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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: ANY LEGAL ACTION OR PROCEEDING WITH RESPECT TO ANY LOAN DOCUMENT SHALL BE BROUGHT EXCLUSIVELY IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK LOCATED IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN, OR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AND, BY EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THIS AGREEMENT, EACH PARTY HERETO EXECUTING THIS AGREEMENT HEREBY ACCEPTS FOR ITSELF AND IN RESPECT OF ITS PROPERTY, GENERALLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY, THE JURISDICTION OF THE AFORESAID COURTS; PROVIDED THAT NOTHING IN THIS AGREEMENT SHALL LIMIT THE RIGHT OF THE TERM AGENT TO COMMENCE ANY PROCEEDING IN THE FEDERAL OR STATE COURTS OF ANY OTHER JURISDICTION TO THE EXTENT THE TERM AGENT DETERMINES THAT SUCH ACTION IS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO EXERCISE ITS RIGHTS OR REMEDIES UNDER THE LOAN DOCUMENTS. THE PARTIES HERETO (AND, TO THE EXTENT SET FORTH IN ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT, EACH OTHER BORROWER) HEREBY IRREVOCABLY WAIVE ANY OBJECTION, INCLUDING ANY OBJECTION TO THE LAYING OF VENUE OR BASED ON THE GROUNDS OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS, THAT ANY OF THEM MAY NOW OR HEREAFTER HAVE TO THE BRINGING OF ANY SUCH ACTION OR PROCEEDING IN SUCH JURISDICTIONS.

assistant: Submission 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Tex. 360, 190 S.W.2d 709, 712 (1945). Appellees further allege that a valid takings claim requires that the governmental entity act pursuant to its eminent domain powers and that the DPS officials and the justice of the peace were acting “under color of right” granted by article 47.01a rather than exercising their eminent domain powers. But this is not a valid challenge to a takings claim. See Steele, 603 S.W.2d at 789; VSC, 242 S.W.3d at 592-93; Tex. Workforce Comm’n v. MidFirst Bank, 40 S.W.3d 690, 697 (Tex.App.-Austin 2001, pet. denied). Indeed, it would negate the validity of inverse condemnation claims based on regulatory actions (rather than actual physical takings), which have long been permissible in Texas. See, e.g., Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922, 933 (Tex.1998) (<HOLDING>), cert, denied, 526 U.S. 1144, 119 S.Ct. 2018, Options: A. holding that zoning ordinance can effect a regulatory taking if the ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies an owner all economically viable use of his land B. holding that a zoning regulation which deprives property of all economically beneficial or productive use is a categorical regulatory taking C. holding that a regulation prohibiting a landowner from building houses on his beachfront property denied him all economically viable use of his land and therefore was a taking requiring compensation D. recognizing categorical taking when regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land E. holding city ordinance preempted by state law because ordinance prohibited act specifically allowed under state law

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that zoning ordinance can effect a regulatory taking if the ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies an owner all economically viable use of his land
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: Mr. Lang argues that the district court erroneously admitted Galen Ure’s testimony. We review evidentiary rulings under an abuse of discretion standard and reverse district court rulings only' for “a clearly erroneous finding of fact or an erroneous conclusion of law or ... a clear error in judgment.” United States v. Jenkins, 313 F.3d 549, 559 (10th Cir.2002). We find Mr. Lang’s argument without merit. The district court admitted Mr. Ure’s testimony as non-hearsay under Fed R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). We do not determine the applicability of Fed R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E), however, because Fed R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A) permits Mr. Ure’s testimony regarding Mr. Lang’s statements as a non-hearsay admission by party-opponent. See In re Slack-Horner Foundries Co., 971 F.2d 577, 579-80 (10th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). “A statement is not hearsay if .... [t]hé Options: A. holding that we may affirm on an alternative basis supported by the record B. recognizing this court may affirm for any reason supported by the record C. recognizing that this court may affirm summary judgment on grounds other than those relied upon by the motion justice D. holding we may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even those not relied upon by the district court E. holding this court may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even if different from the district courts grounds

assistant: The best answer is D. holding we may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even those not relied upon by the district court
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: It is intended that, in view of the nature of the Company’s business, the restrictions contained in Sections 6.1 through 6.4 (including, without limitation, the restrictions that are specifically incorporated herein by reference), are considered reasonable and necessary to protect the Company’s legitimate business interests and that any violation of these restrictions would result in irreparable injury to the Company. In the event of a breach or a threatened breach by Executive of any restrictive covenant contained herein, the Company shall be entitled to a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief restraining Executive from the commission of any breach, and to recover the Company’s attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses related to the breach or threatened breach. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as prohibiting the Company from pursuing any other remedies available to it for any breach or threatened breach, including, without limitation, the restoration and other remedies specified in this Agreement and/or the recovery of money damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. These covenants and restrictions shall each be construed as independent of any other provisions in the Agreement, and the existence of any claim or cause of action by Executive against the Company, whether predicated on this Agreement or otherwise, shall not constitute a defense to the enforcement by the Company of such covenants and restrictions.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any payments and reimbursements due to the Issuing Lenders hereunder shall be remitted to the Administrative Agent which shall, in turn, remit such funds to the applicable Issuing Lender.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: (affirming the bankruptcy court's holding that the parties' relationship of approximately 15 months was sufficient to establish an ordinary course of dealings); Fulcrum Direct, Inc. v. Associated Footware, Inc. (In re Fulcrum Direct, Inc.), Adv. Case. No. 99-251, 2003 WL 1878070, 2003 Bankr.LEXIS 318 (Bankr.D.Del. Apr. 14, 2003) (finding that a two year relationship an ordinary course of dealings between the parties); Unsecured Creditors’ Comm. v. CBA Indus. (In re Color Tile, Inc.), 239 B.R. 872, 875 (Bankr.D.Del.1999) (finding a relationship that existed for nearly three years was long enough to establish the course of dealings between the parties). But see Buffalo Molded Plastics, Inc. v. Omega Tool Corp. (In re Buffalo Molded Plastics, Inc.), 344 B.R. 394, 405 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.2006) (<HOLDING>); Morris v. Sampson Travel Agency, Inc. (In re Options: A. recognizing that course of dealing may establish limitation of damages as part of parties bargain in fact but finding record was devoid of any evidence to establish a prior course of dealing between parties B. holding that hearing officers noting the parties agreement did not constitute a change in the parties legal relationship C. holding that the average number of days to payment nearly doubled between the historical period and the preference period which based on the facts of that particular case made the payments outside the ordinary course of dealings between the plaintiff and defendant D. holding that the parties relationship was not lengthy enough to establish an ordinary course of dealings as the first transaction between the parties was subject to the preference action E. holding that a payment made by certified check rather than the customary regular check was outside the ordinary course of dealings between the parties

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the parties relationship was not lengthy enough to establish an ordinary course of dealings as the first transaction between the parties was subject to the preference action
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: upon a showing by the intervenor that he fulfills the requirements of Art. III.”). The first Benavidez prong can therefore be understood as a temporal extension of the case-or-controversy requirement, applied at the point where the intervenor is the lone remaining party. This requirement demands higher scrutiny where the original party’s claim was dismissed on the merits or for lack of jurisdiction, but the analysis is somewhat different where the original party was dismissed for a procedural reason, such as for failure to prosecute. In such cases, a claim joined by an intervenor may survive the dismissal of the original party if the court retains jurisdiction over the claim and the intervenor has standing to continue litigating it. See Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 585 F.3d at 1189 (<HOLDING>). There is no question that OneCap timely filed Options: A. holding that district courts order granting motion for default judgment was erroneous because a default judgment cannot be entered until the amount of damages has been ascertained B. holding that despite failure to appear for trial default could not be entered without notice to defendant C. holding that a default judgment was not void because the bankruptcy court that entered the judgment had proper jurisdiction over the party seeking relief D. holding that the district court erred in dismissing the injured party from the insureds declaratory relief action based on a default judgment entered against the insured and the insureds tortfeasor son E. holding that the district court should not have entered a default judgment against an intervenor based on the original partys failure to appear

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the district court should not have entered a default judgment against an intervenor based on the original partys failure to appear
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any notice or other communication required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and shall be delivered personally or sent by certified, registered, or express mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or by a reputable overnight delivery service. Any such notice shall be deemed given when received by the intended recipient.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and any certificate attached hereto or delivered in accordance with the terms hereof by or on behalf of Nexus in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, when taken together, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements contained herein and/or therein not misleading.

assistant: Disclosures
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 (or its counsel) shall have received counterparts of this Amendment that, when taken together, bear the signatures of (i) the Borrower, (ii) the Administrative Agent, and (iii) each Lender.

assistant: Amendments
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 terminate upon the later of (x) the expiration of the Standstill Period and (y) the conclusion of the 2017 Annual Meeting, provided that Section 7 of this Agreement shall survive as provided in the Confidentiality Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: So long as the obligations of the Company under this Note are outstanding, the Company shall not, and shall not permit any Subsidiary to, directly or indirectly, (i) assign, transfer or otherwise encumber or allow any other Person to have any rights or license to any of the intellectual property rights of the Company or its Subsidiaries, except in the ordinary course of business, or (ii) knowingly take any action or inaction to impair the value of their intellectual property rights.

assistant: Intellectual Property
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 certain actions of the defendant. See HRPP Rule 48(c). In the instant case, the circuit court did not calculate excludable periods because, given a starting date of October 28, 1996, any periods excludable under subsection (c) would not have brought the total number of days between arrest and motion to dismiss (444 days) below the 180-day limit. However, since we have concluded that the dates of indictment start the Rule 48 clock running, we must calculate and deduct any excludable periods. Defendant’s October 10, 1997 oral motion to continue, his counsel’s August 18, 1997 motion to withdraw, and the periods of delay they created are per se excludable. HRPP Rule 48(d)(1); see also State v. Sujohn, 64 Haw. 516, 520, 644 P.2d 1326, 1328, reconsideration denied, 64 Haw. 688 (1982) (<HOLDING>). The eight days between the granting of Options: A. holding that the essential inquiry in conversion of a rule 12b6 motion to a rule 56 motion is whether the appellant should reasonably have recognized the possibility that the motion might be converted into one for summary judgment or was taken by surprise and deprived of a reasonable opportunity to meet facts outside the pleadings B. holding that a fivemonth delay in filing a motion to disqualify did not bar the motion where there was a reasonable explanation for the delay C. holding that the exclusion in rule 48c1 hrpp of periods of delay should be taken from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on or other prompt disposition of the motion citation omitted D. holding among other things that there should be excluded from computing the time for trial a period from the filing of a motion on september 18 until finai disposition of the motion by the trial court on its own motion on december 28 that is 102 days E. holding that a motion to continue a hearing on a postjudgment motion was ineffective to extend the period for the trial court to rule on the motion absent the express consent of the parties

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the exclusion in rule 48c1 hrpp of periods of delay should be taken from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on or other prompt disposition of the motion citation omitted
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 "Partner”). PI. Reply. Ex. A. at 1. 23 . The court has deducted the 53.6 hours in 2012, th.e 13.4 hours in 2013, the 7.1 hours in 2014, and the 0.5 hours in 2015 that Sutherland Asbill spent in connection with proceedings before the IRS or the United States Tax Court. Pi. Reply Ex. E. In addition, the court has deducted an additional .2 hours in 2015 and .1 hours in 2016 that the court determined was spent in connection with United States Tax Court proceedings upon review of Plaintiff’s Exhibits. PI. Mem. Ex. D at 26 (12/2/2015 entry for .2 hours for "Attention to multiple Tax Court notices; email to clients"); PL Mem Ex. D at 27 (2/11/2016 entry for .1 hours for "Attention to Tax Court orders on CDP cases"). See Oliveira v. United States, 827 F.2d 735, 744 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (<HOLDING>). 24 . For 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, Options: A. holding that pursuant to the eaja courts may not award expenses of an attorney that are not incurred or expended solely or exclusively in connection with the case before the court B. holding that under the eaja a prevailing party with an unconditional right to be indemnified for his legal expenses by a solvent third party had not incurred attorneys fees C. holding that an award for medical expenses is proper when the expenses have been incurred but not paid D. holding attorney fees may be allowed for expenses incurred for default E. holding that attorney fees are incurred only when there is an express or implied agreement that the fee award will be paid over to the legal representative

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that pursuant to the eaja courts may not award expenses of an attorney that are not incurred or expended solely or exclusively in connection with the case before the court
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 Borrower or Related Party may not assign this Agreement. Upon notice to Borrower and Related Party, the Lender may assign its rights under this Agreement, including its right to repayment of the Loan or of any interest thereon, in whole or in part, to an affiliate of the Lender.

assistant: Assignments
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: from an [aircraft] while in flight, whether done intentionally or unintentionally.” Green v. Zimmerman, 269 S.C. 535, 238 S.E.2d 323, 324 (1977) (emphasis added). Normally, the Court’s analysis would end there. Erickson, however, makes an argument that § 305 is not as straightforward as it may seem. Erickson points out that § 305 applies only for injuries to persons and property on the ground, to the exclusion of those persons participating in the flight, i.e., pilots and passengers. Erickson also points out this statutory policy is entirely consistent with the common law bar on participants seeking to assert absolute liability under the law of ultrahazar-dous activities. See, e.g., Whitlock v. Duke Univ, D.N.C., 637 F.Supp. 1463, 1475 (1986), aff'd, 4th Cir., 829 F.2d 1340 (1987) (<HOLDING>). While one is tempted to seize with relief Options: A. holding that diver participating in decompression experiments could not assert absolute liability claim under law of ultrahazardous activities B. holding that compulsion is a defense to absolute liability traffic offenses C. holding that the prosecutors activities in preparing and filing an information and motion for an arrest warrant were protected by absolute immunity D. holding that njeither the right to associate nor the right to participate in political activities is absolute and congress may prohibit federal employees from participating in political activities in view of its interest in maintaining a nonpartisan work force E. holding that the considerations underlying absolute prosecutorial immunity at common law dictate the same absolute immunity under 1983

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that diver participating in decompression experiments could not assert absolute liability claim under law of ultrahazardous activities
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: Id. at 1263. Likewise, Morris argues that the assumption underlying the “objective” probability of the doctrine of chances “necessarily depends — in a mathematically demonstrable manner — on the assumption that the defendant’s character is unchanging.” Morris, supra, at 201. Nonetheless, despite the apparently flawed reasoning underlying the doctrine of chances, the majority of courts have adopted the doctrine without question. See, e.g., State v. Sullivan, supra; People v Crawford, supra; State v. Sadowski, supra. (b) Factual Disparity Even assuming that the doctrine of chances is the law in this jurisdiction, a matter we have never specifically addressed and do not now address, the facts of the instant case do not satisfy the doctrine’s requirements. See, State v. Sullivan, supra (<HOLDING>); People v. Spoto, 795 P.2d 1314 (Colo. 1990). Options: A. holding that police officers were not entitled to qualified immunity where they used threats and physical violence against the plaintiff in march 1992 to coerce a confession that was later used to convict him of murder B. holding that two acts were not sufficiently similar when one consisted of verbal threats and other resulted in physical violence C. holding that harassment threats and one beating did not constitute persecution D. holding that two isolated criminal acts perpetrated by unknown assailants which resulted only in the theft of some personal property and a minor injury are not sufficiently severe to be considered persecution E. holding that verbal threats if they are specific can constitute adverse action for retaliation purposes

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that two acts were not sufficiently similar when one consisted of verbal threats and other resulted in physical violence
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 Directorship Term (as defined herein), the Director make reasonable business efforts to attend all Board meetings and quarterly pre-scheduled Board and Management conference calls, serve on appropriate subcommittees as reasonably requested and agreed upon by the Board, make himself available to the Company at mutually convenient times and places, attend external meetings and presentations when agreed on in advance, as appropriate and convenient, and perform such duties, services and responsibilities, and have the authority commensurate to such position.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Plan and this Award Agreement and the other documents delivered hereunder (if any) constitute the full and entire understanding and agreement between the parties with regard to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior agreements, understandings, inducements or conditions, express or implied, oral or written, relating to the subject matter hereof, except as herein contained. The express terms of the Plan and this Award Agreement control and supersede any course of performance or usage of trade inconsistent with any of the terms hereof.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If a claim, dispute, or controversy arises between the Loan Parties and Lender with respect to the Loan Documents, or any other agreement or business relationship between the Loan Parties and Lender whether or not related to the subject matter of this Agreement (all of the foregoing, a “ Dispute ”), and only if a jury trial waiver is not permitted by applicable law or ruling by a court, any of the parties may require that the Dispute be resolved by binding arbitration before a single arbitrator at the request of any party. By agreeing to arbitrate a Dispute, the Loan Parties and Lender give up any right they may have to a jury trial, as well as other rights they would have in court that are not available or are more limited in arbitration, such as the rights to discovery and to appeal.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as to matters preempted by ERISA or other laws of the United States of America, this Agreement shall be interpreted solely pursuant to the laws of the State of Colorado, exclusive of its conflicts of laws principles. Each of the Parties hereto irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Colorado, for the purposes of any suit, action, or other proceeding arising out of this Agreement or any transaction contemplated hereby.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or the breach thereof, except for controversies or claims relating to Sections 5 through 8 of this Agreement which will be handled pursuant to Section 9 of this Agreement, will be settled by binding arbitration in accordance with the Employment Rules of the American Arbitration Association using one arbitrator. The decision of the arbitration panel will be final and binding on the parties, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitration panel may be entered by any court having jurisdiction thereof.

assistant: Arbitration
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 Amendment is not a novation or discharge of the terms and provisions of the obligations of Credit Parties under the Credit Agreement and the other Loan Documents. There are no other understandings, express or implied, among Credit Parties and Lender regarding the subject matter hereof or thereof.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: a First Amendment retaliation claim, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of DPS on that claim. C. Procedural Due Process Harris next argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for DPS on Harris’s claim that DPS violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by placing him on paid leave without affording him due process of law. As “the Supreme Court stated in [Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 544-55, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985) ],” however, “the suspension of [even] a tenured public employee with pay ... avoid[s] due process problems entirely.” Jackson v. City of Columbus, 194 F.3d 737, 749 (6th Cir.1999), abrogated on other grounds by Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A, 534 U.S. 506, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the evidence establishes that Options: A. holding the right to assistance of counsel as announced in gideon v wainwright 372 us 335 83 sct 792 9 led2d 799 to be retroactive B. holding that plaintiffs alleging discriminatory treatment are not required to plead facts establishing a prima facie case under mcdonnell douglas corp v green 411 us 792 93 sct 1817 36 led2d 668 1973 because its burdenshifting framework does not apply in every discrimination case C. holding that a plaintiff who could not demonstrate every element of the mcdonnell douglas test could nonetheless demonstrate a prima facie case D. holding that the burdenshifting test established by mcdonnell douglas v green 411 us 792 93 sct 1817 36 led2d 668 1973 does not apply at the pleading stage E. holding that a plaintiff in a discrimination case need not demonstrate that she was replaced by a person outside her protected class in order to carry her burden of establishing a prima facie case under mcdonnell douglas corp v green 411 us 792 93 sct 1817 36 led2d 668 1973

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the burdenshifting test established by mcdonnell douglas v green 411 us 792 93 sct 1817 36 led2d 668 1973 does not apply at the pleading stage
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 of the Borrower and its Subsidiaries (or, solely with respect to any period prior to the consummation of the Spin Transaction, Manitowoc and its Subsidiaries) has timely filed or caused to be filed all Tax returns and reports required to have been filed (including the filing of extensions in respect thereof) and has paid or caused to be paid all Taxes required to have been paid by it, except (a) Taxes that are being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings and for which the Borrower or such Subsidiary (or, solely with respect to any period prior to the consummation of the Spin Transaction, Manitowoc or such Subsidiaries), as applicable, has set aside on its books adequate reserves or (b) to the extent that the failure to do so could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Morrissey’s earlier services is clearly wrong in light of the court’s other findings. They include the findings (a) that “Sr. Mon[z]on had never agreed to any specific hourly rates and clearly none that approached or exceeded $200 per hour,” 782 F.Supp. at 905; (b) that Morrissey ha .S.2d at 382, 489 N.E.2d at 1284 (same). Based on Mar Oil’s rejection of the very first bill, sent in January 1981 and asking for $75,-000, Morrissey knew that, without specificity as to time spent, Monzon would not allow the bill to be paid. Statements made by an attorney to a client in such circumstances in order to induce payment of the attorney’s bills should generally be binding on the attorney. See generally Prager v. New Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass Insurance Co., 245 N.Y. 1, 4, 156 N.E. 76 (1927) (<HOLDING>); Finkelstein v. Kins, 124 A.D.2d 92, 95, 511 Options: A. holding that an attorneys services were personal services rendered or labor done under the predecessor statute to section 38001 B. holding that an attorneys arguments are not evidence C. holding that an attorneys bills are high evidence as to the maximum value of the attorneys services D. holding that beneficiaries could not sue attorneys of the trust for legal malpractice because beneficiaries are not direct recipients of the attorneys services E. holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an attorneys bills are high evidence as to the maximum value of the attorneys services
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that [i]t is common knowledge that unlawful street drugs do not come with warranties of purity or quality associated with lawfully acquired drugs such as alcohol. Thus, unlike alcohol, unlawful street drugs are frequently not the substance they purport to be or are contaminated with other substances not apparent to the naked eye. 175 Cal.App.3d 785, 221 Cal.Rptr. 631, 637 (1985); see Minn.Stat. § 152.01, subd. 9a (2006) (defining a controlled-substanee “mixture” as “a preparation, compound, mixture, or substance containing a controlled substance, regardless of purity”). Appellant cites several cases from other state and federal jurisdictions, arguing the availability of such a defense. See, e.g., People v. Brumfield, 72 Ill.App.3d 107, 28 Ill.Dec. 422, 390 N.E.2d 589, 592-93 (1979) (<HOLDING>); but cf. People v. Hari, 218 Ill.2d 275, 300 Options: A. holding that a defendants insanity due to voluntary intoxication is not a defense B. holding that defendants constitutional right to travel was not abridged when he was ordered not to make contact with the victim he attempted to rape C. holding that the defendant had abandoned any possessory or privacy interest in bags found in the truck he was driving where he stated that he did not own the bags did not know who did and did not know what was in them D. holding district court erroneously preclud ed evidence of involuntary intoxication as a defense to charge of rape based on defendants offer of proof that he smoked marijuana which he did not know contained angel dust and voluntarily drank alcohol the combined effect of which led to the defendants involuntary acts E. holding that defense counsels failure to present voluntary intoxication as a defense in a capitalmurder prosecution was not beyond the range of reasonable professional judgment and thus did not amount to ineffective assistance in view of inconsistency of intoxication defense with deliberateness of the defendants actions during the shootings

assistant: The best answer is D. holding district court erroneously preclud ed evidence of involuntary intoxication as a defense to charge of rape based on defendants offer of proof that he smoked marijuana which he did not know contained angel dust and voluntarily drank alcohol the combined effect of which led to the defendants involuntary acts
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 Global Amendment is declared by any regulator or court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the balance of this Global Amendment shall remain in effect, and this Global Amendment shall be interpreted so as to give full effect to its effective terms and still be valid and enforceable.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and the other Credit Documents represent the agreement of the Borrower, the Guarantors, the Collateral Agent, the Administrative Agent and the Lenders with respect to the subject matter hereof and thereof, and there are no promises, undertakings, representations or warranties by the Borrower, the Guarantors, any Agent nor any Lender relative to subject matter hereof not expressly set forth or referred to herein or in the other Credit Documents.

assistant: Integration
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: intends to assault someone. Feola may leave room for argument, however, as to what mental state is required in connection with the first two elements. Here the defendant focuses on the “forcibly” element of § 111(a)(1), contending that its inclusion requires a showing of “intent, deliberation, and voluntariness.” Even to show general intent, however, “the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly, consciously, and voluntarily committed an act which the law makes a crime.” Kleinbart, 27 F.3d at 592 (emphasis added). What sets general intent apart from specific intent is that “general intent may be inferred from the doing of the act.” Id. In contrast, specific intent requires a showing of “bad purpose.” Id. at 592, n. 4. See also Gonyea, 140 F.3d at 653 (<HOLDING>). The question with which we are left is this: Options: A. holding that in interpreting a contract the actual purpose and intent of the parties must be derived B. holding that specific statutes create exceptions to general statutes therefore if a provision of a specific statute is inconsistent with one in a general statute on the same subject the specific statute controls C. holding that a court must first determine whether the intent of congress is clear or instead the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue D. holding defendant must act with specific intent to cause death of another in order to be convicted of attempted murder E. holding that to violate a specific intent statute the defendant must act with the purpose of violating the law

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that to violate a specific intent statute the defendant must act with the purpose of violating the 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The execution and delivery of this Agreement and the other documents and agreements to be executed by Purchaser as contemplated hereunder, the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby or thereby, and the compliance with the terms and conditions hereof or thereof will not (i) contravene any provision of law to which Purchaser is subject or any statute, decree, rule, regulation, injunction, judgment, order, decree, ruling, charge, or other restriction binding upon Purchaser or contravene any order or permit applicable to Purchaser; or (ii) conflict with, result in a breach of, constitute a default under, result in the acceleration of any obligation under, create in any party the right to accelerate, terminate, modify or cancel, or require any notice under, any agreement, contract, lease, license, instrument, or other arrangement to which Purchaser is a party or by which it is bound.

assistant: No Conflicts
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 hereof is invalid and unenforceable in any jurisdiction, then, to the fullest extent permitted by law, (i) the other provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect in such jurisdiction and shall be liberally construed in favor of the Secured Party in order to carry out the intentions of the parties hereto as nearly as may be possible and (ii) the invalidity or unenforceability of any provision hereof in any jurisdiction shall not affect the validity or enforceability of such provision in any other jurisdiction.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall in all respects be interpreted, construed and governed by and in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without regard to its conflicts of laws principles. Any legal suit, action or proceeding arising out of or based upon this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby may be instituted in the federal courts of the United States of America or the courts of the State of California in each case located in the City of San Diego, and each party irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of such courts in any such suit, action or proceeding. Each party acknowledges and agrees that any controversy which may arise under this Agreement is likely to involve complicated and difficult issues and, therefore, each such party irrevocably and unconditionally waives any right it may have to a trial by jury in respect of any legal action arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby.

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: The Purchase Price shall be paid to each Seller and, as applicable, such Seller’s Entities subject to any and all U.S. federal, state, local or foreign income, backup withholding or withholding taxes unless such Seller or, as applicable, such Seller’s Entities provide a properly completed and executed Internal Revenue Service Form W-9 which certifies the Seller’s or such Seller’s Entity’s U.S. person status and taxpayer identification number.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Pledge Agreement and each Joinder Agreement, together with the Revolving Credit Agreement and other Loan Documents, constitutes and expresses the entire understanding between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, agreements and understandings, inducements, commitments or conditions, express or implied, oral or written, except as herein contained. The express terms hereof and of the Joinder Agreements control and supersede any course of performance or usage of the trade inconsistent with any of the terms hereof and thereof. Neither this Pledge Agreement nor any Joinder Agreement nor any portion or provision hereof or thereof may be changed, altered, modified, supplemented, discharged, canceled, terminated, or amended orally or in any manner other than as provided in the Revolving Credit Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The initial term of this Agreement shall commence on ____________ and shall end on ____________, unless further extended or sooner terminated as hereinafter provided. The term shall be automatically renewed for additional one-year periods unless the Company notifies the Executive three months prior to the end of the term that the term shall not be renewed. In no event, however, shall the term of the Executive's employment extend beyond the date of the Executive's actual retirement under a retirement plan of the Company.

assistant: Terms
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: barred plaintiff’s subsequent lawsuit premised on the allegation that Mr. Linares (Frankenmuth’s insured) was negligent in causing the auto accident at issue in this case. This case may more properly come within the scope of the doctrine of collateral estoppel, given that plaintiff seeks recovery of alleged damages not covered by his insurance policy with Liberty Mutual. Here, however, the distinction is not determinative because, through either doctrine, the trial court ruled that the arbitration panel’s decision in favor of Frankenmuth was binding on plaintiff as Liberty Mutual’s insured. Preclusive effect is not limited to court proceedings; it arises in the same manner from arbitration awards. See Murakami v. Wilmington Star News, Inc., 137 N.C. App. 357, 360, 528 S.E.2d 68, 70 (<HOLDING>), disc. review denied, 352 N.C. 148, 544 S.E.2d Options: A. holding that collateral estoppel applies to 1983 claims B. holding that res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to arbitration award C. holding doctrine of collateral estoppel may apply to unconfirmed arbitration award D. recognizing the doctrine of collateral estoppel in agency proceedings E. holding collateral estoppel elements met considering changed circumstances in the context of an exception to the general rule of collateral estoppel

assistant: The best answer is C. holding doctrine of collateral estoppel may apply to unconfirmed arbitration award