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: by the fact that her brother had a drug problem or had been charged with a crime. As to the former rationale, other white jurors had made the same claim and had not been excused; as to the latter, it is not clear from the record that it was this particular juror who stated that her brother had been arrested. The trial court overruled the objection. The Melbourne decision charged the courts with the duty to insure that race-based peremptory challenges do not render the jury selection process fundamentally unfair. The penalty for such an improper peremptory challenge is a new trial. In this case, however, the incomplete, unreconstructed, and unavailable record has impeded this court from the exercise of this important duty. Compare Rozier v. State, 669 So.2d 358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (<HOLDING>), with Velez v. State, 645 So.2d 42 (Fla. 4th Options: A. holding that trial minutes were not sufficient substitute for transcript of voir dire and could not afford meaningful review when both sides exercised peremptory challenges B. holding that missing portions of transcript of voir dire did not entitle the defendant to a new trial for murder because the alleged errors in jury selection were harmless as a matter of law C. holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire D. holding that when the purpose of the request is to compare the testimony of jurors but no such comparison was made at the trial level a court need not provide a free voir dire transcript E. holding that peremptory challenges may not be exercised in a discriminatory manner

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that trial minutes were not sufficient substitute for transcript of voir dire and could not afford meaningful review when both sides exercised peremptory challenges
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you agree to submit to the exclusive personal jurisdiction of the courts located within são paolo-sp , brasil ( and , for the avoidance of doubt , to exclude the jurisdiction of any other court ) for the purpose of litigating all such claims or disputes .

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: to the extent permitted by law , deliveroo provides our service and content on an `` as-is '' and `` as available '' basis and we make no representation or warranty of any kind , express or implied , regarding the content or availability of our service , or that it will be timely or error-free or that defects will be corrected .

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 Security Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which counterparts, when so executed and delivered, shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which counterparts, taken together, shall constitute one and the same Security Agreement. A set of the counterparts executed by all the parties hereto shall be lodged with the Grantor and the Collateral Agent. Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page of this Security Agreement by facsimile or electronic .pdf copy shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida (without giving effect to the conflict of law principles thereof). Subject to Section 8(e) hereof, you agree that the state and federal courts of Florida shall have jurisdiction over any litigation between you and the Company regarding this Agreement, and you expressly submit to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the federal and state courts sitting in Orange County, Florida.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement, the Synergy Incentive Program and the SESP constitute the entire agreement between or among Executive, DuPont and the Company and supersede all prior agreements, if any, understandings and arrangements, oral or written, between or among Executive, DuPont and the Company with respect to the subject matter hereof, including without limitation any term sheets or other similar presentations. In the event of any inconsistency between this Agreement and any other plan, program, practice or agreement in which Executive is a participant (“ Other Agreement ”), this Agreement shall control unless such Other Agreement specifically refers to this Agreement as not so controlling.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: note that we have included several summaries at the top of each section -- these summaries are not a part of the contract itself , but are intended to emphasize key sections and help you follow the text .

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: functionality on the service may also permit interactions between the service and a third-party web site or feature , including applications that connect the service or your profile on the service with a third-party web site or feature .

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: duolingo may , in its sole discretion and at any time , update , change , suspend , make improvements to or discontinue any aspect of the service , temporarily or permanently .

assistant: Unilateral change, 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s sixth claim, concerning his sentence in L.T. case number 97-5004. In the sixth ground for his motion, appellant argued that his sentences in case numbers 97-12527 and 97-5004 exceeded the limits provided by law, because they were based on the 1995 sentencing guidelines, which were declared unconstitutional in Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000) (sustaining a constitutional challenge to the 1995 sentencing guidelines, enacted by chapter 95-184, in violation of the single subject rule). We agree with the State that appellant lacked standing to raise a Heggs claim with respect to L.T. case number 97-12527, because those offenses were alleged to have been committed on November 18 and 19, 1997. See Trapp v. State, 760 So.2d 924 (Fla.2000) (<HOLDING>). The State concedes that appellant had Options: A. holding that persons challenging a sentence imposed under the 1995 sentencing guidelines have standing to do so if the relevant criminal offense occurred on or after october 1 1995 and before may 25 1997 B. holding that prisoners whose convictions became final on or before april 24 1996 must file their 2255 motions before april 24 1997 C. holding that the window period for standing to challenge chapter 95184 on single subject rule grounds in most cases opened on october 1 1995 and closed on may 24 1997 D. holding that only those persons whose offenses were committed on or after october 1 1995 and before may 24 1997 have standing to challenge their sentences under heggs E. holding that only those defendants whose offenses occurred between october 1 1995 and may 27 1997 have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the sentencing guidelines addressed by heggs

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that only those persons whose offenses were committed on or after october 1 1995 and before may 24 1997 have standing to challenge their sentences under heggs
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: narrow restrictions on jurisdiction set forth in Section 1252(e), Petitioner argues that Section 1252(e)(2)(B)’s jurisdiction to review “whether the petitioner was ordered removed” includes the issue of whether Petitioner should have been given an expedited removal order in the first place. The Court disagrees. Petitioner’s expansive reading of Section 1252(e)(2)(B) is foreclosed by Section 1252(e)(5), in which Congress divested the district courts of jurisdiction to review “whether the alien is actually inadmissible or entitled to any relief from removal.” Instead, Congress made clear that the only review contemplated in Section 1252(e)(2)(B) is “whether such an order in fact was issued and whether it relates to the petitioner.” Cf. Khan v. Holder, 608 F.3d 325, 327 (7th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); Brumme v. I.N.S., 275 F.3d 443, 447-48 (5th Options: A. holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review state disciplinary proceedings against attorney B. holding that court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to review aliens habeas claims seeking review of expedited removal order including whether expedited removal statute was lawfully applied to alien and whether expedited removal procedures violated his right to due process because language of section 1252e5 clearly precludes review in habeas proceedings of whether alien is actually inadmissible or entitled to any relief from removal C. holding that court lacked jurisdiction to review merits of question of whether immigration officer correctly initiated expedited removal proceedings D. holding that section 1252e2 clearly does not permit court to review whether expedited removal statute applies in first place E. holding that an aao eligibility determination is final and ripe for district court review if removal proceedings have not been initiated but noting that judicial review is barred in cases where removal proceedings have begun

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that court lacked jurisdiction to review merits of question of whether immigration officer correctly initiated expedited removal proceedings
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: sets the limits placed on the compensation of chapter 7 and chapter 11 trustees, is based on “moneys disbursed.” 11 U.S.C. § 326(a). The use of the term “moneys” in § 326(a) circumscribes the word “disbursed” and suggests that disbursement means something more than monies. See, e.g., In re Lan Assocs. XI, L.P., 192 F.3d 109, 116 (3d Cir.1999) (concluding that the value of a credit bid may not be included in a trustee’s compensation base under § 326(a)); U.S. Trustee v. Tamm (In re Hokulani Square, Inc.), 460 B.R. 76 1) (concluding that payments the debtor made in connection with a transaction to refinance an existing debt, which was satisfied by the proceeds from a new loan, was a disbursement for purposes of 1930(a)(6)); In re Pars Leasing, Inc., 217 B.R. 218, 220 (Bankr.W.D.Tex.1997) (<HOLDING>); In re Flatbush Assocs., 198 B.R. 75, 78 Options: A. holding that payments made by third parties on behalf of debtors are disbursements notwithstanding the debtors lack of control over the funds B. holding there is no duty to third parties on the part of a premises owner who could not have foreseen the criminal acts of third parties C. holding that prepayments the debtor made to a lender pursuant to modified settlement agreement that reduced the balance of loan and accrual of interest were considered disbursements for purposes of calculating the quarterly fee D. holding that because the quarterly fee payments are not 503b claims chapter 7 administrative expenses and the quarterly fee payments have the same priority E. holding that disbursements for purposes of calculating the quarterly fee included payments made by third parties on the debtors behalf

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that disbursements for purposes of calculating the quarterly fee included payments made by third parties on the debtors behalf
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: regardless of who terminates these terms , both you and snap group limited continue to be bound by sections 3 , 6 , 9 , 10 , and 13-22 of the terms .

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: No Loan Party (nor any member of the ERISA Group to the extent it could reasonably be expected to result in liability to a Loan Party) has maintained or contributed to (or had any obligation or liability, contingent or otherwise, with respect to) any Plan or Multiemployer Plan. No Loan Party is an “ employee benefit plan ” (as defined in Section 3(3) of ERISA) that is subject to Title I of ERISA or a plan subject to Section 4975 of the Code, and none of the assets of any Loan Party constitutes or will constitute “ plan assets ” of one or more such employee benefit plans or plans within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. Section 2510.3-101, as modified by Section 3(42) of ERISA (“ Plan Assets ”). Assuming that no part of the Loan funds are Plan Assets prior to the disbursement of such funds to the Borrower, and assuming that Lender’s interest in the Loan is not a Plan Asset, neither the execution or delivery of this Agreement or of any of the other Loan Documents by the Borrower or Guarantor, nor the performance by Borrower or Guarantor of their obligations under this Agreement or under any of the other Loan Documents, nor any transaction contemplated under this Agreement or under any of the other Loan Documents, nor the exercise by Lenders of any of their rights or remedies under this Agreement or under any of the other Loan Documents is or will be a non-exempt “ prohibited transaction ” within the meaning of Section 406 of ERISA or Section 4975 of the Internal Revenue Code.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All authorizations, consents, waivers and approvals from governmental regulatory authorities and/or from parties, to contracts to which any of Corporation or its subsidiaries is a party, as may be required to be obtained by them in connection with the performance of this Agreement, the failure to obtain which would have a Material Adverse Effect, shall have been obtained.

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: initiation of a prosecution is a decision that is “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process,” and Luna is absolutely immune from liability arising out of that decision. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). The Vos’ generalized objections to inspecting the property on October 27 do not raise a genuine issue of material fact in light of specific declarations by Captain Cooper, Lieutenant To, and Inspector Weikel that Nguyen consented to inspection of the property. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2) (“[A]n opposing party may not rely merely on allegations or denials ...; rather, its response must ... set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.”); 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 664 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Neither does the fact that Alexandrou did not Options: A. holding that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact B. recognizing that nonmoving party must present affirmative evidence to defeat summary judgment C. holding that the judge cannot consider factual statements of counsel in a motion for summary judgment D. holding that a nonmoving party cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment by relying on conclusory statements E. holding that vague claims cannot generate a factual dispute adequate to defeat summary judgment

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that vague claims cannot generate a factual dispute adequate to defeat summary judgment
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: not exempt under ERISA’s savings clause. Accordingly, these claims are covered by ERISA. If the Basts are to recover, they must do so under ERISA. C. ERISA Claims ERISA’s civil enforcement provision outlines the possible claims by a participant or beneficiary. 29 U.S.C. § 1132, ERISA § 502(a). They include: (1) an action to recover benefits due under the plan, ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B); (2) an action for breach of fiduciary duties, ERISA § 502(a)(2); and (3) a suit to enjoin violations of ERISA or the Plan, or to obtain other equitable relief, ERISA § 502(a)(3). Extracontractual, compensatory and punitive damages are not available under ERISA. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134, 105 S.Ct. 3085, 87 L.Ed.2d 96 (1985); Sokol v. Bernstein, 803 F.2d 532 (9th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). The Basts’ ERISA claims are for loss of Options: A. holding that erisa 502a3 does not allow for extraeontractual damages including damages for emotional distress B. holding that actual damages under respa included emotional damages C. holding that emotional distress damages are not recoverable under section 504 D. holding that a tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is distinct from a claim for emotional distress damages under the employment discrimination statute E. holding that equitable relief under 502a3 does not include compensatory and punitive damages

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that erisa 502a3 does not allow for extraeontractual damages including damages for emotional distress
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 Indemnitee hereby irrevocably and unconditionally (i) agree that any action or proceeding arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be brought only in the superior court of the State of California in and for the proper county (the “California Court”), and not in any other state or federal court in the United States of America or any court in any other country, (ii) consent to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the California Court for purposes of any action or proceeding arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, (iii) appoint, to the extent such party is not otherwise subject to service of process in the State of California, irrevocably Mike F. Chang of 475 Oakmead Parkway, Sunnyvale, California 94085 as its agent in the State of California for acceptance of legal process in connection with any such action or proceeding against such party with the same legal force and validity as if served upon such party personally within the State of California, (iv) waive any objection to the laying of venue of any such action or proceeding in the California Court, and (v) waive, and agree not to plead or to make, any claim that any such action or proceeding brought in the California Court has been brought in an improper or inconvenient forum.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The representations and warranties contained in Paragraphs 1 and 2, and the undertakings set forth in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of this agreement, shall survive the delivery hereof.

assistant: Survival
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 this Agreement shall be invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, then the rest of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and such provision shall be deemed to be modified or restricted to the extent and in the manner necessary to render the same valid and enforceable, or shall be deemed excised from this Agreement, as the case may require, and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced to the maximum extent permitted by law as if such provision had been originally incorporated herein as so modified or restricted or as if such provision had not been originally incorporated herein, as the case may be.

assistant: Enforceability
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: See also Matter of Schultz Mfg. Fabricating Co., 956 F.2d 686, 689 (7th Cir.1992) (finding no district court jurisdiction in the absence of a timely notice of appeal from the bankruptcy court). of appeal within 10 dismissing the peti- But the order refusing to convert the Chapter 7 proceedings from New York into the Chapter 13 proceedings in Illinois was not a final order. It did not bring the Illinois Chapter 13 petition to an end; virtually the entire dispute remained, involving the same parties and the same issues. Even though the concept of finality is relaxed in the bankruptcy context, see In re Jartran, Inc., 886 F.2d 859, 861-62 (7th Cir.1989), this order was interlocutory in the purest sense of the word. See Caldwell-Baker Co. v. Parsons, 392 F.3d 886, 888 (7th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). See also In re Young, 237 F.3d 1168, 1172-73 Options: A. holding that a bankruptcy court order denying a trustees claim to immunity was final and appealable under the collateral order doctrine B. holding that where an adversary proceeding continues the order is no more a final decision than an order denying summary judgment or denying a request for additional discovery the litigation proceeds and the issue will be reviewed if it turns out to make a difference to an order that is independently appealable C. holding an order denying a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory and not appealable D. recognizing that an order denying a motion to modify a family court order where the motion is based on changed factual or legal circumstances is appealable as a special order after final judgment E. holding that order denying representation to class of future claimants in bankruptcy proceeding is equivalent to denial of request to intervene and order denying right to intervene is appealable final order

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that where an adversary proceeding continues the order is no more a final decision than an order denying summary judgment or denying a request for additional discovery the litigation proceeds and the issue will be reviewed if it turns out to make a difference to an order that is independently appealable
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to establish their prima facie EPA claim, plaintiffs must show the employer paid male and female employees different wage rates for substantially equal work. Broadus v. O.K. Indus., Inc., 226 F.3d 937, 941 (8th Cir.2000). Plaintiffs offer the differing tuition remission plans afforded faculty of St. John’s and St. Ben’s to prove their disparate pay claim. The EPA’s regulations support plaintiffs’ view that a disparity in fringe benefits support an EPA claim. 29 C.F.R. § 1620.11. Defendants do not dispute that each college’s professors perform approximately equivalent work and receive comparable salaries at each institution. See Sorenson Aff., Ex. C, at 76. They do, however, challenge plaintiffs’ choice of the male comparator. See Strag v. Board of Trustees, 55 F.3d 943 (4th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Hofmister v. Mississippi State Dept. Health, Options: A. holding that an individual who was selected employed controlled trained and paid by the employer was an employee emphasis added B. holding that an epa plaintiff must show she has selected an appropriate comparator C. holding that because the plaintiffs skills had deteriorated during the period she claims she was paid less than a male employee who performed equal work the plaintiff was not entitled to proceed further under the epa D. holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination E. holding that a plaintiff can show that she is qualified by presenting credible evidence that she continued to possess the objective qualifications she held when she was hired

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an epa plaintiff must show she has selected an appropriate comparator
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: following termination of your account , or if you remove any user-generated content from the services , we may retain your user-generated content for a commercially reasonable period of time for backup , archival , or audit purposes , or as otherwise required or permitted by law .

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: first contention, it is observed that the Chief Justice’s concern in Cruz had to do with the distribution of literature within a prison, and not with the receipt of food by prisoners. A number of courts have been willing to uphold prisoners’ religiously based dietary claims. See e. g., Kahane v. Carlson, 527 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1975); see generally, Note, Free Exercise of Religion in Prisons — The Right to Observe Dietary Laws, 45 Fordham L.Rev. 92 (1976). 6 . Compare St. Claire v. Cuyler, 634 F.2d 109 (3d Cir. 1980) with St. Claire v. Cuyler, 643 F.2d 103 (3d Cir. 1980) (Adams, J., dissenting from denial of petition for rehearing); see generally Comment, The Religious Rights of the Incarcerated, 125 U.Pa.L.Rev. 812 (1977). See also Alim v. Byrne, 521 F.Supp. 1039, 1045 (D.N.J.1980) (<HOLDING>). 7 . “1 cannot give up my guidance to the Options: A. holding that the defendant countys two denials of variance permits under the circumstances had to a significantly great extent lessened the prospect of the religious institution being able to construct a temple in the future thus imposing a substantial burden on the religious institutions religious exercise B. holding that religious exercise is any exercise of religion whether or not compelled by or central to a system of religious belief and that the use building or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise shall be considered religious exercise C. holding that exclusion of religious groups from universitys open forum policy violated the first amendment D. holding exempt under ors 307130 which relates to other charitable institutions a building that was used as an office for a religious official and religious court and a printing press for a religious publication E. holding that limitations placed upon the religious activities of two prison groups found to be religious organizations were reasonable under the circumstances

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that limitations placed upon the religious activities of two prison groups found to be religious organizations were reasonable under the circumstances
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 indemnity and contribution agreements contained in Section 11 of this Agreement and all representations and warranties of the Company herein or in certificates delivered pursuant hereto shall survive, as of their respective dates, regardless of (i) any investigation made by or on behalf of FBR, any controlling persons, or the Company (or any of their respective officers, directors or controlling persons), (ii) delivery and acceptance of the Placement Shares and payment therefor or (iii) any termination of this Agreement.

assistant: Representations
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: please review the public chat & public accounts terms & guidelines and the content guidelines ( which are part of these terms ) to understand more about what 's prohibited on viber public chat and what terms apply when you use this feature .

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: During the Term, the Company shall pay to the Executive a base salary at the Executive’s base salary rate as set forth in Exhibit A to this Agreement, subject to increase from time to time as determined by the Board, upon recommendation of the Direct Supervisor, or if such Direct Supervisor is not an officer of the Company, an officer of the Company (“Base Salary”). The Executive’s Base Salary shall be payable in accordance with the Company’s normal payroll procedures and shall not during the Term be reduced below the annual rate payable to the Executive on the date of this Agreement.

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: This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and it shall not be necessary in making proof of this Agreement or the terms hereof to produce or account for more than one of such counterparts.

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: Consequently, if a specific and intelligible constitutional mandate exists that is related to the alleged torts of the government agency, the Court will conclude that such action occurred during the performance of a function divested of discretion. In such an instance, therefore, the discretionary function exception will be inapplicable. Id. See also Berkovitz, 486 U.S. at 536-37, 108 S.Ct. 1954. The Court finds that no such “specific and intelligible” constitutional mandate exists with regard to the action complained of in this case; namely, the issuance of an LDP and initiation of debarment proceedings on the part- of HUD. In so holding, the Court is in line with the decisions of other courts reviewing the precise issue. See, e.g., Sloan v. United States, 236 F.3d 756 (D.C.Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the plaintiffs have faded to allege Options: A. holding issuance of ldp to be a discretionary function and therefore recognizing no specific mandate by regulation or otherwise which renders the exception inapplicable B. recognizing a discretionary function exception to that waiver C. holding that there is no choice to be protected by the discretionary function exception when a federal statute regulation or policy specifically prescribes a course of action for an employee to follow D. holding that the discretionary function exception may apply in the absence of a conscious decision E. holding federal tort claims act discretionary function exception does not apply if prison personnel violate a mandatory regulation

assistant: The best answer is A. holding issuance of ldp to be a discretionary function and therefore recognizing no specific mandate by regulation or otherwise which renders the exception inapplicable
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Holdings and its Subsidiaries have filed all Federal and state and other tax returns and reports required to be filed, and have paid all Federal and state and other taxes, assessments, fees and other governmental charges levied or imposed upon them or their properties, income or assets otherwise due and payable, except those (a) which are not overdue by more than thirty (30) days or (b) which are being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings diligently conducted and for which adequate reserves have been provided in accordance with GAAP (subject to Section 1.03(c) ) or (c) with respect to which the failure to make such filing or payment could not individually or in the aggregate reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: § 109(e), constitutes bad faith that justifies denial of confirmation. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Chapter 13 Trustee alleges that Debtors’ second Chapter 13 filing following the discharge of all noncontingent, unsecured debts in their previous Chapter 7 case is a bad faith filing per se because it is an attempt to circumvent the jurisdictional limits of § 109(e). Accordingly, the critical issue the Court must address is whether Debtors’ Chapter 20 filing following the dismissal of a prior Chapter 13 case for exceeding the jurisdictional limits of § 109(e) is a bad faith filing per se. I. PERMISSIBILITY OF CHAPTER 20 FILINGS Generally, Chapter 20 filings are procedurally proper under the Bankruptcy Code. See Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 87, 111 S.Ct. 2150, 115 L.Ed.2d 66 (1991) (<HOLDING>). In Johnson, the Court held as follows: Options: A. holding that notwithstanding a debtors inability to obtain a chapter 13 discharge a debtor is nonetheless eligible to file a chapter 13 case B. holding that a chapter 13 debtor should be able to obtain a copy of his transcript in light of the broader discharge provision of chapter 13 C. holding congress did not intend categorically to foreclose the benefit of chapter 13 reorganization to a debtor who previously has filed for chapter 7 relief D. holding that there is no statutory authority in chapter 13 which grants a chapter 13 debtor independent standing to sue under the trustees avoidance power E. holding that complaints against a chapter 7 discharge coupled with objections to a chapter 13 plan of reorganization are sufficient to establish an informal proof of claim

assistant: The best answer is C. holding congress did not intend categorically to foreclose the benefit of chapter 13 reorganization to a debtor who previously has filed for chapter 7 relief
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 validity of this Guaranty, its construction, interpretation, and enforcement, and the rights of Guarantor and Lender, shall be determined under, governed by, and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State of California, without regard to principles of conflicts of law. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Guarantor hereby agrees that all actions or proceedings arising in connection with this Guaranty shall be tried and determined only in the state and federal courts located in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, or, at the sole option of Lender, in any other court in which Lender shall initiate legal or equitable proceedings and which has subject matter jurisdiction over the matter in controversy. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Guarantor hereby expressly waives any right it may have to assert the doctrine of forum non conveniens or to object to venue to the extent any proceeding is brought in accordance with this Section.

assistant: Venues
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: with new products , services , and features launching all the time , we need the flexibility to make changes , impose limits , and occasionally suspend or terminate certain offerings .

assistant: Unilateral change, 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: If any term or provision of this Amendment shall be determined to be illegal or unenforceable all other terms and provisions of this Amendment shall nevertheless remain effective and shall be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by applicable Law.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: could not reach the merits of the motion to dismiss,” and “the court of appeals correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction over [the healthcare defendant’s] appeal.” Id. Since Ogletree, many healthcare defendants have argued that courts of appeal have interlocutory jurisdiction under section 51.104(a)(9), even when a trial court enters an order denying a motion to dismiss which includes a section 74.351(c) order granting an extension, because if a timely served report is “so deficient that it [is] no report,” the trial court has no discretion to grant a thirty-day extension. In McKeever v. Cerny, two doctors appealed an order granting an extension and made such an argument. 266 S.W.3d 451, 454 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2008, no pet.). The rep (Tex.App.-El Paso 2008, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). In support of his argument that this Court Options: A. holding that causation section of expert medical report was not eonclusory when read in context of entire report B. holding that rule was not violated where officer stated he made a report but was unable to find it because there was no report to tender to counsel C. holding trial court reversibly erred in not permitting appellant to withdraw his plea where court erroneously stated appellant could appeal motion was in fact not dispositive and appellant was entitled to rely on the courts statement D. holding no jurisdiction when trial court granted extension even though appellants argued expert report was so woefully deficient on necessary elements so as to constitute no report and report was missing experts curriculum vitae E. holding no jurisdiction where appellant argued report was no report because it failed to mention appellant in any substantive way but trial court found report was merely deficient on element of causation as to appellant and granted extension

assistant: The best answer is E. holding no jurisdiction where appellant argued report was no report because it failed to mention appellant in any substantive way but trial court found report was merely deficient on element of causation as to appellant and granted extension
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: Enter into or permit to exist any transaction or series of transactions with any officer, director or Affiliate of such Person other than (a) transactions with the Parent or any of its Restricted Subsidiaries that are not otherwise prohibited under this Agreement and any Permitted Intercompany Investments, (b) transactions expressly permitted by this Agreement, (c) employment agreements, expense reimbursement, compensation and benefits arrangements, (d) those agreements listed on Schedule 8.08 and (e) except as otherwise specifically limited in this Agreement, other transactions which are on terms and conditions not materially less favorable to such Person as would be obtainable by it in a comparable arm’s-length transaction with a Person other than an officer, director or Affiliate.

assistant: Transactions With Affiliates
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: Wright contends that the district court erred by sentencing him to consecutive sentences of imprisonment following the revocation of his supervised release because the original plea agreement and sentence provided that the terms of imprisonment be concurrent and co-terminous. The district court did not err because under Ninth Circuit precedent, a district court may impose consecutive sentences after the revocation of supervised release even when the original sentences were concurrent. See United States v. Jackson, 176 F.3d 1175, 1176 (9th Cir.1999). Wright also contends that the district court erred by imposing a term of supervised release following his re-imprisonment. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 694, 713, 120 S.Ct. 1795, 146 L.Ed.2d 727 (2000) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not Options: A. recognizing that probation officers are mandated to enforce a sentencing courts terms and conditions of supervised release B. holding that defendant is not entitled to a jury trial to determine whether terms of supervised release have been violated C. holding the district courts revocation of defendants term of supervised release did not end the courts jurisdiction over defendants release D. holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release E. holding that district courts have the authority to order terms of supervised release following reimprisonment

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that district courts have the authority to order terms of supervised release following reimprisonment
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: termination of your access to and use of the site and the services shall not relieve subscriber of any obligations arising or accruing prior to such termination or limit any liability which subscriber otherwise may have to 9gag , inc or the site , including without limitation any indemnification obligations contained herein .

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: premium payments owed to the insurer which the client then paid to the broker. Id. (citing Unified Servs., Inc. v. Home Ins. Co., 218 Ga.App. 85, 460 S.E.2d 545 (Ga.Ct.App.1995)). 24 . In making these determinations, I have not relied on the Expert HR defendants' response to LM’s Rule 56.1 Statement. Under Local Rule 56.1(b), responses must contain "in the case of any disagreement, specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon.” The Expert HR defendants have not done so, but instead have issued unsupported denials for the vast majority of LM's Rule 56.1 Statement. This response is improper, and is therefore stricken. 25 . See, e.g., Am. Home Ins. Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 122 Cal.App.3d 951, 966, 175 Cal.Rptr. 826, 834 (1981) (<HOLDING>). 26 . As noted above, even if some other basis Options: A. holding jurisdiction over an individual may not usually be predicated on jurisdiction over a corporation unless the corporation is the alter ego of the individual or when the individual perpetrates a fraud B. holding an alter ego action could be brought by the debtor corporation under texas law C. recognizing that the corporate entity is disregarded to prevent fraud or an injustice not to inflict an obligation on an innocent corporation and that the fraud or inequity sought to be eliminated must be that of the party against whom the alter ego doctrine is invoked D. recognizing that the alter ego doctrine is an equitable doctrine which should be used to prevent inequitable results E. recognizing that pursuant to the traditional application of the alter ego doctrine corporate form may be disregarded when the corporation is the mere instrumentality or business conduit of another corporation or person

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that the corporate entity is disregarded to prevent fraud or an injustice not to inflict an obligation on an innocent corporation and that the fraud or inequity sought to be eliminated must be that of the party against whom the alter ego doctrine is invoked