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: 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 635, § 1, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 1590, 1590 (current version at Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 74.351(a) (Vernon Supp.2008)). McCoy asserts that OGA did not object to the timeliness or sufficiency of Dr. Brewer’s reports until February 22, 2008, about one year and seven months after the twenty-one day deadline. According to McCoy, OGA’s conduct was sufficiently implicated to trigger the duty to object to the sufficiency of the expert reports bec implicated by Dr. Brewer’s reports; OGA also argues that it was under no duty to file objections to the reports within twenty-one days after service of the reports because McCoy failed to serve an expert report addressing OGA’s conduct. See Poland v. Grigore, 249 S.W.3d 607, 616 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Further, OGA asserts that McCoy’s reliance on Options: A. holding that medical center was not required to be named in expert report addressing its residents conduct because plaintiffs alleged no directliability claims against it and noting that medical center was implicated in report and so waived all its objections when it failed to object to sufficiency of report within twentyone days after service B. holding defendants failure to object timely waives its right to challenge expert report C. holding that if the government fails to object to the presentence report the district courts reliance on the report is reviewed for plain error D. holding that a complaint that a report was not timely served was not subject to the twentyone day deadline to object to the sufficiency of a report under former section 74351a E. holding that the defendant conceded the accuracy of his prior convictions in his psi report by failing to object to the report

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a complaint that a report was not timely served was not subject to the twentyone day deadline to object to the sufficiency of a report under former section 74351a
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of GEO and its Subsidiaries has timely filed or caused to be filed all material Tax returns and reports required to have been filed and has paid or caused to be paid all Taxes required to have been paid by it, except (a) Taxes that are being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings and for which such Person has set aside on its books adequate reserves with respect thereto in accordance with GAAP or (b) to the extent that any such failure could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision hereof shall in no way affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision. Further, the invalidity or unenforceability of any provision hereof as to either Indemnitee or Appointing Stockholder shall in no way affect the validity or enforceability of any provision hereof as to the other. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, this Agreement is intended to confer upon Indemnitee and Appointing Stockholder indemnification rights to the fullest extent permitted by applicable laws. In the event any provision hereof conflicts with any applicable law, such provision shall be deemed modified, consistent with the aforementioned intent, to the extent necessary to resolve such conflict.

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: “good cause.” Here the statute is silent as to the President’s removal authority, and therefore appellants argue that he has none. However, statutory silence could imply that the President actually enjoys an unrestricted power of removal. See Shurtleff v. United States, 189 U.S. 311, 316, 23 S.Ct. 535, 536, 47 L.Ed. 828 (1903). The Commission suggests that the President can remove the commissioners only for good cause, which limitation is implied by the Commission’s structure and mission as well as the commissioners’ terms. We think the Commission is likely correct, but, in any event, we can safely assume that the President would at minimum have authority to discharge a commissioner for good cause — if for no other. See SEC v. Blinder, Robinson & Co., 855 F.2d 677, 681 (10th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). * * * * * Hi We turn now to appellants’ more Options: A. recognizing the presidents authority to remove sec members for good cause despite governing statutes silence B. recognizing the cause of action C. holding lack of prejudice to the defendant is not good cause D. recognizing common law authority of stockholders to remove a director for cause E. holding that an extension of time in which to serve process may be granted despite the absence of good cause

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing the presidents authority to remove sec members for good cause despite governing statutes silence
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: States v. Triple Canopy, Inc., 775 F.3d 628, 634 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). A “presentment claim -arises when a claim for payment that is submitted to the government rests on a false representation of compliance with an applicable federal statute, federal regulation, or contractual term.” United States ex rel. Tran v. Computer Scis. Corp., 53 F.Supp.3d 104, 122 (D.D.C. 2014) (internal quotation mark omitted); accord Triple Canopy, Inc., 775 F.3d at 634-35 (adopting implied certification). This is also known as implied false certification. Id. Here, the Government alleges that implied false certification occurred each time Berkeley or HDL submitted’ tainted forms for reimbursement by Medicare and TRICARE because F.3d 364, 386 (4th Cir. 2015) (<HOLDING>); U.S. ex rel. Osheroff v. Tenet Healthcare Options: A. holding that the defendants could not be held in contempt for failure to pay more than the fee cap amount because the court cannot order the djefendants to violate an act of congress to pay the total award B. holding that failure to list a beginning date of a pay period on a pay stub was not a violation of section 226a6 when the employer provided an electronic wage statement that did include the beginning date of the pay period C. holding defendant was knowingly asking the government to pay an amount that bylaw it could not pay each time it submitted a claim tainted by a violation of the analogous stark law D. holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to require a defendant to pay all back taxes E. holding that it is plain error for a trial court to require a defendant to pay courtappointed attorney fees in the absence of legally sufficient evidence that defendant has the ability to pay the amount imposed

assistant: The best answer is C. holding defendant was knowingly asking the government to pay an amount that bylaw it could not pay each time it submitted a claim tainted by a violation of the analogous stark law
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be terminated by any Purchaser, as to such Purchaser’s obligations hereunder only and without any effect whatsoever on the obligations between the Company and the other Purchasers, by written notice to the other parties, if the Closing has not been consummated on or before September 15, 2017; provided , however , that such termination will not affect the right of any party to sue for any breach by any other party (or parties).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The execution and delivery of this Agreement and the performance of Purchaser’s obligations hereunder have been duly authorized by all necessary action on the part of Purchaser and its constituent owners and/or beneficiaries and this Agreement constitutes, and all documents to be executed by Purchaser which are to be delivered at Closing will be at the time of Closing, the legal, valid and binding obligation of Purchaser enforceable against Purchaser in accordance with its terms, subject to equitable principles and other principles governing creditors’ rights generally.

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: If any Company (other than a Dormant Subsidiary) shall (a) except as permitted pursuant to Section 5.12 hereof, discontinue business; (b) generally not pay its debts as such debts become due; (c) make a general assignment for the benefit of creditors; (d) apply for or consent to the appointment of a receiver, a custodian, a trustee, an interim trustee, a liquidator, an agent or any other similar official of all or a substantial part of its assets or of such Company; (e) be adjudicated a debtor or insolvent or have entered against it an order for relief under the Bankruptcy Code, or under any other bankruptcy insolvency, liquidation, winding-up, corporate or similar statute or law, foreign, federal, state or provincial, in any applicable jurisdiction, now or hereafter existing, as any of the foregoing may be amended from time to time, or other applicable statute for jurisdictions outside of the United States, as the case may be; (f) file a voluntary petition under the Bankruptcy Code; (g) have an involuntary proceeding under the Bankruptcy Code filed against it and the same shall continue undismissed for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days from commencement of such proceeding or case; (h) file a petition, an answer, an application or a proposal seeking reorganization or an arrangement with creditors or seeking to take advantage of any other law (whether federal, provincial or state, or, if applicable, other jurisdiction) relating to relief of debtors, or admit (by answer, by default or otherwise) the material allegations of a petition filed against it in any bankruptcy, reorganization, insolvency or other proceeding (whether federal, provincial or state, or, if applicable, other jurisdiction) relating to relief of debtors; (i) suffer or permit to continue unstayed and in effect for sixty (60) consecutive days any judgment, decree or order entered by a court of competent jurisdiction, that approves a petition seeking its reorganization or appoints a receiver and manager, an administrator, custodian, trustee, interim trustee or liquidator of all or a substantial part of its assets, or of such Company; (j) have an administrative receiver appointed over the whole or substantially the whole of its assets, or of such Company; or (k) take any action in order thereby to effect any of the foregoing.

assistant: Solvency
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 ASSIGNMENT AND ACCEPTANCE AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO THE CONFLICT OF LAWS PRINCIPLES THEREOF.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Use of the masculine pronoun shall be deemed to include usage of the feminine pronoun where appropriate. This Agreement replaces all other prior agreements relating to the indemnification of Indemnitee by the Company and/or FLLP in connection with Indemnitee’s service as an officer or director of the Company and/or FLLP, and all such prior agreements are null and void in all respects.

assistant: Miscellaneous
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: author’s “absolute and unconditional sale of the material object carried with it an implied assignment of the common law copyright therein”) (emphasis added) [hereinafter Nimmer]. Third, each of the cases cited by the plaintiff is easily distinguished from the instant case. In the cases relied upon by the plaintiff there was ample evidence other than the mere possession of the work to support the conclusion that the publisher acquired the work through a proper transfer from the author. Usually, the evidence included a certificate of registration for the original copyright which, by law, was considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. However, there was often other evidence. See, e.g., Houghton Mifflin Co. v. Stackpole Sons, Inc., 113 F.2d 627, 628 (2d Cir.1940) (<HOLDING>); Ripley v. Findlay Galleries, Inc., 155 F.2d Options: A. holding that a back pay award should make injured parties whole by placing them in the position that they would have been but for the discrimination B. holding that even in separate trial other crimes evidence would not have been admissible and identification testimony would have been admissible C. holding that where a conflict between state and federal law is alleged it must be reasonable to conclude that congress would have intended to preclude the state law in question since it would make little sense to preempt state law in order to serve the purposes underlying federal legislation if congress itself would not require or admit of preemption of state authority D. holding copyright to mein kampf properly transferred to publisher considering the authors power and position in germany it would be unreasonable to suppose that anyone would have been allowed to make unauthorized use of it E. holding that regardless of insurers good faith denial of coverage plaintiff is entitled to recover interest to put it in position it would have been in if coverage had not been denied

assistant: The best answer is D. holding copyright to mein kampf properly transferred to publisher considering the authors power and position in germany it would be unreasonable to suppose that anyone would have been allowed to make unauthorized use of it
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: child support and temporary spousal support. When the payments were not made, Tina petitioned the court for contempt and enforcement of the temporary order. The trial judge determined, after a hearing, that James had the current ability to pay the support, found James in contempt of court and sentenced him to 30 days in the county jail if he did not pay the purge amount of $518.00. James was also ordered to continue to pay temporary support payments. We affirm the entry of the contempt order. The trial judge made affirmative findings that James’ income had increased and that he had recently acquired a substantial asset, a new double-wide mobile home. The court found James had the present ability to pay the support and the arrearages. See Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So.2d 1274 (Fla. 1985) (<HOLDING>). We reverse, however, to afford the trial Options: A. holding that the district court committed reversible error by imposing criminal sanctions in a civil proceeding which did not afford the contemnor the procedural protections the constitution requires for the imposition of criminal contempt sanctions B. holding that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion by stating that it did not have the ability to present the transcript to the jury C. holding that a contempt finding may be averted if the alleged contemnor establishes 1 D. holding that incarceration for civil contempt cannot be imposed absent a finding by the trial court that the eontemnor has the present ability to purge himself of contempt E. holding that because civil contempt is only to obtain compliance it must be used only where the contemnor has the present ability to comply with the court order and the trial court specifically finds that the contemnor has that ability

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that because civil contempt is only to obtain compliance it must be used only where the contemnor has the present ability to comply with the court order and the trial court specifically finds that the contemnor has that ability
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 dispute or controversy arising under or in connection with this Agreement shall be settled exclusively by binding arbitration in Tampa, Florida in accordance with the employment arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association then in effect. Judgment may be entered in the arbitrator's award in any court having jurisdiction. Such arbitration shall occur only after the parties have attempted to resolve the dispute or controversy by mediation under mutually agreeable terms.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Notice of prepayment or commitment reduction pursuant to clauses (a) and (b) above shall not thereafter be revocable by Borrower (unless such notice expressly conditions such prepayment upon consummation of a transaction which is contemplated to result in prepayment of the Loans, in which event such notice may be revocable or conditioned upon such consummation) and Agent will promptly notify each Lender thereof and of such Lender’s Commitment Percentage of such prepayment or reduction. The payment amount specified in a notice of prepayment shall be due and payable on the date specified therein. Together with each prepayment under this Section 2.7, the Borrowers shall pay any amounts required pursuant to Section 11.4.

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: done back to the individual cattle owners. Indeed, this is precisely what the “reasonable basis” standard is designed to avoid: The whole point of Restatement § 433A is that no specific evidence is required for apportionment so long as the evidence and method used are “reasonable.” Further, the Restatement embraces “simple” considerations rejected by the panel — -the number of cattle owned is a “simple,” yet sufficient, basis for apportionment. Even though it is impossible to determine the exact proportion of the contamination attributable to the Railroad parcel, the percentage of land ownership, like the number of cattle, provides one reasonable factor upon which to apportion liability under the Restatement. See United States v. Twp. of Brighton, 282 F.3d 915, 919-20 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Hercules, Inc., 247 F.3d Options: A. recognizing cercla successor liability B. holding substantial continuity is untenable as a basis for successor liability under cercla C. holding that notice not required because cercla is a strict liability statute D. holding that apportionment of cercla liability is a matter of federal common law E. holding that geographic divisibility may provide a basis for apportionment of cercla liability

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that geographic divisibility may provide a basis for apportionment of cercla liability
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 the accounts, books, registers, ledgers, the Company Board minutes and financial and other records of whatsoever kind of the Company have been fully, properly and accurately kept and completed; there are no material inaccuracies or discrepancies of any kind contained or reflected therein; and they give and reflect a true and fair view of the financial, contractual and legal position of the Company. The Company maintains a system of internal accounting controls sufficient, in the judgment of the Company, to provide reasonable assurance that (i) transactions are executed in accordance with management’s general or specific authorizations, and (ii) transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP and to maintain asset accountability.

assistant: Books
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 constitutes the entire agreement of the parties with regard to the subject matter hereof. Without limiting the scope of the preceding sentence, all prior understandings and agreements among the parties hereto relating to the subject matter hereof are hereby null and void and of no further force and effect.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each party agrees that it will bring any action or proceeding in respect of any claim arising out of or related to this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby exclusively in any federal or state court sitting in the State of Delaware (the “ Chosen Courts ”), and, solely in connection with claims arising under this Agreement or the transactions that are the subject of this Agreement, (i) irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Chosen Courts, (ii) waives any objection to laying venue in any such action or proceeding in the Chosen Courts, (iii) waives any objection that the Chosen Courts are an inconvenient forum or do not have jurisdiction over any party and (iv) agrees that service of process upon such party in any such action or proceeding will be effective if notice is given in accordance with Section 8(b) .

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

user: Read the 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 Colorado. In the event of any litigation between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all of its reasonable attorneys’ fees from the other party.

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: (1988 & Supp.1995), and the court will look to case law interpreting both statutes when analyzing plaintiff’s evidence of "disability”. See Nedder, supra, 908 F.Supp. at 74 n. 7. 6 . The EEOC, in regulations promulgated to implement the ADA, defines "physical or mental impairment” as: (1) Any physiological disorder, or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, [inter alia]; or (2) Any mental or psychological disorder. ... 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h) (1995). Ordinarily plaintiff would have to show that her obesity is of physiological origin and that it impairs a body system. Cf. Cook v. Rhode Island Dep't of Mental Health, Retardation & Hosps., 10 F.3d 17, 23 (1st Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). 7 .This court has previously observed that Options: A. holding that testimony of plaintiff and her coworkers regarding cause of her injury was pure conjecture B. holding that jury could plausibly have found that plaintiff had a physical impairment based on her own testimony and the testimony of an expert who stated that her morbid obesity was the result of a physiological disorder C. holding that the proper question for the agency is not whether stones obesity is in some clinical sense remediable but whether her obesity is the sole cause of her disabilities and if so whether her obesity is reasonably remediable by her D. holding that a jury may conclude that morbid obesity constitutes a disability in cases in which the plaintiff presents expert testimony that the morbid obesity at issue is a physiological disorder involving a dysfunction of both the metabolic system and the neurological appetitesuppressing signal system capable of caus ing adverse effects within the musculoskeletal respiratory and cardiovascular systems E. holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that jury could plausibly have found that plaintiff had a physical impairment based on her own testimony and the testimony of an expert who stated that her morbid obesity was the result of a physiological disorder
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: therefore , in some cases , if you change the device or its sim-card , you can not transfer the balance to a new device or sim-card and no refund will be available in such cases .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: condition during Gretillat’s employment. Gretillat does not respond to Care Initiatives’s arguments in her Resistance. “When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported ... [and] the adverse party does not ... respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). The court finds summary judgment is appropriate as to Gretillat’s alleged inabilities to squat, crawl, crouch and kneel. Summary judgment as to Gretillat’s alleged inabilities to squat, crawl, crouch and kneel is appropriate because an employer is not required to make an accommodation for the physical limitation of an employee unless the employer has knowledge that such a limitation exists. See, e.g., Miller v. Nat’l Cas. Co., 61 F.3d 627, 629-30 (8th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Care Initiatives could not have discriminated Options: A. holding that the employers failure to interact with the employee does not preclude the employee from losing on summary judgment because the employee must still prove that a reasonable accommodation could have been made B. holding that an employer is not liable where it takes reasonable steps to provide an accommodation and the employee is responsible for a breakdown in the process of identifying a reasonable accommodation C. holding that although of course an employee is not required to modify his religious beliefs a reasonable accommodation need not be on the employees terms only D. holding that the burden of proving that the employee did not make reasonable efforts is on the defendant E. holding defendant was not required to make a reasonable accommodation for an employee because the employee did not apprise defendant that she suffered from a mental impairment

assistant: The best answer is E. holding defendant was not required to make a reasonable accommodation for an employee because the employee did not apprise defendant that she suffered from a mental impairment
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 questions concerning the construction, validity, enforcement and interpretation of the Transaction Documents shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the internal laws of the State of New York, without regard to the principles of conflicts of law thereof. Each party agrees that all legal Proceedings concerning the interpretations, enforcement and defense of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement and any other Transaction Documents (whether brought against a party hereto or its respective affiliates, directors, officers, shareholders, partners, members, employees or agents) shall be commenced exclusively in the state and federal courts sitting in the City of New York. Each party hereby irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal courts sitting in the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan for the adjudication of any dispute hereunder or in connection herewith or with any transaction contemplated hereby or discussed herein (including with respect to the enforcement of any of the Transaction Documents), and hereby irrevocably waives, and agrees not to assert in any Action or Proceeding, any claim that it is not personally subject to the jurisdiction of any such court, that such Action or Proceeding is improper or is an inconvenient venue for such Proceeding. Each party hereby irrevocably waives personal service of process and consents to process being served in any such Action or Proceeding 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. If any party shall commence an Action or Proceeding to enforce any provisions of the Transaction Documents, then, in addition to the obligations of the Company under Section 4.8, the prevailing party in such Action or Proceeding shall be reimbursed by the non-prevailing party for its reasonable attorneys’ fees and other costs and expenses incurred with the investigation, preparation and prosecution of such Action or Proceeding.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Notwithstanding anything in any Loan Document to the contrary, for purposes of this Section 4.4(f), each notice or other communication required to be delivered or otherwise provided to the Administrative Agent (or its delegate) shall be deemed to have been given upon the Administrative Agent’s (or its delegate’s) actual receipt during normal business hours of such notice or communication; provided that any notice or communication actually received outside of normal business hours shall be deemed to have been given as of the opening of business on the next Business Day.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All of the disclosure furnished by or on behalf of the Company to the Purchasers regarding the Company and its Subsidiaries, their respective businesses and the transactions contemplated hereby, including the Disclosure Schedules to this Agreement, is true and correct and does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. The press releases disseminated by the Company during the twelve months preceding the date of this Agreement taken as a whole do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made and when made, not misleading. The Company acknowledges and agrees that no Purchaser makes or has made any representations or warranties with respect to the transactions contemplated hereby other than those specifically set forth in Section 3.2 hereof.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: for Selecting the ICD Respondents contend even assuming, arguendo, the expert testim owever, he stated, “Definitely not, definitely not.” Instead, Dr. Venegas testified it would be proper for a physician considering a medical device or drug to evaluate it based on “[t]he benefits outweighing the risks, the appropriateness of the situation ... the various side effects, risks, alternatives.” Arguably, this testimony constitutes evidence of both the generally accepted standard of care and a breach thereof. Ultimately, however, we need not decide whether the expert testimony establishes the standard of care or breach because Melton presented no evidence showing that Dr. Feldman’s selection criteria was the proximate cause of his injuries. See David, 367 S.C. at 248, 626 S.E.2d at 4 (<HOLDING>). See also Tumblin v. Ball-Incon Glass Options: A. holding that negligence must be the proximate cause of injury B. holding that the plaintiff must show that there was a lack of probable cause for the criminal prosecution C. holding a person commits aggravated dui when his or her driving under the influence was a proximate cause of the injuries citation not the sole and immediate cause of the victims injuries emphasis omitted D. holding the plaintiff must show that the defendants departure from such generally recognized practices and procedures was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs alleged injuries and damages E. holding that a physicians negligence need only be a proximate cause not the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury

assistant: The best answer is D. holding the plaintiff must show that the defendants departure from such generally recognized practices and procedures was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs alleged injuries and damages
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that “for purposes of a similar statute—18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(A)— reckless conduct can constitute a crime of violence.” United States v. Benally, 843 F.3d 350, 354 (9th Cir. 2016). However, the Court declines to adopt the government’s position. In Benally, the Ninth Circuit declined to make any definitive ruling on Voisine’s impact. The court refrained from resolving any tension between Voisine and Femandez-Ruiz and in fact relied on Femandez-Ruiz in finding an earlier Ninth Circuit decision in United States v. Springfield, 829 F.2d 860 (9th Cir. 1987) no longer good law. See id. at 354. The Court is thus reluctant to find the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Femandez-Ruiz is no longer good law. It was not overruled in Benally. But see United States v. Fogg, 836 F.3d 951, 956 (8th Cir. 2016) (<HOLDING>). More important, in Voisine itself, the Options: A. holding that where the states definition of robbery has on its face the element of use or threatened use of physical force a robbery conviction is properly used as a predicate under acca B. holding that simple battery the actual and intentional touching of another does not constitute a predicate offense because the acca requires violent force not merely offensive contact C. holding that following voisine reckless conduct can constitute use of force under the acca because the force clauses in 18 usc 921a33aii and the acca both define qualifying predicate offenses as those involving the use of physical force against another D. holding iowa common law touching assault met use of physical force required for enhancement under 18 usc 922g9 be cause any physical contact by necessity requires physical force to complete E. holding that expert testimony on what constitutes deadly physical force and whether the use of force was justified should have been excluded

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that following voisine reckless conduct can constitute use of force under the acca because the force clauses in 18 usc 921a33aii and the acca both define qualifying predicate offenses as those involving the use of physical force against another
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: arrest is cognizable under § 1983 as a violation of the Fourth Amendment, provided the arrest was without probable cause or other justification.”); cf. Awabdy v. City of Ade lanto, 368 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Among the ways that a plaintiff can rebut a prima fade finding of probable cause is by showing that the criminal prosecution was induced by fraud, corruption, perjury, fabricated evidence, or other wrongful conduct undertaken in bad faith.”). Plaintiffs eighth claim alleges that Nuti unlawfully detained Plaintiff for 64.5 hours despite having fabricated all the evidence against Plaintiff. Taking the facts alleged in the complaint to be true, Nuti is not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 684 (9th Cir. 2001) (<HOLDING>). After careful consideration of all the Options: A. holding that probable cause did not fade away merely because the police arrested the defendant the following day B. holding that even though the plaintiff was incarcerated for only one day before his extradition hearing the complaint was sufficient to establish a due process violation at the pleadings stage because it alleged among other things that the defendants falsely arrested the plaintiff without probable cause and with deliberate indifference to the plaintiffs rights C. holding the evidence sufficient to establish the defendants knowing possession of a firearm beyond a reasonable doubt when among other things the defendant admitted to a law enforcement officer that he had acquired the shotgun for his protection and that officers testimony went uncontradicted at trial D. holding that in order to prevail on a malicious prosecution claim under 1983 a plaintiff must establish among other things the absence of probable cause for the initiation of the proceedings against her E. holding among other things that the officers observations that the defendant was under the influence of a controlled substance without more did not establish probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed a crime

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that even though the plaintiff was incarcerated for only one day before his extradition hearing the complaint was sufficient to establish a due process violation at the pleadings stage because it alleged among other things that the defendants falsely arrested the plaintiff without probable cause and with deliberate indifference to the plaintiffs rights
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: Wherever any words are used herein in the singular or in the plural, they shall be construed as though they were used in the plural or in the singular, as the case may be, in all cases where they would so apply.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: its initial order and then expressly declined to rule on the motion. It concluded that, because there was “no order granting or denying that motion,” the appellants would “have nothing to appeal.” We disagree. A litigant claiming official immunity is .entitled to a judgment on whether the defense is appropriate at each step of the litigation, including both the motion to dismiss stage, and the summary judgment stage. By way of analogy to qualified immunity cases, if the district court had denied the motion to dismiss on absolute immunity grounds and this court affirmed, a motion for summary judgment on immunity grounds could nonetheless be brought, and appeal taken again if the district court denied that motion. See, e.g., Marks v. Clarke, 102 F.3d 1012, 1017 n. 8 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Of course, in this case the district court Options: A. holding that the rule announced in bailey v united states 516 us 137 116 sct 501 133 led2d 472 1995 applies retroactively on collateral review B. holding court lacked jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeal of denial of motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity by defendants who were not public officials C. holding that an interlocutory appeal lies from a denial of summary judgment on a qualified immunity claim D. holding that the supreme courts interpretation of 18 usc 924c1 in bailey v united states 516 us 137 116 sct 501 133 led2d 472 1995 has retroactive application to cases on collateral review E. recognizing that in behrens v pelletier 516 us 299 116 sct 834 133 led2d 773 1996 the supreme court held that a defendant may appeal both the district courts denial of a motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity and a subsequent denial of summary judgment on the basis of such immunity

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that in behrens v pelletier 516 us 299 116 sct 834 133 led2d 773 1996 the supreme court held that a defendant may appeal both the district courts denial of a motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity and a subsequent denial of summary judgment on the basis of such immunity
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: To the knowledge of the Company, each material employee benefit plan, within the meaning of Section 3(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ ERISA ”), that is maintained, administered or contributed to by the Company or any of its Affiliates for employees or former employees of the Company and the Subsidiaries has been maintained in material compliance with its terms and the requirements of any applicable statutes, orders, rules and regulations, including but not limited to ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “ Code ”); no prohibited transaction, within the meaning of Section 406 of ERISA or Section 4975 of the Code, has occurred which would result in a material liability to the Company with respect to any such plan excluding transactions effected pursuant to a statutory or administrative exemption; and for each such plan that is subject to the funding rules of Section 412 of the Code or Section 302 of ERISA, no “accumulated funding deficiency” as defined in Section 412 of the Code has been incurred, whether or not waived, and the fair market value of the assets of each such plan (excluding for these purposes accrued but unpaid contributions) exceeds the present value of all benefits accrued under such plan determined using reasonable actuarial assumptions.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: I t i s a nd, upon eac h Bo r r o w i n g D a t e , b oth b ef o r e a n d a f t e r g i v i ng eff e c t t o the m a k i ng o f the A dv a n c e re q u e st e d h er e und er , the G r a nt by it h er e un d e r a nd t h e c o n sum m a t i on of the o t h e r t r a n s ac t i ons c ont e mp l a t e d h er e un d e r , w i l l b e , S o lv e nt, a nd int e n ds to re m a in S o l v e nt. N o I n s olv e n c y E v e nt h a s o cc u r r e d w i t h r e sp ec t to it a nd i t h a s n o t t a k e n a n y I n solv e n c y Ac t i on or ac t i on in c o n t e m pl a t i o n or f u r th e r a n c e t h ere o f .

assistant: Solvency
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 will not, and will not permit the Company or any of their respective Subsidiaries to, sell, lease or otherwise transfer any property or assets to, or purchase, lease or otherwise acquire any property or assets from, or otherwise engage in any other transactions with, any of its Affiliates, except (a) any transactions among the Company, the Borrower and their Subsidiaries (including an entity that becomes a Subsidiary as a result of such transaction) which is not otherwise prohibited by this Agreement and that do not involve any other Affiliate, (b) in the ordinary course of business at prices and on terms and conditions not less favorable to the Company, the Borrower or such Subsidiary than could be obtained on an arm’s-length basis from unrelated third parties, (c) any Restricted Payment permitted by Section 6.06 and (d) loans to, purchases of any Equity Interests of, contributions to or other investment in any unconsolidated Joint Venture not otherwise prohibited under the Loan Documents.

assistant: Transactions With Affiliates