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: The Company shall indemnify and hold harmless each member of the Committee and the Board and any employee or director of the Company or any Subsidiary to whom any duty or power relating to the administration of the Plan or any Award is delegated from and against any loss, cost, liability (including any sum paid in settlement of a claim with the approval of the Board), damage and expense (including reasonable legal and other expenses incident thereto) arising out of or incurred in connection with the Plan, unless and except to the extent attributable to such person’s fraud or willful misconduct.

assistant: Indemnifications
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 Investor (either directly or indirectly) or any Person acting on behalf of or pursuant to any understanding with the Investor, has engaged in any purchases or sales in the securities, including derivatives, of the Company (including, without limitation, any Short Sales involving any of the Company’s securities) (a “ Transaction ”) since the time that the Investor was first contacted by the Company or any other Person regarding the investment in the Company contemplated hereby, other than pursuant to a Transaction between the Investor or any such Person, on the one hand, and the Company, on the other hand. The Investor covenants that neither it nor any Person acting on its behalf or pursuant to any understanding with the Investor will engage, directly or indirectly, in any Transactions in the securities of the Company (including Short Sales) prior to the time the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are publicly disclosed, other than pursuant to a Transaction between the Investor or any such Person, on the one hand, and the Company, on the other hand. “Short Sales” include, without limitation, all “short sales” as defined in Rule 200 promulgated under Regulation SHO under the Exchange Act and all types of direct and indirect stock pledges, forward sale contracts, options, puts, calls, short sales, swaps, derivatives and similar arrangements (including on a total return basis), and sales and other transactions through non-U.S. broker-dealers or foreign regulated brokers .

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: Notwithstanding any action the Company takes with respect to any or all income tax, social security, payroll tax, or other tax-related withholding (“ Tax-Related Items ”), the ultimate liability for all Tax-Related Items is and remains the Participant’s responsibility and the Company (a) makes no representation or undertakings regarding the treatment of any Tax-Related Items in connection with the grant, vesting, or payment of the SARs or the subsequent sale of any Shares acquired as a result of payment of the SARs; and (b) does not commit to structure the SARs to reduce or eliminate the Participant’s liability for Tax-Related Items.

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: needs, failure of others, etc .... may have relevancy” to the determination of obviousness vel non, and citing to a law review article that suggests actual copying may also be probative of obviousness); see also Apple Computer, Inc. v. Articulate Sys., Inc., 234 F.3d 14, 26, 57 USPQ2d 1057, 1066 (Fed.Cir.2000) (describing copying as “objective evidence of non-obviousness”). While copying may be relevant to obviousness, it is of no import on the question of whether the claims of an issued patent are infringed. Indeed, the Supreme Court has specifically rejected the proposition that copying is relevant to infringement as asserted under the doctrine of equivalents. Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 35-36, 117 S.Ct. 1040, 137 L.Ed.2d 146, 41 USPQ2d 1865, 1874 (<HOLDING>). Infringement is determined by comparing the Options: A. holding that the application of the fair use doctrine at the pleading stage is appropriate B. holding that intent plays no role in the application of the doctrine of equivalents C. recognizing doctrine D. holding a district courts application of supplemental jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion not of plaintiffs right E. holding that subjective decisionmaking plays an important and legitimate role in employment decisions

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that intent plays no role in the application of the doctrine of equivalents
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: over Plaintiffs claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1340, 1346(a)(1) or 26 U.S.C. §§ 6330, 7429. 2. The United States Court of Federal Claims Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over Tort Claims. The Complaint alleges numerous claims of fraud, including “mail fraud,” “constructive fraud,” “misrepresentation of material facts” and “conspiracy to defraud.” See Compl. at 1. These claims, however, sound in tort. The United States Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction does not extend to cases sounding in tort. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a) (“[t]he United States Court of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim ... for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.” (emphasis added)); see also Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed.Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Jurisdiction to hear such claims exclusively Options: A. holding that the united states court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute B. holding that the court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute C. holding that the tucker act grants the united states court of federal claims jurisdiction to grant nonmonetary relief in connection with contractor claims including claims requesting an interpretation of contract terms D. holding that plaintiffs negligence claims sounded in tort and thus could not be transferred to the united states court of federal claims E. holding that the united states court of federal claims lacks jurisdiction over claims sounding in tort including fraud

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the united states court of federal claims lacks jurisdiction over claims sounding in tort including fraud
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 multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Delivery of an executed counterpart of this Agreement by telecopy or electronic mail shall be equally effective as delivery of an original executed counterpart of this Agreement. Any party delivering an executed counterpart of this Agreement by telecopy or electronic mail also shall deliver an original executed counterpart of this Agreement but the failure to deliver an original executed counterpart shall not affect the validity, enforceability, and binding effect of this 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: If any term or provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal or incapable of being enforced under any applicable Law or public policy, all other conditions and provisions of this Agreement shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect so long as the economic and legal substance of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement is not affected in any manner materially adverse to any party hereto. Upon such determination that any term or other provision is invalid, illegal or incapable of being enforced, the parties hereto shall negotiate in good faith to modify this Agreement so as to effect the original intent of the parties as closely as possible in a mutually acceptable manner in order that the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are consummated as originally contemplated to the fullest extent possible.

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: in Overtown near her house where she would give small quantities of cocaine and heroin to small children, to sell on the street for her. Leonard and Lenard Brown, who at that time were still in their early teens, allegedly helped Gibson pack cocaine, cook it into crack, and sell cocaine and heroin on the street along with other children. The defense raised a 404(b) objection at trial. This evidence of Gibson’s drug sales before any of the charged conduct in the indictment is “extrinsic” evidence whose admission is regulated by Rule 404(b). Under that Rule, this evidence was probative of Gibson’s intent on the Count 17 charge of knowingly maintaining a place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, and using drugs. United States v. Cardenas, 895 F.2d 1338, 1342 (11th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks and citations Options: A. holding that extrinsic offense evidence was admissible to prove intent where the prosecutor stated that she anticipated the defendant would deny his intent to be involved in the charged offense and defense counsel did not even mention that he would refrain from contesting the intent issue B. holding that the government may not be permitted to introduce other crimes evidence in its case in chief to prove intent unless the defense disputes intent during opening statements C. holding that when defendants plead not guilty the government is required to prove all elements of charged offenses including intent D. holding that when a defendant charged with conspiracy enters a not guilty plea he makes intent a material issue in the case and imposes a substantial burden on the government thus the government may introduce extrinsic offenses which qualify under 404b to prove defendants state of mind unless defendant takes affirmative steps to remove the issue of intent from the case E. holding that the rule 404b evidence admitted to prove intent was clearly relevant because intent was at issue in the trial

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that when a defendant charged with conspiracy enters a not guilty plea he makes intent a material issue in the case and imposes a substantial burden on the government thus the government may introduce extrinsic offenses which qualify under 404b to prove defendants state of mind unless defendant takes affirmative steps to remove the issue of intent from the case
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: employed knowledge at his command, made diligent inquiry, and exerted an honest and conscientious effort appropriate to the circumstances, to acquire the information necessary to enable him to effect personal service on the defendant.” McDaniel v. McElvy, 91 Fla. 770, 108 So. 820, 831 (1926); see Gmaz, 238 So.2d at 514. Further, “when a ‘red flag’ is waved to a complainant notifying or warning him of facts which put him on a reasonable course of inquiry as to the whereabouts or residence of a party-defendant to his law suit, he is bound to follow that course to its logical end.” Id. Stevens had notice of facts that she should have followed before resorting to service by publication. The record indicates that when Stevens filed her complaint she and her attorney kn (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (<HOLDING>). Wolfe also argues that the trial court erred Options: A. holding that aliens failure to exercise due diligence in not inquiring into immigration status for eight years despite knowing that removal proceedings had commenced precluded equitable tolling of deadline for filing motion to reopen B. holding that the plaintiff did not exercise due diligence in attempting to locate the defendant where she failed to follow an obviouslead to the defendants whereabouts by inquiring of the defendants known attorney C. holding that defendant failed to exercise due diligence by neglecting to use a thirtysixhour window to secure an affidavit D. recognizing that where a plaintiff failed to perform because of the defendants breach the plaintiff could recover damages caused by the defendants breach E. holding that the statute of limitations did not commence despite the filing of a prior complaint against another physician until the defendants deposition made the plaintiff aware of the defendants involvement in the decedents death where the plaintiff failed to discover the defendants involvement because of the defendants misstatement concealment or fraud

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the plaintiff did not exercise due diligence in attempting to locate the defendant where she failed to follow an obviouslead to the defendants whereabouts by inquiring of the defendants known attorney
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: You agree to cooperate with Viacom and its attorneys in connection with any Viacom Legal Matter or Company investigation. Your cooperation shall include, without limitation, providing assistance to and meeting with Viacom’s counsel, experts or consultants, and providing truthful testimony in pretrial and trial or hearing proceedings. In the event that your cooperation is requested after the termination of your employment, Viacom shall (i) seek to minimize interruptions to your schedule to the extent consistent with its interests in the matter; and (ii) reimburse you for all reasonable and appropriate out-of-pocket expenses actually incurred by you in connection with such cooperation upon reasonable substantiation of such expenses.

assistant: Cooperation
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: same was expected for the swim on the day of the incident. This testimony raises the question whether the Scouts were in fact like any business invitee (user) to whom the school district owed a duty of reasonable care to avoid a risk of harm. See SCRA 1986, 13-1309 (Repl.Pamp.1991) (owner of a building owes business visitor the duty to use ordinary care to keep the premises safe); Klopp v. Wackenhut Corp., 113 N.M. 153, 157, 824 P.2d 293, 297 (1992) (“in a place of public accommodation, an occupier of the premises owes a duty to safeguard each business visitor whom the occupier reasonably may foresee could be injured by a danger avoidable through reasonable precautions available to the occupier of the premises”); Castillo v. County of Santa Fe, 107 N.M. 204, 205, 755 P.2d 48, 49 (1988) (<HOLDING>). The duty of the owner or occupier includes Options: A. recognizing tort of negligence by words B. holding that ordinary negligence and gross negligence are not separate causes of action C. holding that tort claims act contemplates waiver of immunity when negligence of public employees causes unsafe dangerous or defective condition on property owned and operated by the government D. holding that a public entitys property refers to the public entity that owns the property where a dangerous condition exists E. holding that if property is not property1 of the public entity then the public entity cannot be subject to suit under the dangerous condition waiver

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that tort claims act contemplates waiver of immunity when negligence of public employees causes unsafe dangerous or defective condition on property owned and operated by the government
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement or the Plan to the contrary, in the event that a Change in Control occurs, outstanding Options will terminate upon the effective time of such Change in Control unless provision is made in connection with the transaction for the continuation or assumption of such Options by, or for the substitution of equivalent options, as determined in the sole discretion of the Committee, of, the surviving or successor entity or a parent thereof. In the event of such termination, (i) the outstanding Options that will terminate upon the effective time of the Change in Control shall, immediately before the effective time of the Change in Control, become fully exercisable, (ii) you will be permitted, immediately before the Change in Control, to exercise the Options, and (iii) the Committee may take any of the actions set forth in Section 9(a) and 9(b) with respect to any or all of the Options. Implementation of the provisions of the immediately foregoing sentence shall be conditioned upon consummation of the Change in Control.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Subtenant shall indemnify, defend and hold Landlord and its members, partners, shareholders, officers, directors, agents, employees and contractors harmless from any and all liability for bodily injury to or death of any person, or loss of or damage to the property of any person, and all actions, claims, demands, costs (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees), damages or expenses of any kind arising therefrom which may be brought or made against Landlord or which Landlord may pay or incur by reason of the use, occupancy and enjoyment of the Sublet Premises by Subtenant or any invitees, sublessees, licensees, assignees, agents, employees or contractors of Subtenant or holding under Subtenant (including, but not limited to, any such matters arising out of or in connection with any early entry upon the Sublet Premises by Subtenant pursuant to the terms of the Sublease) from any cause whatsoever other than negligence or willful misconduct or omission by Landlord or its agents, employees or contractors. Landlord and its members, partners, shareholders, officers, directors, agents, employees and contractors shall not be liable for, and Subtenant hereby waives all claims against such persons for, damages to goods, wares and merchandise in or upon the Sublet Premises, or for injuries to Subtenant, its agents or third persons in or upon the Sublet Premises, from any cause whatsoever other than negligence or willful misconduct or omission by Landlord or its agents, employees or contractors. Subtenant shall give prompt notice to Landlord of any casualty or accident in, on or about the Sublet Premises. Tenant confirms that Subtenant's indemnity above is in addition to (and does not replace, modify, or negate) Tenant's indemnification obligations under the Lease, including, without limitation, Tenant's indemnification of Landlord set forth in Section 14.6(a) of the Original Lease. The provisions of this Section 4.6 shall survive the expiration or sooner termination of the Sublease with respect to any claims or liability arising in connection with any event occurring prior to such expiration or termination.

assistant: Indemnifications
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: followed by three years supervised release. In accordance with § 1326(b) and U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) (2000), Hernandez-Roman’s sentence was enhanced because of his prior conviction of an aggravated felony. Hernandez-Roman asserts that, under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the aggravated felony was an element of the offense that had to be charged and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court held to the contrary in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219,140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), and the Apprendi Court did not overrule that holding. 530 U.S. at 489-90. See United States v. Sterling, 283 F.3d 216, 220 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 931, 122 S.Ct. 2606, 153 L.Ed.2d 792 (2002) (<HOLDING>). We also reject Hernandez-Roman’s argument Options: A. holding that almendareztorres remains the law after apprendi B. holding both that almendareztorres was not overruled by apprendi and was not limited to facts in which the defendant does not contest prior convictions C. holding that almendareztorres remains good law after apprendi D. holding that almendareztorres was not overruled by apprendi E. holding that apprendi carved out an exception for prior convictions that specifically preserved the holding of almendareztorres

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that almendareztorres was not overruled by apprendi
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: In addition to the accounts and records referred to in subsection (a), each Revolving Credit Lender and the Administrative Agent shall maintain in accordance with its usual practice accounts or records evidencing the purchases and sales by such Revolving Credit Lender of participations in Letters of Credit and Swingline Loans. In the event of any conflict between the accounts and records maintained by the Administrative Agent and the accounts and records of any Revolving Credit Lender in respect of such matters, the accounts and records of the Administrative Agent shall control in the absence of manifest error.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In consideration of Wells Fargo’s execution of this Agreement, the Borrower and Mortgagor do hereby, on behalf of themselves, their agents, insurers, heirs, successors and assigns, release, acquit and forever discharge Wells Fargo and Wells Fargo & Company, and any and all of their parent corporations, subsidiary corporations, affiliated corporations, insurers, indemnitors, successors and assigns, together with all of their present and former directors, officers, agents, attorneys and employees (together, the “Released Parties”) from any and all claims, demands or causes of action of any kind, nature or description, whether arising in law or equity or upon contract or tort or under any state or federal law or otherwise, which the Borrower and Mortgagor, or either of them, has had, now has or has made claim to have against the Released Parties for, upon or by reason of any act, omission, matter, cause or thing whatsoever relating to any or all of the Note, Mortgage, Pledge and Loan Documents, and arising from the beginning of time to and including the date of this Agreement (the “Released Claims”), whether such claims, demands and causes of action are matured or unmatured, liquidated or unliquidated, known or unknown, fixed, contingent, direct or indirect, and shall indemnify and hold harmless the Released Parties from any and all expenses, costs, liability and fees (including but not limited to attorney’s fees and expenses) incurred by any such Released Party as a result of any such action or proceeding instituted by Borrower, the Mortgagor or any third party. Borrower and Mortgagor irrevocably covenant and agree forever to refrain from initiating, filing, instituting, maintaining or proceeding upon, or encouraging, advising or voluntarily assisting any other person or entity to initiate, institute, maintain or proceed upon any Released Claim of any nature whatsoever released in this General Release and Indemnity.

assistant: Indemnity
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: a material issue of fact regarding plaintiffs discrimination claims. The court is persuaded that no rational factfinder could base a finding of pretext on any of the above assertions, and finds them to be unrelated events, inconsequential facts and opinions, or attenuated inferences. The ADEA does not require an employer to give special treatment to older workers to the disadvantage of junior employees; it requires only that older workers be treated fairly. See Jones v. Unisys Corp., 54 F.3d 624, 630 n. 6 (10th Cir.1995). The evidence overwhelmingly supports the defendant’s proffered reasons for the plaintiffs termination, and the plaintiffs meager evidence is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to pretext. Lawmaster v. Ward, 125 F.3d 1341, 1347 (10th Cir.1997)(<HOLDING>) Accordingly, the court finds summary judgment Options: A. holding that the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence is insufficient to create a dispute of fact that is genuine B. 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 C. holding that on a motion for summary judgment the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiffs position will be insufficient and there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff D. holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if there is a genuine dispute about a material fact E. holding that a speculative affidavit which contained mere conjecture was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for trial

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence is insufficient to create a dispute of fact that is genuine
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: limit a federal prisoner’s right to file a “second or successive” motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b); id § 2255 para. 8 (incorporating requirements from § 2244(b)). In denying McVeigh’s request for a stay, the district court first assumed that under certain circumstances a showing of fraud on the court could serve to allow the reopening of a previously filed § 2255 petition under Rule 60(b) without the necessity of satisfying the rigorous standards set out in the AEDPA for the filing of second or successive habeas petitions. See Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 553, 557, 118 S.Ct. 1489, 140 L.Ed.2d 728 (1998) (arguably suggesting exception for fraud on the court); Workman v. Bell, 227 F.3d 331, 335 (6th Cir.2000) (plurality opinion for equally divided court) (<HOLDING>); United States v. MacDonald, No. 97-7297, 1998 Options: A. recognizing exception B. recognizing emergency exception C. recognizing exception under state constitution D. recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception E. recognizing the public interest exception

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing exception
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: plaintiffs cannot dispute that this case presents manageability issues, but Briseno declined to adopt an administrative feasibility prerequisite and affirmed “the well-settled presumption that courts should not refuse to certify a class merely on the basis of manageability concerns.” Briseno, 844 F.3d at 1128. While administrative feasibility is not a prerequisite to class certification, manageability is still a factor to be considered in a court’s superiority analysis. “Manageability concerns must be weighed against the alternatives and will rarely, if ever, be sufficient to prevent certification of a class.” Trosper v. Styker Corp., No. 13-cv-00607-LHK, 2015 WL 5915360 at *17, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117453 at *17 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Briseno, 844 F.3d at 1128 (<HOLDING>). FAS raised the same arguments two years ago Options: A. holding that an adjudication on summary judgment is an adjudication on the merits B. holding class action to be superior adjudication method where individual class members had no interest in controlling prosecution of individual actions C. holding that to maintain a class action the existence of the class must be pleaded and the limits of the class must be defined with some specificity D. holding courts must balance the benefits of class adjudication against its costs E. holding that privity existed in a class action when lead plaintiff was the defendant in the prior adjudication

assistant: The best answer is D. holding courts must balance the benefits of class adjudication against its costs
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: Oct. 29, 2007). Plaintiffs’ conversion claim with respect to the business documents, including the client list, fails as a matter of law. While Belliard did assume or exercise control over Pure Power’s client list to the extent that he accessed the client list from a Pure Power computer and downloaded it onto a thumb drive, Belliard possessed only a copy of the client list and did not, in any way, limit or otherwise deprive Pure Power of possession or use of that list. See Hair Say, Ltd. v. Salon Opus, Inc., 6 Misc.3d 1041(A), No. 5106-01(LBA), 2005 WL 697538, at *5 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Mar. 17, 2005) (granting summary judgment on a conversion claim where plaintiff retained possession of a list of beauty salon clients that had been copied by defendants); Alpha Funding, 2007 WL 3375871, at *7 (<HOLDING>). Similarly, although the Court concludes that Options: A. holding that it is not B. holding that plaintiff could state a claim for conversion of confidential information C. holding former employee could properly use recollection of customer information where he did not otherwise misappropriate an actual customer list D. holding that where defendant retained possession of and deprived plaintiff access to business records a claim for conversion was properly stated E. holding that where plaintiff did not allege that it was deprived of or excluded from use of its own customer lists it could not establish conversion

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that where plaintiff did not allege that it was deprived of or excluded from use of its own customer lists it could not establish conversion
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 Administrative Agent (and in the case of subpart (iii) below, the applicable LC Issuer) shall have received, as applicable, (i) a Notice of Borrowing meeting the requirements of Section 2.06(b) with respect to any Borrowing (other than a Continuation or Conversion), (ii) a Notice of Continuation or Conversion meeting the requirements of Section 2.10(b) with respect to a Continuation or Conversion, or (iii) an LC Request meeting the requirements of Section 2.05(b) with respect to each LC Issuance.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: are agreements “attendant upon the dissolution of [the] marriage,” are postnuptial agreements, not premarital agreements. Since 1977, section 503 of the Dissolution Act has allowed premarital agreements that deal with questions of marital property. 750 ILCS 5/503(d)(7) (West 1998) (court shall consider “any antenuptial agreement of the parties”); In re Marriage of Jelinek, 244 Ill. App. 3d 496, 501-02, 613 N.E.2d 1284, 1289 (1993). There was a question, however, whether the Dissolution Act changed the previous rule that a premarital agreement could not deal with questions of maintenance. 750 ILCS 5/504(a)(ll) (West 1998) (factors to consider when awarding maintenance include “any valid agreement of the parties”); see Eule v. Eule, 24 Ill. App. 3d 83, 87, 320 N.E.2d 506, 510 (1974) (<HOLDING>); Warren v. Warren, 169 Ill. App. 3d 226, 231, Options: A. holding that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering temporary alimony that exceeded the husbands ability to pay B. holding such a provision waiving alimony valid C. holding that first husband had no knowledge of his exwifes second marriage until four days before the second marriage was annulled so he was not inconvenienced and alimony was reinstated D. holding that an agreement which both addressed alimony and divided the parties property in the event of divorce was not a marriage contract subject to ocga 19363 E. holding invalid a premarital agreement waiving temporary alimony if marriage did not last seven years

assistant: The best answer is E. holding invalid a premarital agreement waiving temporary alimony if marriage did not last seven years
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 U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 386 U.S. 15 87 S.Ct. 847 17 L.Ed.2d 696 Landon ZUCKERMAN et al.v.Samuel GREASON. No. 71. Supreme Court of the United States February 13, 1967 Rehearing Denied March 13, 1967. See 386 U.S. 969, 87 S.Ct. 1016. Leonard Feldman, for petitioners. Samuel Greason, pro se. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Judicial Department. PER CURIAM. 1 The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Judicial Department, for reconsideration in light of Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511, 87 S.Ct. 625. 2 Mr. Justice CLARK, Mr. Justice HARLAN, and Mr. Justice STEWART would affirm the judgment below for the reasons set forth in Mr. Justice HARLAN'S dissenting opinion in Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S., at 520, 87 S.Ct., at 631. 3 Mr. Justice WHITE, dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Garrity v. State of New Jersey, and Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S., at 530, 87 S.Ct., at 636.

assistant: 1
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: 89 So.3d 937, 947-48 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (rejecting Philip Morris’s contention that the plaintiff “was obligated to show further or continued reliance upon the alleged last act in furtherance of the conspiracy”). The trial court thus erred in striking Philip Morris’s statute of repose defense to the conspiracy claim. Because the jury awarded punitive damages on the conspiracy claim, we reverse the punitive damages award. However, for the reasons stated below, we do not find the amount of the punitive damages award excessive; we will thus allow the award to stand if on retrial the plaintiff prevails on the statute of repose issue. See Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Cohen, 102 So.3d 11, 16 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); see also Elmore v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 895 So.2d 475, 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (<HOLDING>). As we explained in Cohen, “[ljimiting the new Options: A. holding that superior court erred in granting judgment nov and remanding for a new trial generally B. holding that trial court erred by granting a directed verdict on statute of limitations defense and remanding for a new trial on the statute of limitations only C. holding that the trial court erred in granting the school boards posttrial motion for directed verdict because although the school board timely moved for a directed verdict during trial it did not serve its motion for directed verdict until the eleventh day after the verdict D. holding that superior courts erred in granting judgment nov on a wrongful death claim and remanding for new trial on that claim and on damages E. holding that superior court erred in reversing trial courts order granting new trial and remanding for a new trial limited to apportionment of damages

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that trial court erred by granting a directed verdict on statute of limitations defense and remanding for a new trial on the statute of limitations only
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: 14.1 except to the extent expressly provided in section 14.2 , this agreement and the relationship between you and ncl shall be governed by the laws of japan , to the exclusion of the un sales convention on contracts for the international sale of goods .

assistant: Choice of law
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: does not contest the fact that Florence Ostroski was the owner of the premises. (See Plaintiffs 56.1 Statement, ¶ 5.) Defendants point to uncontested evidence in the record indicating that Florence Ostroski specifically requested that the officers seize and remove the guns. (See Biancanello Aff., Ex. G. at vol. 1., p. 150, 172; vol. 2, p. 38.) It was reasonable for the defendant officers to believe that Florence Ostroski had the authority to consent to a search of the upstairs to retrieve the guns, based upon the fact that they knew that she was the owner of the house, and since she had access to the area search, as exhibited by her knowledge of the location of the weapons. See United States v. Perez, 948 F.Supp. 1191, 1201 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (finding it reaso F.3d 1098, 1109 (2d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Alternatively, the search and seizure was Options: A. holding that a warrant was needed to perform an administrative search upon private property B. holding officers engaged in search entitled to immunity C. holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity D. holding that defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law where they relied upon consent of property owner to perform search E. holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity where defendant officers could have reasonably believed that they were given sufficient third party consent to search

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law where they relied upon consent of property owner to perform search
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Loan Party shall preserve and maintain its partnership, limited liability company or corporate existence, rights, franchises and privileges in the jurisdiction of its organization, and qualify and remain qualified as a foreign business entity in each jurisdiction in which qualification is necessary in view of its business and operations or the ownership of its Properties and where failure to qualify could reasonably be expected to cause a Material Adverse Change; provided , however, that nothing herein contained shall prevent any transaction permitted by Section 6.7 .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: two days before that term expired, and that he therefore satisfied the production and marketing requirements in the lease. The Davises, on the other hand, complain that waiting until nearly the end of a ten-year primary term to market the oil and gas was unreasonable and therefore breached the covenant to market. In Gazin v. Pan American Petroleum Corp., 367 P.2d 1010 (Okla.1961), the Oklahoma Supreme Court held: Where an oil and gas lease does not, in express terms, provide for the marketing of the product of a well drilled on leased land, any cov Ed. 1391 (1936); Brewster v. Lanyon Zinc Co., 140 F. 801 (8th Cir.1905) (lease contained implied covenant to use reasonable diligence to explore for, develop, and produce oil and gas); Molter v. Lewis, 156 Kan. 544, 134 P.2d 404 (1943) (<HOLDING>); Swamp Branch Oil & Gas Co. v. Rice, 253 Ky. Options: A. recognizing cause of action for implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in atwill employment contract B. recognizing implied duty to produce and market C. holding language of lease did not indicate implied covenant of continued use D. recognizing implied duty to market E. recognizing implied covenant to market gas

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing implied covenant to market gas
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 Employment Term, the Company shall reimburse the Employee for such reasonable out‑of‑pocket expenses as he may incur from time to time for and on behalf of the furtherance of the Company’s business, provided that the Employee submits to the Company satisfactory documentation or other support for such expenses in accordance with the Company’s expense reimbursement policy.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: failing to request such an order by September 3, 2010. More troublesome is the fact that the County Defendants also failed to request a confidentiality order before or at the time they produced the IAU Report — the date of production being sometime between October 29, 2010 and November 10, 2010. In the Court’s view, there is no doubt that this failure to request a confidentiality order waived the County Defendants’ right to seek redress had the plaintiff published the IAU Report while no protective order was in place. Similarly, there is no doubt that, if the plaintiff had made the document public, the First Amendment would require more than a showing of good cause to limit further dissemination. However, the relevant question here is whether the County Defendants, 413 (M.D.N.C.1991) (<HOLDING>); Nestle Foods Corp. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Options: A. holding that a defendant has the right to an order permitting him to inspect his own written or recorded statements absent a basis for a protective order B. holding petitioner cannot circumvent time requirements for seeking certiorari review of an order denying a motion for a protective order by filing a successive motion seeking the same relief and seeking certiorari review that is timely only with respect to the order denying the second motion C. holding that production of documents without seeking a protective order waives the right to such an order unless there is a showing of good cause for the delay D. holding that speculation that production of requested documents might reveal exculpatory evidence is insufficient to establish good cause for discovery E. holding that to gain a protective order the party must make particularized showing of good cause with respect to any individual document

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that production of documents without seeking a protective order waives the right to such an order unless there is a showing of good cause for the delay
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: willfulness has generally been applied to determine whether an enhancement of statutory damages is appropriate under § 504(c). The Court sees no reason not to apply the same standard in the context of calculating net profits under § 504(b). But see Nimmer § 14.03(B)(3) at 14-56 n. 81-6 (noting possibility that standards may differ). 8 . Plaintiffs make much of a copyright application made by defendants in November 2003 relating to two traditional Christmas carols as evidencing defendants' knowledge that Caffey was able to copyright the selection and sequencing of songs in the Show. The Court declines to draw this inference inasmuch as defendants' application (Pis.’ Ex. 42) seeks to copyright a new musical arrangement, not merely a list of songs. 9 . See, e.g., Orgel, 301 F.2d at 121 (<HOLDING>); Cream Records, Inc. v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Options: A. holding that if the insurer cannot return the vehicle to substantially the same condition then the actual cash value is the appropriate measure where insured sued for damages caused by insurers inappropriate election to repair and the value after repairs was almost sixty percent less than its preloss value B. recognizing that the fact that a substantial portion of the infringing work was copied verbatim is evidence of the qualitative value of the copied material C. holding that the knowing provision of swap meet facilities necessary to the sale and distribution of infringing works was a material contribution to the infringement of others D. holding that where the plagiarized material comprised 35 of the work and the commercial value of the whole was likely attributable in some part to the remaining 65 percent 50 percent of the profits were allocated to the infringing material E. holding that posting of infringing copyrighted material may give rise to jurisdiction where the victiimplaintiff was a resident of the forum state

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that where the plagiarized material comprised 35 of the work and the commercial value of the whole was likely attributable in some part to the remaining 65 percent 50 percent of the profits were allocated to the infringing material