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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the burden of proof to the parents, but for a different reason. According to these circuits, because the statute relies on the expertise of education professionals in local school systems, their decisions about the substantive terms of an IEP are owed deference; as a result, the parents bear the burden of proving why an IEP is deficient. Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Educ., 790 F.2d 1153, 1158 (5th Cir.1986); Johnson v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 4, 921 F.2d 1022, 1026 (10th Cir.1990). On the other side the Third Circuit assigns the burden of proof to school systems when their IEPs are challenged by parents in administrative proceedings. Carlisle Area Sch. Dist. v. Scott P., 62 F.3d 520, 533 (3d Cir.1995) (citing Oberti v. Bd. of Educ., 995 F.2d 1204, 1219 (3d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>)). Three other circuits, the Second, Eighth, Options: A. recognizing that the burden of proof is an essential element of the claim itself and that one who asserts a claim has the burden of proof that normally comes with it B. holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant C. holding that a rebuttable presumption in favor of the action of an administrative agency and the burden of proof is upon one challenging its action D. holding that the burden is on the defendant when the validity of the warrant is challenged E. holding that when an administrative decision upholding an iep is challenged in district court the school district has the burden of proof because of its expertise and access to information and witnesses

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that when an administrative decision upholding an iep is challenged in district court the school district has the burden of proof because of its expertise and access to information and witnesses
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 recognizes that the Executive will have to incur certain out-of-pocket expenses related to his services and the Company’s business, and the Company agrees to promptly reimburse the Executive for all reasonable expenses necessarily incurred by him in the performance of his duties to the Company upon presentation of a voucher or documentation indicating the amount and business purposes of any such expenses. These expenses include, but are not limited to, travel, meals, entertainment, etc. Expenses that are reimbursable to the Executive under this Section 7 shall be paid to the Executive in accordance with the Company’s expense reimbursement policy but in no event later than March 15 following the calendar year in which the expense is incurred.

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: ability to use and enjoy the cottages, that limitation was not a deprivation of any property right. The Town’s actions here were all legitimate government actions intended simply to enforce its nuisance ordinances. ■ Such regulatory actions do not constitute a deprivation of property because they represent limitations on the use of property that “inhere in the title itself, in the restrictions that background principles of the State’s law of property and nuisance already place upon land ownership.” Lucas, 505 U.S. at 1029, 112 S.Ct. 2886. Abating public nuisances and protecting the public trust have long been part of governmental authority in North Carolina. See, e.g., Ward v. Willis, 51 N.C. 183, 185 (1858) (discussing the public trust doctrine); Dunn v. Stone, 4 N.C. 241, 242 (1815) (<HOLDING>). By acting to abate what it believed was a Options: A. recognizing that the government generally has the right to insist on performance in strict compliance with the contract specifications B. recognizing a states interest in representing the interests of their citizens in enjoining public nuisances C. holding that when the government acts to enforce public rights the mere fact that the government has no pecuniary interest in the controversy is not sufficient to exclude it from the courts D. recognizing that a private citizen cannot sue to abate a public nuisance unless he has received an extraordinary and particular damage indicating that generally the government has the authority to act to abate such nuisances E. holding a party has no standing to appeal unless he or she is an aggrieved party an individual who is not a parent in the eyes of the law has no legal interest in the child and therefore has no standing to appeal

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that a private citizen cannot sue to abate a public nuisance unless he has received an extraordinary and particular damage indicating that generally the government has the authority to act to abate such nuisances
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: promise to sell [him] Unit 7S,” which he considers “a unique property.” In addition, he contends that what “had been a refundable deposit on another unit in Boston is now non-refundable.” This is reportedly because he “has stopped looking at other properties in Boston and the opportunity to purchase many of these potential properties likely no longer exists.” The Rule 56 materials submitted to this court do not support these contentions. As mentioned in the background supra, Trinity Place has confirmed, in response to a subpoena, that Albrecht has already entered into a P&S agreement with them. It cannot be said, therefore, that Albrecht has suffered the harms he complains of. These facts are simply not sufficient to support an estoppel. Compare Levin v. Rose, 302 Mass. 378, 382 (1939) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). Facts Alleged by Albrecht Options: A. holding that even wisconsin which has one of the broadest coverages of the economic loss doctrine would not apply it to bar an action for the rescission of a contract B. holding that the statute of frauds is not a bar where the denial of relief to one who has been misled to his harm would cause an unjust and unconscientious injury and loss C. holding that loss of customers and resulting injury to goodwill can constitute irreparable harm that is not compensable by an award of money damages D. holding that the plain language of this section requires the denial of relief for a petitioner who has finished serving his sentence E. holding that a plaintiffs claim of injury stemming from alleged procedural harm is insufficient to ground standing where the harm is uncoupled from any injury in fact or tied only to an undifferentiated injury common to all members of the public

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the statute of frauds is not a bar where the denial of relief to one who has been misled to his harm would cause an unjust and unconscientious injury and loss
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York without regard to principles of conflicts of laws. Any action brought by either party against the other concerning the transactions contemplated by this Agreement shall be brought only in the state courts of New York or in the federal courts located in the state and county of New York. The parties to this Agreement hereby irrevocably waive any objection to jurisdiction and venue of any action instituted hereunder and shall not assert any defense based on lack of jurisdiction or venue or based upon forum non conveniens . The Company and Buyer waive trial by jury. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party its reasonable attorney's fees and costs. In the event that any provision of this Agreement or any other agreement delivered in connection herewith is invalid or unenforceable under any applicable statute or rule of law, then such provision shall be deemed inoperative to the extent that it may conflict therewith and shall be deemed modified to conform with such statute or rule of law. Any such provision, which may prove invalid or unenforceable under any law, shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision of any agreement. Each party hereby irrevocably waives personal service of process and consents to process being served in any suit, action or proceeding in connection with this Agreement or any other Transaction Document by mailing a copy thereof via registered or certified mail or overnight delivery (with evidence of delivery) to such party at the address in effect for notices to it under this Agreement and agrees that such service shall constitute good and sufficient service of process and notice thereof. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to limit in any way any right to serve process in any other manner permitted by law.

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 following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 370 U.S. 723 82 S.Ct. 1573 8 L.Ed.2d 803 Mohamed MARAKARv.UNITED STATES. No. 1191, Misc. Niamat A. Mushraf ALI v. UNITED STATES. No. 1234, Misc. Supreme Court of the United States June 25, 1962 Joseph F. Walsh, for petitioner in No. 1191. Harry T. Carter, for petitioner in No. 1234. Solicitor General Cox, for the United States. On Petitions for Writs of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. PER CURIAM. 1 The motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. On motion of the Solicitor General and upon an examination of the entire record, the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted, the judgments are vacated, and the causes are remanded to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey with directions to dismiss the indictments. 2 Mr. Justice BLACK, Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, and Mr. Justice BRENNAN join the Court's disposition because they believe that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment was an insurmountable barrier to the prosecution of these petitioners under the separate indictments returned on April 26, 1961 charging each petitioner with a substantive offense of illegally bringing opium into this country. See Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187, 196, 79 S.Ct. 666, 3 L.Ed.2d 729 (separate opinion); cf. Petite v. United States 361 U.S. 529, 533, 80 S.Ct. 450, 4 L.Ed.2d 490 (dissenting opinion). 3 Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event that the Participant whose Benefit Percentage is greater than zero percent (0%) dies prior to Separation from Service, the Participant’s benefit shall be distributed in the Normal Distribution Form commencing on the date the Participant would have attained age sixty-two (62) if the Participant had survived (or, if later, within thirty (30) days after the Participant’s date of death), such benefit to be distributed to the Participant’s surviving designated beneficiary or, in the absence thereof, to the Participant’s estate. In the event that the Participant dies after Separation from Service but prior to distribution in full of the Participant’s benefit, the undistributed payment(s) shall be paid to the Participant’s designated beneficiary or, in the absence of a surviving designated beneficiary (including due to the death of a designated beneficiary prior to payment of the final payment), to the Participant’s estate.

assistant: Death
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 Letter may be executed in two or more identical counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same agreement and shall become effective when such counterparts have been signed by each party and delivered to the other parties; provided that a facsimile signature shall be considered due execution and shall be binding upon the signatory thereto with the same force and effect as if the signature were an original, not a facsimile, signature.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed., 4 F.3d 1103, 1128 (3d Cir.1993) ("As a general matter, we believe that elections involving white candidates only are much less probative of racially polarized voting than elections involving both black and white candidates.”); Black Political Task Force, 300 F.Supp.2d at 304 ("After having conducted an exhaustive review of the case law and the circumstances of this litigation, we conclude that the most probative elections for our purposes are likely to be multi-race endogenous elections.”); Bone Shirt, 461 F.3d at 1020-21 (8th Cir.2006) (“Endogenous and interracial elections are the best indicators of whether the white majority usually defeats the minority candidate.”) (footnote omitted); see also Gingles, 478 U.S. at 83, 106 S.Ct. 2752 (White, J. concurring) (<HOLDING>); id. at 101, 106 S.Ct. 2752 (O’Connor, J., Options: A. holding that title vii proscribes racial discrimination against whites upon the same standards as racial discrimination against nonwhites B. holding that title vii proscribe racial discrimination in private employment against whites on the same terms as racial discrimination against nonwhites C. holding that racial discrimination is a personal injury tort D. holding that disregarding race of victors is interestgroup politics rather than a rule hedging against racial discrimination E. holding that racial discrimination is not a personal injury tort

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that disregarding race of victors is interestgroup politics rather than a rule hedging against racial discrimination
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 any number of counterparts, by facsimile or electronic signatures or otherwise, with the same effect as if all signatories had signed the same document. All counterparts will be construed together and constitute the same instrument.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: See Peralta v. Holder, 567 F.3d 31, 33 (1st Cir.2009); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). Here, however, the BIA chose not to use its sua sponte authority to relax the time bar. Given the circumstances of this case, the BIA’s decision is readily understood: the petitioner’s request for an exception depended on his Padilla argument, but he had made no effort in the New York courts to set aside the auto-stripping conviction. The BIA’s refusal to allow the petitioner to mount a collateral challenge to a criminal conviction in the immigration court seems eminently reasonable. See Gouveia v. INS, 980 F.2d 814, 817 (1st Cir.1992) (“Criminal convictions cannot be collaterally attacked during immigration proceedings.”); cf. Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485, 497, 114 S.Ct. 1732, 128 L.Ed.2d 517 (1994) (<HOLDING>). We need not probe this point too deeply. In Options: A. holding that a defendant cannot collaterally challenge a prior conviction used to calculate criminal history points B. holding that due to statute defendant cannot collaterally attack prior convictions used to enhance sentence unless in violation of the right to counsel C. holding that petitioner could not collaterally attack his state court conviction on a petition for review of an agency decision D. holding that a defendant cannot collaterally attack a prior state conviction during a federal sentencing proceeding in a different case E. holding that a habeas petitioner cannot collaterally attack the conviction serving as a predicate for a removal order

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a defendant cannot collaterally attack a prior state conviction during a federal sentencing proceeding in a different 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event of any equity restructuring (within the meaning of Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification Topic 718, Compe nsation—Stock Compensation) that causes the per share value of shares of Common Stock to change, such as a stock dividend, stock split, spinoff, rights offering or recapitalization through an extraordinary dividend, the number and class of shares of Common Stock subject to the Award shall be appropriately and equitably adjusted by the Committee. In the event of any other change in corporate capitalization, including a merger, consolidation, reorganization or partial or complete liquidation of the Company, such adjustment described in the foregoing sentence may be made as determined to be appropriate and equitable by the Committee to prevent dilution or enlargement of rights of participants. In either case, such adjustment shall be final, binding and conclu sive. If such adjustment would result in a fractional share being subject to the Award, the Company shall pay the holder of the Award, on the date that the shares with respect to the Award are issued, an amount in cash determined by multiplying (i) the fr action of such share (rounded to the nearest hundredth) by (ii) the Fair Market Value of a share on the date that the Restriction Period with respect to the Award terminates.

assistant: Adjustments
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 the event that any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions thereof shall nevertheless continue to be valid and enforceable as though the invalid or unenforceable parts had not been included therein. In the event that any provision of this Agreement relating to time period and/or areas of restriction shall be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction or arbitrator to exceed the maximum time period or areas such court deems reasonable and enforceable, said time period and/or areas of restriction shall be deemed to become and thereafter be the maximum time period and/or areas which such court deems reasonable 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: abrasions and his November 2010 C & P examination that mentioned the presence of a scar on his buttocks. The Secretary argues that the Board (1) addressed the evidence of record concerning whether Mr. Johnson’s service-connected skin condition resulted in scarring, and (2) provided an adequate statement of reasons and bases for concluding that it did not. The Secretary notes that the Board found that Mr. Johnson’s disability involved hyperpigmentation, pruitis, and dryness, but not scarring. The Secretary also notes that, although mild abrasions were observed on Mr. Johnson’s November 2013 C & P examination report, the examiner did not find scarring. Moreover, the Secretary contends that the scar noted on Mr. Johnson’s buttocks in his November 20 .3d 1560, 1564 (Fed.Cir. 1995) (<HOLDING>); Meeks v. West, 12 Vet.App. 352, 354 (1999) Options: A. holding that all parts of a statute must be construed together without according undue importance to a single or isolated portion B. holding that a statute should not be construed so as to invalidate other parts of the same statute C. holding that if a document is facially clear it will be construed according to its language D. holding that all parts of the same statute dealing with the same subject are to be construed together as a whole and individual expressions be accorded only that meaning which other modifying provisions and the clear intent and purpose of the act will permit internal citations omitted E. holding that a statute should where possible be construed according to its plain meaning and as a whole giving meaning to all its parts

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that all parts of a statute must be construed together without according undue importance to a single or isolated portion
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 Party shall provide the other Party reasonable assistance and cooperation in the Patent prosecution efforts provided above in Section 7.3(b) during the Term and in Section 7.3(a) during and after the Term, including providing any necessary powers of attorney and executing any other required documents or instruments for such prosecution, as well as further actions as set forth below.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York applicable to contracts made and to be performed in the State of New York. The parties hereto each hereby waive any right to trial by jury in any action, proceeding or counterclaim arising out of or relating to this Agreement.

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: Effective as of the Transfer Effective Time, the GCP Group shall assume all Liabilities of the Grace Group with respect to vacation, holiday, annual leave, or other leave of absence, and required payments related thereto, for each GCP Group Employee. The Grace Group shall retain all Liabilities with respect to vacation, holiday, annual leave or other leave of absence, and required payments related thereto, for each Grace Group Employee.

assistant: Vacations
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 alleging that the district court improperly conducted a Rule 11 hearing.”). But this case has an additional wrinkle. Litigants who fail to object to a magis trate’s report and recommendation, within the time provided, generally waive their right to challenge the magistrate’s decision. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir.1981). And in this instance, Taylor never objected to the magistrate’s conclusion that his waiver was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, let alone raised this objection within the ten days provided. The Supreme Court has sanctioned this procedural rule, see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1986), and we have applied it to criminal cases, see, e.g., United States v. Campbell, 261 F.3d 628, 631-32 (6th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). What we have not yet done, however, is hold Options: A. holding that the defendant waived the right to challenge a suppression ruling on appeal B. holding that a defendant who fails to raise a specific issue as the basis for suppression in a motion to suppress to the district court has waived the right to raise that issue on appeal C. holding challenge to suppression ruling not waived under young even though record did not affirmatively indicate that the ruling was part or all of reason for plea D. holding that appellants waived any claim of error as to the portion of the lower courts ruling that they did not expressly challenge on appeal E. holding that when defense counsel withdrew an objection to admission of evidence the defendant waived his right to a review of the courts ruling on appeal

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the defendant waived the right to challenge a suppression ruling on appeal
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: back subject to conditions of payment does not deprive the buyer of the right to enforce the patent as its owner even though it might cease to be an owner for failure to pay for the patent. That principle was established in Waterman v. Mackenzie, 138 U.S. 252, 11 S.Ct. 334, 34 L.Ed. 923 (1891), although Waterman may have involved a transaction originally designed either to keep the patent for a fountain pen out of the hands of creditors, or to ensure passage of the rights down through Waterman’s family. Furthermore, a seller’s right to take back the patent in the event of bankruptcy is not a reservation of rights so substantial as to defeat the claim of the buyer to ownership of the patent. Vaupel Textilmaschinen KG v. Meccanica Euro Italia, S.P.A., 944 F.2d 870, 874-76 (Fed.Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). This clear law prevents Defendants from Options: A. holding that the assignor of a patent retained substantial rights in the patent and must be added as an indispensable party B. holding that where patent owner licensor retained substantial rights under license agreement licensee did not have an independent right to sue for infringement C. holding in a patent infringement case that plaintiff lacked standing where it held a conditional right to license a patent and enforce license agreements but did not have the right to transfer the patent D. holding that an exclusive license granting the licensor a reversionary interest in the patent in the event of the licensees bankruptcy was a grant of all substantial rights such that the licensee could sue for patent infringement E. holding a nonparty to a patent infringement suit who funded an unsuccessful challenge to a patent could not file a subsequent lawsuit again challenging the patent

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that an exclusive license granting the licensor a reversionary interest in the patent in the event of the licensees bankruptcy was a grant of all substantial rights such that the licensee could sue for patent infringement
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 No. 11 may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement. Delivery of an executed counterpart of this Amendment No. 11 by telefacsimile or other electronic transmission shall have the same force and effect as the delivery of an original executed counterpart of this Amendment No. 11. Any party delivering an executed counterpart of this Amendment No. 11 by telefacsimile or other electronic transmission shall also deliver an original executed counterpart, but the failure to do so shall not affect the validity, enforceability or binding effect of this Amendment No. 11.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in state court. Therefore, Cu-rhan’s reliance on that decision at the time of Goldman’s direct appeal was reasonable. Similarly, prior to Goldman’s filing of his first § 2255 motion in 1995, the Supreme Court’s 1994 decision in Custis made clear that the appropriate place and time to challenge the use of his 1977 conviction as a federal sentencing enhancement was in a motion to reopen Goldman’s federal sentence after he successfully challenged his 1977 conviction in state court. Custis, 511 U.S. at 497, 114 S.Ct. 1732. At the time he filed his first § 2255 motion in 1995, he had not yet successfully challenged his 1977 conviction in state court and, therefore, a “fact” necessary to his § 2255 motion was “reasonably unavailable.” See Johnson, 544 U.S. at 304-07, 125 S.Ct. 1571 (<HOLDING>). Goldman had no incentive to include his Options: A. holding that absent exceptional circumstances mootness by reason of a postjudgment settlement does not justify vacatur of a judgment under review B. holding that the appropriate remedy on vacatur is to remand the case for further arbitration proceedings consistent with the cba C. holding premagwood that where a first 2255 motion was granted so movant could file a direct appeal the second 2255 motion was not a successive motion under aedpa D. holding that the application of revised 2255 which would have barred the petitioner who had filed his first 2255 motion prior to aedpas enactment from filing a second 2255 motion would have had retroactive effect because the petitioner might well have waited to file that initial motion had he foreseen aedpas revision of 2255 E. holding that vacatur of predicate conviction was fact necessary for filing 2255 motion based on such vacatur

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that vacatur of predicate conviction was fact necessary for filing 2255 motion based on such vacatur
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: During the Term, Vistana shall pay Executive an annual base salary of four hundred and seventy-five thousand U.S. dollars (US$475,000) (the “ Base Salary ”), payable in equal biweekly installments (or, if different, in accordance with Vistana’s payroll practice as in effect from time to time). For all purposes under this Agreement, the term “Base Salary” shall refer to the Base Salary as in effect from time to time.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the defined terms used in this Agreement shall have the same meaning as in the Plan. The term “Committee” shall also include those persons to whom authority has been delegated under the Plan.

assistant: Definitions
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 is performable in the state in which the Property is located and shall in all respects be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the substantive federal laws of the United States and the laws of such state. Purchaser and Seller agrees that the provisions of this Section 10.12 shall survive the Closing of the transaction contemplated by this Agreement.

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: The Company shall not, and shall use its commercially reasonable efforts to ensure that no Affiliate thereof shall, sell, offer for sale or solicit offers to buy or otherwise negotiate in respect of any security (as defined in Section 2 of the Securities Act) that would be integrated with the offer or sale of the Securities in a manner that would require the registration under the Securities Act of the sale of the Securities to the Investors or that would be integrated with the offer or sale of the Securities for purposes of the rules and regulations of any Trading Market.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: THIS INCREMENTAL AMENDMENT NO. 3 AND THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES HEREUNDER SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED AND INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. SECTION 10.22 OF THE CREDIT AGREEMENT IS HEREBY INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THIS INCREMENTAL AMENDMENT NO. 3 AND SHALL APPLY HERETO.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: for dependency did not reference abandonment. The father’s position is unfounded because the petition for dependency alleged generally that the parents had abused and neglected the child, and the trial court stated on the record that the child was found dependent based upon the father’s neglect. The father also argues that this court erred when it dismissed his first appeal based upon a determination that the trial court’s order finding his daughter dependent but withholding an adjudication of dependency. was not a final, appealable order. Although both parties recognize that this issue is now moot, both request appellate review because of an apparent inconsistency in the manner in which our court has addressed this issue. See Enterprise Leasing Co. v. Jones, 789 So.2d 964 (Fla.2001) (<HOLDING>). We agree that appellate review is warranted Options: A. recognizing the general principle that a party who fails to address an issue has conceded the issue B. holding that an appellate court cannot address on appeal an issue never ruled upon by the trial court C. holding that the court can properly address an issue which although moot is likely to recur D. holding that the court properly refused to instruct on an issue for which no evidence was offered E. holding that although an address in which the zip code is incorrect may be properly addressed an address in which both the zip code and the street address is incorrect is not properly addressed

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the court can properly address an issue which although moot is likely to recur
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the jury during final jury instructions not to consider any testimony it had stricken or ordered the jury to disregard during trial. See United States v. Liburd, 607 F.3d 339, 344, 53 V.I. 890 (3d Cir. 2010) (“[W]hile curative instructions cannot repair every error, we do generally presume that juries follow their instructions.”). Finally, as discussed above in section B, the People presented overwhelming evidence that Augustine was the individual who pulled a gun and started shooting at Officers Greaves, Wharton, and Allen. Based on these factors, Officer Wharton’s statement — given in response to a question — would not have been sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a mistrial even if Augustine’s attorney had requested one at trial. See Ethridge v. State, 418 P.2d 95, 100 (1966) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we conclude that the Superior Court did Options: A. holding that prejudice was not shown where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt B. holding mistrial not warranted for improper statement by police officer where court sustained defendants objection and admonished jury to disregard statement and where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt C. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion for mistrial where the trial court sustained defendants objections to a question by the prosecutor containing improper information and instructed the jury to disregard the question D. holding that improper statement was rendered harmless because the district court sustained the defendants objection and admonished the jury to disregard the statement E. holding that while the prosecutors question was improper in light of the overwhelming evidence there was no reversible error in the denial of defendants motion for mistrial

assistant: The best answer is B. holding mistrial not warranted for improper statement by police officer where court sustained defendants objection and admonished jury to disregard statement and where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt
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: For the term of your employment (your “ Employment ”), the Company agrees to employ you as its most senior executive officer in the position of the sole Chief Executive Officer (“ CEO ”). You will report solely to the Company’s Board of Directors (the “ Board ”) and you will be working out of the Company’s office in Menlo Park, CA, provided, however, that the Company agrees you may telecommute from your residence in New Jersey as much as practical, provided such telecommuting does not materially interfere with your duties as CEO, and provided you will be expected to regularly travel to the Company’s Menlo Park office as well as engage in other business travel, as needed. Subject to your initial appointment or election by the Board consistent with the Company’s bylaws and subject to your subsequent re-election by the stockholders of the Company, you will also serve on the Board during your Employment. You will be responsible for developing and executing the Company’s strategies, achieving business objectives, increasing the Company’s stockholder value, presiding over the entire workforce, and other duties commensurate with your position as CEO. Your duties and responsibilities always will be at least commensurate with those duties and responsibilities normally associated with and appropriate for someone in the position of CEO. Effective on September 11, 2018, you will be appointed as the Company’s CEO (the “ Effective Date ”).

assistant: Positions
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 GUARANTOR AND, BY THEIR ACCEPTANCE OF THIS GUARANTY, THE GUARANTEED CREDITORS HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AGREE TO WAIVE THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS TO A JURY TRIAL OF ANY CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON OR ARISING OUT OF THE CREDIT AGREEMENT, THE NOTES, THE OTHER LOAN DOCUMENTS OR THIS GUARANTY OR ANY DEALINGS AMONG THEM RELATING TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CREDIT AGREEMENT, THE NOTES, THE OTHER LOAN DOCUMENTS OR THIS GUARANTY AND THE RELATIONSHIPS THEREBY ESTABLISHED. The scope of this waiver is intended to be all-encompassing of any and all disputes that may be filed in any court and that relate to the subject matter of this transaction, including, without limitation, contract claims, tort claims, breach of duty claims, and all other statutory and common law claims. THIS WAIVER SHALL APPLY TO ANY SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS, RENEWALS, SUPPLEMENTS OR MODIFICATIONS OF THIS GUARANTY. In the event of litigation, this provision may be filed as a written consent to a trial by the court.

assistant: Waiver Of Jury Trials
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: trial court’s findings, specifically, regarding the best interests of the minor child. The court cannot change the timeshar-ing arrangements purely as punishment in the absence of evidence of what is in the best interests of the child. See, e.g., Edgar v. Firuta, 100 So.3d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (reversing trial court’s modification of parental plan to award father sole parental responsibility over children, which was based on mother’s willfully disobedient relocation of children to another state rather than on evidence-based assessment of twenty statutory best interests factors); Landingham v. Landingham, 685 So.2d 946, 950 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (explaining that trial court cannot modify child's custody to punish custodial parent); Ginder v. Ginder, 536 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) Options: A. holding the teenage childrens preference to live in fathers home was sufficient evidence to support a change in physical custody in a modification of a split physical custody arrangement even though the party seeking the change failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances B. holding that a change of venue has no affect on the applicable state law and that change of venue is but a change of courtrooms C. holding that a showing of a change in circumstances that is or is likely to be beneficial to the child may also warrant a change in custody D. holding court cannot change custody without showing that change is in best interests of child E. holding that a parents right to appeal the change of permanency plan is limited by the sound discretion of the court taking into account the best interests of the child

assistant: The best answer is D. holding court cannot change custody without showing that change is in best interests of child
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: Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default, Lender may declare the entire principal amount of all Indebtedness then outstanding, including interest accrued thereon, to be immediately due and payable without presentment, demand, protest, notice of protest, or dishonor or other notice of default of any kind, all of which the Borrower hereby expressly waives, and, at Lender’s sole discretion and option, all obligations of Lender under this Agreement shall immediately cease and terminate unless and until Lender shall reinstate such obligations in writing. Such acceleration and cessation of Lender’s obligations shall occur automatically, without any declaration by Lender or any notice, upon the occurrence of an Event of Default under Section 7.1(d) , (e) or (f) . Upon the occurrence of any Event of Default, Lender may also exercise all rights against any of the Collateral described in the Security Documents or afforded a creditor under applicable law, and/or bring an action to protect or enforce its rights under the Loan Documents or seek to collect the Indebtedness by any lawful means. All remedies provided in this Agreement or in any other Loan Documents shall be cumulative, in addition to all other remedies available to Lender under the principles of law and equity or pursuant to any other body of law, statutory or otherwise, and the exercise or partial exercise of any such right or remedy shall not preclude the exercise of any other right or remedy.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: § 1983, “[e]very person who, under color of [law,] [deprives] ... any citizen ... of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured.” In reviewing claims brought under this statute, we use the framework established in McDonnell Douglas. Richardson v. Leeds Police Dep't, 71 F.3d 801, 805-06 (11th Cir.1995). Under this framework, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing a prima facie case of racial discrimination. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. at 1824. The plaintiff may meet his burden using direct or circumstantial evidence. See Hinson v. Clinch County, Ga. Bd. of Educ., 231 F.3d 821, 827 (11th Cir.2000) (outlining the types of evidence used to prove a Title VII claim); Richardson, 71 F.3d at 805 (<HOLDING>). Direct evidence of discrimination is evidence Options: A. holding that the same types of evidence used to prove a title vii claim also may be used to prove a 1983 claim B. holding that such circumstantial evidence may be used to prove discrimination C. holding that the government must prove the facts used in sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence D. holding that a plaintiff may rely on the same evidence to prove both pretext and discrimination E. holding that circumstantial evidence may be used to prove a wiretap claim including actual interception

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the same types of evidence used to prove a title vii claim also may be used to prove a 1983 claim
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement, and all of Executive’s rights and duties hereunder, shall not be assignable or delegable by Executive. Any purported assignment or delegation by Executive in violation of the foregoing shall be null and void ab initio and of no force and effect. This Agreement shall be assigned by the Company to a person or entity which is a successor in interest (“Successor”) to substantially all of the business operations of the Company. Upon such assignment, the rights and obligations of the Company hereunder shall become the rights and obligations of such affiliate or Successor.

assistant: Assignments