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: Except as disclosed to the Administrative Agent by the Company in writing from time to time after the Closing Date, (a) Schedule 3.19 sets forth the name and jurisdiction of incorporation of each Subsidiary and, as to each such Subsidiary, the percentage of each class of Capital Stock owned by any Loan Party and (b) there are no outstanding subscriptions, options, warrants, calls, rights or other agreements or commitments (other than stock options granted to employees or directors and directors’ qualifying shares) of any nature relating to any Capital Stock of any Subsidiary, except as created by the Loan Documents.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: 8.4 tax : skype may collect vat or other indirect taxes at the appropriate rate ( as per applicable tax rules ) at the time of purchase of skype credit .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: From and after the execution of this Agreement until the completion of the 2016 Annual Meeting (which shall occur no later than the thirteen month anniversary of the 2015 Annual Meeting of the Company), Barington agrees that it will not, and will not permit any of its affiliates to, take any action contrary to the Company’s solicitation of proxies in connection with the 2016 Annual Meeting, and shall cooperate with the Company in good faith in order to implement and carry out the intent of this Agreement.

assistant: Further Assurances
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: From and following the Date of Termination, Executive agrees not to make negative comments or otherwise disparage the Company or any of its controlled affiliates, or any of their directors or officers at a level of Vice President or above, in any manner reasonably likely to be harmful to them or their business, business reputation or personal reputation, as applicable. The Company agrees that the Company will not, and the Company will instruct the individuals reporting directly to Executive as of the Date of Termination and the members of the Board as of the Date of Termination to not, while employed by the Company or its Affiliates or serving as a member of the Board, as the case may be, make negative comments about Executive or otherwise disparage Executive in any manner that is reasonably likely to be harmful to his business reputation or personal reputation. The Company and DuPont on the one hand and Executive on the other will not assist, encourage, discuss, cooperate, incite, or otherwise confer with or aid any others in discrediting the other or in pursuit of a claim or other action against the other, except as required by law. Nothing contained in this Section 10 shall prevent any Party from making truthful statements in any judicial, arbitration, governmental, or other appropriate forum for adjudication of disputes between or among the Parties or in any response or disclosure by any Party compelled by legal process or required by applicable law.

assistant: Non-Disparagement
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: 1956 can no more be the basis of a conspiracy conviction than the conduct itself can be the basis of a substantive conviction.” 833 F.Supp. at 1158. Based upon this observation, the district court concluded, “[T]he money laundering object of the conspiracy fails to state an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(l)(A)(i).” Accordingly, the district court dismissed the money laundering object of the conspiracy contained in Count One. The district court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3231. We have appellate jurisdiction of the dismissal of a portion of an indictment pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 3731. See Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54, 69 n. 23, 98 S.Ct. 2170, 2181 n. 23, 57 L.Ed.2d 43 (1978) (<HOLDING>). Our task is to determine, on plenary review, Options: A. holding that an order dismissing preliminary objections is interlocutory but an order sustaining them is not B. holding that an appeal from an order vacating an award while directing a rehearing is an appeal improvidently taken C. holding appeal from an order dismissing action without prejudice was properly before this court D. holding there is no statutory barrier to an appeal from an order dismissing only a portion of a count E. holding that an order dismissing a claim without prejudice is a final appealable order if the statute of limitations for that claim has expired

assistant: The best answer is D. holding there is no statutory barrier to an appeal from an order dismissing only a portion of a count
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: more, are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment.” McKeon v. Vaicaitis, Schorr, Richards, et al., 785 F.Supp. 965, 968 (M.D.Fla.1992) (citing Grigsby v. Reynolds Metals Co., 821 F.2d 590, 597 (11th Cir.1987)). Plaintiffs conclusory allegations of discrimination, without more, “are not sufficient to raise an inference of pretext or intentional discrimination where [the Village] has offered such extensive evidence of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions.” Grigsby, at 597. In addition, the fact that Plaintiff claims that her performance was adequate and that she believes that she was not responsible for the errors in question, is irrelevant to whether Defendant held those beliefs. See Gustovich v. AT & T Communications, Inc., 972 F.2d 845, 848 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Williams v. Williams Elec., Inc., 856 F.2d Options: A. holding that there is nothing arbitrary or capricious about the requirement B. holding that an employeess selfserving statements about his ability are insufficient to contradict an employers negative assessment of that ability such statements may create a material dispute about the employees ability but do nothing to create a dispute about the employers honesty do nothing in other words to establish that the proffered reason is a pretext for discrimination C. holding that employers report to state employment agency providing a reason for termination that was different than employers proffered reason did not create a genuine and material issue of fact as to pretext particularly when evidence showed the inaccurate reporting benefitted employee D. holding that plaintiff can show pretext by demonstrating that an employers proffered reason for an adverse employment action has no basis in fact E. holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if there is a genuine dispute about a material fact

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an employeess selfserving statements about his ability are insufficient to contradict an employers negative assessment of that ability such statements may create a material dispute about the employees ability but do nothing to create a dispute about the employers honesty do nothing in other words to establish that the proffered reason is a pretext for 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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you acknowledge and agree that the services , any necessary software used in connection with the services ( if any ) , and the ua content contain proprietary and confidential information that is protected by applicable intellectual property and other laws .

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: to access or play our games or create an account with us , you may need an account with a social network , like facebook , and , if you are using our mobile service , an account with the company that provides your mobile applications , like an itunes account .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All covenants, agreements, representations and warranties made by the Loan Parties in the Loan Documents and in the certificates or other instruments delivered in connection with or pursuant to this Agreement or any other Loan Document shall be considered to have been relied upon by the other parties hereto and shall survive the execution and delivery of the Loan Documents and the making of any Loans, regardless of any investigation made by any such other party or on its behalf and notwithstanding that the Administrative Agent or any Lender may have had notice or knowledge of any Default or incorrect representation or warranty at the time any credit is extended hereunder, and shall continue in full force and effect as long as the principal of or any accrued interest on any Loan or any fee or any other amount payable under this Agreement is outstanding and unpaid and so long as the Commitments have not expired or terminated. The provisions of Sections 2.15, 2.16, 2.17 and 9.03 and Article VIII shall survive and remain in full force and effect regardless of the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, the repayment of the Loans, the expiration or termination of the Commitments or the termination of this Agreement or any other Loan Document or any provision hereof or thereof.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any notices or other communications provided for in this Agreement shall be sufficient if in writing. In the case of Director, such notices or communications shall be effectively delivered if hand delivered to Director or if sent by registered or certified mail to Director at the last address Director has filed with the Company. In the case of the Company, such notices or communications shall be effectively delivered if sent by registered or certified mail to the Company at its principal executive offices.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: v. Jones, 457 Pa. 563, 319 A.2d 142, 148, cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1000, 95 S.Ct. 316, 42 L.Ed.2d 274 (1974). Since 1983, applying the 1972 Crimes Code, we have repeatedly held that a voluntary manslaughter instruction is warranted only where the offense is at issue and the evidence would support such a verdict. See Commonwealth v. Robinson, 554 Pa. 293, 721 A.2d 344, 353-54 (1998); Commonwealth v. Speight, 544 Pa. 451, 677 A.2d 317, 324-25 (1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1119, 117 S.Ct. 967, 136 L.Ed.2d 852 (1997); Commonwealth v. Browdie, 543 Pa. 337, 671 A.2d 668, 673-74 (1996); Commonwealth v. Williams, 537 Pa. 1, 640 A.2d 1251, 1265-66 (1994); Commonwealth v. Carter, 502 Pa. 433, 466 A.2d 1328, 1332-33 (1983); see also Commonwealth v. White, 490 Pa. 179, 415 A.2d 399, 400 (1980) (<HOLDING>). The Commonwealth tried Appellant for murder Options: A. holding that jurys failure to address first degree murder charge amounted to a verdict of not guilty on that charge B. holding an indictment need not specifically charge causing in order to support a jury verdict C. holding that trial court may charge on involuntary manslaughter only where evidence exists to support such a verdict D. holding that failure to charge jury that state had burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in the heat of passion was harmless because the evidence did not support a charge on passionprovocation manslaughter E. holding that the verdict must be sustained if there is any competent evidence to support the verdict

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that trial court may charge on involuntary manslaughter only where evidence exists to support such a verdict
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: discovery practice in civil litigation. However, here, plaintiff had no discovery rights which were inconsistent with the applicable provisions of the Open Records Act. Plaintiff argues that the denial of access to the confidential examination material violated his due process rights in the administrative appeal. We disagree. Although plaintiff’s interests in prospective governmental employment, without more, may not have been entitled to the protection of procedural due process, when the state, as here, establishes a statutory and regulatory scheme imposing more stringent standards on itself than are otherwise required by the constitution, due process requires the government to adhere strictly to those standards. Carpenter v. Civil Service Commission, 813 P.2d 773 (Colo.App.1990) (<HOLDING>); see Department of Health v. Donahue, 690 P.2d Options: A. holding that a defendant has a constitutional right to counsel as a matter of right on direct appeal B. holding that unsuccessful job applicant for governmental employment had due process right to meaningful administrative appeal of rejection when regulations established right to such appeal C. recognizing the right to counsel on appeal D. holding that there is no due process right to appellate review E. holding violation of due process to penalize a criminal defendant for pursuing statutory right of appeal

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that unsuccessful job applicant for governmental employment had due process right to meaningful administrative appeal of rejection when regulations established right to such 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: 2. 19 . Dr. Strong’s Report at 2 (emphasis added). 20 . Dr. Strong’s Report at 2. 21 . Dr. Strong’s Report at 2. 22 . Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 46], 23 .28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). 24 . Estate of Northrop v. Hutto, 9 So.3d 381, 384 (Miss.2009). This element, like all elements of a medical malpractice case, must be satisfied by expert testimony. Coleman v. Rice, 706 So.2d 696, 698 (Miss. 1997). 25 . Patterson v. Tibbs, 60 So.3d 742, 753 (Miss.2011). 26 . Drummond v. Buckley, 627 So.2d 264, 268 (Miss.1993). 27 . Dr. Strong’s Report at 1. 28 . Government's Brief at 4. 29 . Government’s Brief at 4. 30 . Conn's Brief at 2. 31 . Dr. Strong’s Report at 1. 32 . See Patterson, supra at n. 31. 33 . Dr. Strong’s Report at 2. 34 . Estate of Northrop v. Hutto, 9 So.3d 381, 387 (Miss.2009) (<HOLDING>). The expert "must articulate an objective Options: A. holding experts testimony was insufficient to survive summary judgment because the testimony at most showed the defendant deviated from the experts personal standard of care rather than the generally recognized and accepted standard of care B. holding experts testimony was insufficient to survive summary judgment because the testimony at most showed the defendant deviated from the experts personal standard of care rather than the generally accepted standard of care C. holding that standard of care need not be listed separately in report when same standard applies to each health care provider D. holding that a manufacturers insert in and of itself may not establish the relevant standard of care in a medical negligence action but may be considered by the fact finder along with expert testimony to define the standard of care E. holding that an experts personal preference does not establish a national standard of care

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an experts personal preference does not establish a national standard of care
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: such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property ... belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. 26 U.S.C. § 6331(a); see also id. § 6331(d)(4) (enumerating information that must be included with a notice of levy). Although plaintiff argues that the Notice of Levy was deficient because it “did not have a valid OMB number on the form[,] ... did not have a court stamp or ... complete signature,” Compl. U 1, neither section 6331 nor its implementing regulations require this information, see 26 U.S.C. § 6331; 26 C.F.R. §§ 301.6331-1,-2 (2006). Moreover, courts have rejected such arguments. See, e.g., Tavano v. Comm’r, 986 F.2d 1389, 1389 (11th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, section 6331(a) explicitly Options: A. holding that a second deficiency notice issued for a taxable year was valid where it determined a deficiency in a different type of tax than did the earlier deficiency notice B. holding that a notice of deficiency was invalid where it was the second notice mailed for that year and the taxpayer timely petitioned the court as to the first notice C. holding that the statute of limitations began to run when the plaintiff first received notice of an alleged deficiency from the irs not when he received a final determination of tax liability D. holding that a notice of tax deficiency sent to a taxpayer by the irs need not be signed in order to be valid E. holding that although irs failed to comply with procedures of section 6335 tax sale was valid due to ratification by taxpayer

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a notice of tax deficiency sent to a taxpayer by the irs need not be signed in order to be valid
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: Set forth on Exhibit 12.1(f) attached hereto is a list of all material Approvals or Consents required to own, operate or use the Facility or to operate the Business ( “Required Permits” ). All Required Permits are in full force and effect and are not subject to any claim, default, condition, sanction, limitation or penalty. Kindred has delivered to New Operator true, correct and complete copies of the most recent Required Permits necessary or required for the occupancy and operation of the Facility and the Business.

assistant: Approvals
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 disclosed in Schedule 6.27, during the two (2) years prior to the date hereof, the Borrower has timely filed all reports, schedules, forms, statements and other documents required to be filed by it with the SEC pursuant to the reporting requirements of the 1934 Act (all of the foregoing filed prior to the date hereof, and all exhibits included therein and financial statements, notes and schedules thereto and documents incorporated by reference therein being hereinafter referred to as the “SEC Documents”). The Borrower has delivered to the Lender or its representatives true, correct and complete copies of the SEC Documents not available on the EDGAR system. As of their respective filing dates, to the best of Borrower’s knowledge, the SEC Documents complied in all material respects with the requirements of the 1934 Act and the rules and regulations of the SEC promulgated thereunder applicable to the SEC Documents, and none of the SEC Documents, at the time they were filed with the SEC, contained any untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary in order to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. As of their respective filing dates, the consolidated financial statements of the Borrower and its Subsidiaries included in the SEC Documents complied as to form in all material respects with applicable accounting requirements and the published rules and regulations of the SEC with respect thereto. Such financial statements, including without limitation, each of the consolidated unaudited financial statements of the Borrower and its Subsidiaries dated June 30, 2016 for the six (6) months then ended, have been prepared in accordance with GAAP, consistently applied, during the periods involved (except (i) as may be otherwise indicated in such financial statements or the notes thereto, or (ii) to the extent they may exclude footnotes or may be condensed or summary statements) and fairly present in all material respects the consolidated financial position of the Borrower and its Subsidiaries as of the date thereof and the results of its operations and cash flows for the periods then ended (subject to normal year-end audit adjustments). No other information provided by or on behalf of the Borrower to the Lender which is not included in the SEC Documents, to the best of Borrower’s knowledge, contains any untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstance under which they are or were made, not misleading.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed given when sent by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the address set forth below. The addresses for such notices may be changed from time to time by written notice given in the manner provided for herein.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: a record kept in the ordinary course of business of the City and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein. Phila.Code § 12-2804(5). 9 . Although the BAA contends that Kovler appeared at the hearing with the original Ticket and that the original Ticket was used by the hearing examiner in making his determination, the original Ticket is not part of the official record and we are unable to discern from the hearing transcript exactly what information was before the hearing examiner. 10 . We further note that Kovler did not raise any objection concerning the absence of the original Ticket at the hearing before the BAA. Kovler’s argument in this regard is therefore waived. See Mitman v. Police Pension Comm'n of City of Easton, 972 A.2d 1276, 1283 (Pa.Cmwlth.2009) (<HOLDING>). 11 . Kovler argues that the photographs do Options: A. holding that issues not raised before a district court are waived on appeal B. holding issues not raised in appellate brief are waived C. holding that arguments not raised before the trial court are waived D. holding issues not raised before local agency are waived E. holding that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal

assistant: The best answer is D. holding issues not raised before local agency are waived
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: Agent Alfin stated that had he been aware of the change to the homepage prior to the submission of the Affidavit later on February 20, 2015, he would have taken steps to ensure that the description of the homepage in the Affidavit was updated to reflect the change.” Id. The Court does not decide whether Agent Alfin noticed the new logo or whether, if he had noticed it during the early morning hours of February 20, he was reckless in failing to relay that information to Agent Macfarlane before the search warrant application was submitted later that same morning. The Court need not address this issue because, even if Agent Alfin’s conduct constituted recklessness, the new logo would not have changed the probable cause analysis. See Matish, 193 F.Supp.3d at 606, 2016 WL 3545776, at *12 (<HOLDING>); Darby, 190 F.Supp.3d at 534, 2016 WL 3189703, Options: A. holding that the logo change lacks significance because the probable cause rested not solely on the sites logo but also on the affiants description that the entire site was dedicated to child pornography playpens suggestive name the affirmative steps a user must take to locate playpen the sites repeated warnings and focus on anonymity and the actual contents of the site B. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in changing the surname of the child where the court made factual findings that the name change would be in the best interest of the child C. holding in a paternity action that the selection and change of the childs surname from the name chosen by the mother must be based on the trial courts determination that renaming is in the childs best interests and the record must affirmatively show such a name change is required for the welfare of the minor child D. holding that in determining whether a crime is a continuing offense the court must focus on the nature of the substantive offense and not on the specific characteristics of the conduct in the case at issue E. holding that plaintiffs cause of action accrued on the date the ophthalmologist performed the initial surgery and left the gauze at the surgical site

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the logo change lacks significance because the probable cause rested not solely on the sites logo but also on the affiants description that the entire site was dedicated to child pornography playpens suggestive name the affirmative steps a user must take to locate playpen the sites repeated warnings and focus on anonymity and the actual contents of the site
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: Therefore, we conclude that “a domain name registration is the product of a contract for services between the registrar and registrant.” Dorer, 60 F. Supp.2d at 561. A contract for services is not “a liability” as that term is used in § 8.01-511 and hence is not subject to garnishment. See Sykes v. Beal, 392 F. Supp. 1089, 1094-95 (D. Conn. 1975) (analyzing garnishment of services and concluding that automobile insurer’s duty to defend is not gamishable); cf. J. Maury Dove Co., Inc. v. New River Coal Co., 150 Va. 796, 827, 143 S.E. 317, 327 (1928) (where “contract contains mutual obligations and liabilities, or involve[s] a relation of personal confidence,” one party cannot assign it without consent of other party); McGuire v. Brown, Guardian, 114 Va. 235, 242, 76 S.E. 295, 297 (1912) (<HOLDING>). If we allow the garnishment of NSI’s services Options: A. holding that person who is not party to contract does not have standing to challenge contract B. holding that an action for the negligence of an architect in the performance of professional services is an action for breach of contract C. holding that an attorneys services were personal services rendered or labor done under the predecessor statute to section 38001 D. holding contract for personal services is not assignable E. holding a task order for expanded flight services for the navy was within the scope because the contract was to cover services worldwide

assistant: The best answer is D. holding contract for personal services is not assignable
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of defendant’s interrogation and could draw their own inferences from the record as to whether those conditions would cause defendant to confess. The State’s argument concerning those conditions was proper in light of that evidence. However, it was improper for the State to ask the jurors to place themselves in defendant’s position and determine whether they would confess under those circumstances. The prosecutor’s comment was irrelevant and had no purpose other than to distract the jurors from their duty — assessing the evidence in the case. See People v. Johnson, 208 Ill. 2d 53, 83-84 (2003). Even though the remark was improper, we do not find that the error was so serious that the second prong of the plain-error test is satisfied. See People v. Alvine, 173 Ill. 2d 273, 292 (1996) (<HOLDING>). The jury was instructed to base its decision Options: A. holding that plainerror exception did not apply where prosecutor asked jury to assume the role of the victim in closing argument B. holding that it was harmless error when the prosecutor focused on a single incident in closing argument C. holding that it is improper for a prosecutor to assume the existence of prejudicial facts not in evidence D. holding that any error was harmless when prosecutor stated in closing argument that the state was electing a specific incident the victim had testified to with particularity E. holding it was improper for prosecutor to inject personal opinion in statements to the jury in closing argument

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that plainerror exception did not apply where prosecutor asked jury to assume the role of the victim in closing argument
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 delivery of a Lender Termination Notice or the occurrence of an Agreement Event of Default or Modification Termination Event: (a) the Modification Period and the modification hereunder shall terminate automatically; (b) all obligations of the Agent hereunder shall terminate automatically; (c) all obligations owed to the Agent, including, without limitation, all amounts outstanding under the Loan Documents shall, without presentment, demand, protest or notice of any kind, all of which are hereby expressly waived, be forthwith due and payable; (d) the Agent may immediately, and without expiration of any period of grace or any further period of reinstatement or redemption, enforce payment of all obligations owed to the Agent hereunder and under the Loan Documents, and may exercise any and all other rights, powers and remedies granted to it under the Loan Documents, at law, in equity, or otherwise; and (e) all obligations of Holdings, the Borrower and the Subsidiary Guarantor hereunder, including, without limitation, all covenants under Article 5 hereof, shall continue in full force and effect until all amounts outstanding under the Loan Documents are Paid in Full.

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: Consumer Protection Act (CPA), codified as Maryland Code (1975, 2005 Repl.Vol.), Commercial Law Article, Title 13. We thus are required to decide whether the CPA governs the State’s conduct here. Whether the CPA governs the State’s conduct is a matter of statutory interpretation and a matter of first impression for the Court. The primary canon of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the legislature’s intent. Comptroller of the Treasury v. Citicorp Int’l Communications, Inc., 389 Md. 156, 165-66, 884 A.2d 112 (2005); Rockwood Casualty Ins. Co. v. Uninsured Employers’ Fund, 385 Md. 99, 108, 867 A.2d 1026, 1031 (2005). We look first to the plain meaning of the language chosen by the Legislature. If the words of the statute are plain and u , 354 A.2d 817, 824 (1976) (<HOLDING>); State v. Milburn, 9 Gill. 105 (1850) (holding Options: A. holding that because a violation of a statute had no practical effect there was no concrete injury B. holding that the insurer had no duty to defend the insured because the allegations of the initial complaint did not allege facts which would bring the case within the coverage of the title insurance policy C. holding that the mass transit administration mta was not obligated to conform to the personal injury protection insurance coverage requirements imposed by statute because there was no manifest intention demonstrated on the part of the general assembly to include mta within the no fault insurance provisions and that if it had intended to include mta within those provisions it would have made a specific provision to that effect D. holding that there was no contract of insurance when the receipt provided that no offer of insurance within sixty days would be deemed a declination and the sixty days had passed prior to the loss explaining that the overwhelming weight of authority is to the effect that no inference or presumption of acceptance is to be drawn from mere delay in passing on the application E. holding that insurance company operating under a reservation of rights had the right and the duty to control the defense until such time as it was determined that it had no liability insurance coverage

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the mass transit administration mta was not obligated to conform to the personal injury protection insurance coverage requirements imposed by statute because there was no manifest intention demonstrated on the part of the general assembly to include mta within the no fault insurance provisions and that if it had intended to include mta within those provisions it would have made a specific provision to that effect
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 Robertson v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 32 F.3d 948 (5th Cir.1994) and Hopper, investigated fraud outside of the scope his employment and was not merely urging compliance with regulations but detailing fraudulent practices .... Unlike the plaintiff in Yesudian, McKenzie has not taken action in furtherance of a qui tam action under the FCA. When McKenzie brought her complaints to the attention of the BellSouth auditor and her supervisors, legal action was not a reasonable or distinct possibility. Although the newspaper article distributed and posted by McKenzie shows awareness of consumer fraud, the “in furtherance of’ language requires more than merely reporting wrongdoing to supervisors. See Eberhardt v. Integrated Design & Const. Inc., 167 F.3d 861, 868 (4th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Zahodnick v. International Bus. Machs. Corp., Options: A. holding that the county government not the federal government was liable for the taking of an air easement over plaintiffs property even though the airport was funded in part by a federal grant based on compliance with federal regulations B. holding that a sixmonth gap between the protected activity and the employees termination was insufficient to infer that the protected activity was a contributing factor C. holding that evidence that is consistent with acts of private violence or that merely shows that a person has been the victim of criminal activity does not constitute evidence of persecution based on a statutorily protected ground D. holding that the fact that employer had knowledge of the employees protected activity was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation where the timing of the discharge was not proximate to the protected activity E. holding that merely reporting concerns of mischarging a government project or investigating an employers noncompliance with federal or state regulations was insufficient to constitute protected activity under the fca

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that merely reporting concerns of mischarging a government project or investigating an employers noncompliance with federal or state regulations was insufficient to constitute protected activity under the fca
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: AND JUDGMENT ROBERT E. BACHARACH, Circuit Judge. Mr. Miguel Angel Gutierrez-Carranza was convicted on federal charges and faced unrelated charges in Mexico. After the federal conviction, he requested extradition to Mexico and the district court denied the request based on a “lack of jurisdiction.” R. vol, I, at 7. We affirm. The defendant had no power to initiate his own extradition. The court’s power to order extradition derives from 18 U.S.C. § 3184. Under § 3184, a district court can initiate extradition proceedings only after the federal government files a sworn complaint for extradition based on a request from a foreign jurisdiction. 18 U.S.C. § 3184; see Grin v. Shine, 187 U.S. 181, 186, 23 S.Ct. 98, 47 L.Ed. 130 (1902) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, extradition could take place only Options: A. recognizing with respect to a virtually identical predecessor to 3184 that a complaint must be made under oath charging the crime for which extradition is sought B. holding that a district court may not rely on a charging document without first establishing that the crime charged was the same crime for which the defendant was convicted C. recognizing a similar exception to its rule with respect to corporations D. holding that once the statute is found to be divisible the court must look to the charging papers and judgment of conviction to determine if the actual crime of which defendant was convicted was a crime of violence but emphasizing that the court is not to examine the particular facts underlying the conviction E. holding the same with respect to an apartment

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing with respect to a virtually identical predecessor to 3184 that a complaint must be made under oath charging the crime for which extradition is sought
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provision of this Agreement is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability will not affect any other provision of this Agreement, and this Agreement will be construed as if such invalid or unenforceable provision were omitted.

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: its judgment based upon fraud, mistake, duress, undue influence or lack of capacity. For the purposes of this chapter, an owner of a home shall include a sole owner, joint tenant, tenant by the entirety or tenant in common; provided, that only one owner may acquire an estate of homestead in any such home for the benefit of his family; and provided further, that an estate of homestead may be acquired on only one principal residence for the benefit of a family. For the purposes of this chapter, the word "family” shall include either a parent and child or children, a husband and wife and their children, if any, or a sole owner. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 188, § 1. See Patriot Portfolio, LLC v. Weinstein, 164 F.3d 677 (1999), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1036, 119 S.Ct. 2394, 144 L.Ed.2d 794 (1999)(<HOLDING>); In re Leicht, 222 B.R. 670 (1st Cir. BAP Options: A. holding inter alia that the bankruptcy code preempts massachusetts homestead acts exceptions for preexisting liens and prior contracted debts B. holding that erisa preempts a plaintiffs claims for violation of the state insurance code and consumer protection act C. holding inter alia that the bond requirement of section 60b does not violate the right to a jury trial guaranteed by the massachusetts declaration of rights D. holding inter alia that common law claims were preempted E. recognizing that even evidence of a defendants and a witnesss prior bad acts was admissible to show inter alia the defendants familiarity with the witness

assistant: The best answer is A. holding inter alia that the bankruptcy code preempts massachusetts homestead acts exceptions for preexisting liens and prior contracted debts
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 Debtors and the 1974 Plan each represent that the person executing this Settlement Agreement on their behalf has the full authority and power to execute for and bind such Party to the terms hereof. PAH represents that the person executing this Settlement Agreement has the full authority and power to execute for and bind the Affiliated Non-Debtors to the terms hereof, and to bind Metropolitan Collieries Pty Ltd and Helensburgh Coal Pty Ltd to the terms of Section 8 hereof.

assistant: Authority
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 Sublease shall be construed without regard to any presumption or other rule suggesting construction or interpretation against the party causing this Sublease to be drafted. All terms and words used in this Sublease, regardless of the number or gender in which they are used, shall be deemed to include any other number and any other gender as the context may require. The word “person” as used in this Sublease means a natural person or persons, a partnership, a corporation or any other form of business or legal association or entity.

assistant: Interpretations
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 shall not create, incur, assume or suffer to exist any Lien of any kind upon any of its property, assets or revenues, whether now owned or hereafter acquired, other than (a) Liens arising by operation of law, (b) Liens under any Credit Document to which the Borrower is a party, (c) Liens existing on the Closing Date if disclosed to the Lenders prior to the date hereof, and any modifications, replacements, renewals, or extensions thereof, (d) Liens for Taxes, assessments or other governmental charges or levies not yet delinquent or that are being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings, (e) Liens securing Indebtedness permitted by Section 5.13(c), and (f) other Liens with respect to the property or assets of the Borrower to the extent would not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Liens
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 Borrower shall immediately notify the Borrower Representative of the occurrence of any Default or Event of Default hereunder, refer to this Agreement, describe such Default or Event of Default, and state that such notice is a “notice of default”. In the event that the Borrower Representative receives such a notice, the Borrower Representative shall give prompt notice thereof to the Lender. Any notice provided to the Borrower Representative hereunder shall constitute notice to each Borrower on the date received by the Borrower Representative.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: vivino will not be liable for the privacy of email addresses , registration and identification information , disk space , communications , confidential or trade-secret information , or any other content stored on vivino 's equipment , transmitted over networks accessed by the site , or otherwise connected with your use of the service .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Executive represents and warrants that the Executive is not bound by any employment contract, restrictive covenant, or other restriction or subject to any other limitation preventing the Executive from carrying out the Executive's responsibilities for the Company, or which is in any way inconsistent with the terms of this Agreement. The Executive further represents and warrants that the Executive shall not disclose to the Company or induce the Company to use any confidential or proprietary information or material belonging to any previous employer or others.

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: On or before thirty (30) days following the Severance Date, the Company will pay Mr. Malik (i) his normal pay in accordance with the Company’s normal payroll practices through the Severance Date, (ii) his accrued and unused paid time off (if any), (iii) any benefits that are due to him under the Company’s 401(k) plan in accordance with the terms of that plan, and (iv) an additional two-weeks of his normal pay pursuant to the notice provision in Section 2(a) of the Employment Agreement. Mr. Malik’s participation in all other Company benefit plans will cease on his Severance Date. Mr. Malik will receive a notice regarding the terms of continuation of coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 (“COBRA”). Mr. Malik will be eligible to participate in COBRA for a period of up to eighteen (18) months. If Mr. Malik chooses to participate in COBRA, he will be responsible for all COBRA payment premiums.

assistant: Benefits