd, 491 F.2d 1271 (5th Cir.1974) (affirming without opinion) (<HOLDING>); Masters v. Md. Mgmt. Co., 493 F.2d 1329, Options: A. holding that the amendment was a use regulation which was in effect a condition on the use of property in the affected zone B. holding evidence which established that use of property was permissive showed use of property was not adverse C. holding that car salesmans use of an automobile was primarily for the benefit of the employer even though 90 of mileage was for personal use D. holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate legitimate expectation of privacy where he could not show that he had the owners permission to use the car or demonstrate prior use or control of the car E. holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that car salesmans use of an automobile was primarily for the benefit of the employer even though 90 of mileage was for personal 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The provisions of the Plan and the terms and conditions hereof shall, in accordance with their terms, be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, all successors of Holder, including, without limitation, Holder's estate and the executors, administrators, or trustees thereof, heirs and legatees, and any receiver, trustee in bankruptcy, or representative of creditors of Holder. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of any successors to the Company.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Interest will not be paid on any employee accounts, except to the extent that the Board or the Committee, in its sole discretion, elects to credit employee accounts with interest at such rate as it may from time to time determine.

assistant: Interests
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: Promptly after any Responsible Officer of the Company or any of its Restricted Subsidiaries obtains knowledge thereof, notice of (i) the occurrence of any event which constitutes a Default or an Event of Default or any default or event of default under the Senior Notes Indenture or any refinancing thereof or any Specified Secured Indebtedness or other debt instrument in excess of the Threshold Amount, (ii) any litigation or governmental investigation or proceeding pending against the Company or any of its Subsidiaries (x) which, either individually or in the aggregate, has had, or could reasonably be expected to have, a Material Adverse Effect or (y) with respect to any Credit Document, or (iii) any other event, change or circumstance that has had, or could reasonably be expected to have, a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Notices