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 expressly provided to the contrary herein, each Article, Section, term and provision of this Agreement, and any portion thereof, shall be considered severable and if for any reason any such portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, contrary to, or in conflict with any applicable present or future law or regulation in a final, un-appealable ruling issued by any court, agency or tribunal with competent jurisdiction, that ruling shall not impair the operation of, or have any other effect upon, such other portions of this Agreement as may remain otherwise intelligible, which shall continue to be given full force and effect and binding upon the parties hereto, although any portion held to be invalid shall be deemed not to be part of this Agreement.

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: College Corp. v. W.R. Grace & Co., the Eighth Circuit stated, There is some question whether a putative class member can enjoy the benefits of tolling merely by opting out, even though the class action is still pending. The Supreme Court, in dicta has intimated as much, even though that is not the language of American Pipe or Crown, Cork & Seal. 999 F.2d 326, 332 n. 6 (8th Cir.1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 926, 127 L.Ed.2d 218 (1994). But see Adams Public Sch. Dist. v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd., 7 F.3d 717, 719 n. 1 (8th Cir.1993) (“The fact that this participation ended with a decision to ‘opt out’ rather than with denial of class certification is irrelevant to the applicability of the American Pipe rule.”); Tosti v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.2d 1485, 1488 (9th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). In this diversity suit, a federal court must Options: A. holding that the filing of a class action by a class representative without standing tolls the period of limitations with regard to all asserted members of the class and that the amendment of the complaint by the addition of a class member with standing relates back to the original complaint B. holding that no class member may opt out of a rule 23b1 class action C. holding that a class plaintiff who seeks to assert statutory rights to protect a class of which he is a member is not asserting rights antagonistic to any members of that class D. recognizing cause of action by class member against class counsel for negligence in providing notice E. holding that limitations period begins running anew from the date when the class member exercises the right to opt out because before this time the class member is deemed to be actively prosecuting her rights

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that limitations period begins running anew from the date when the class member exercises the right to opt out because before this time the class member is deemed to be actively prosecuting her 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: Nothing in this Agreement is intended to or shall modify the nature of the Director’s service as a member of the Board of Directors of the Company. The Director may resign as a director at any time and the Board may take action to remove the Director, subject only to the express provisions of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Partnership Entities maintain insurance covering the Properties, operations, personnel and businesses of the Partnership Entities as such Partnership Entities reasonably deem adequate; such insurance insures against losses and risks to an extent which is reasonably adequate, in accordance with customary industry practice, to protect the Partnership Entities and their respective businesses in a commercially reasonable manner; all such insurance is fully in force on the date hereof; and the Partnership Entities have no reason to believe that they will not be able to renew such insurance as and when such insurance expires, except for such insurance for which the failure to be outstanding and duly in force would not have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Insurances
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: which makes the actor negligent, such an act whether innocent, negligent, intentionally tor-tious, or criminal does not prevent the actor from being liable for harm caused thereby."). 14 . Although we have cited § 302B several times in dicta, this court has never invoked that section as a source of liability. See Bryson v. Banner Health Sys., 89 P.3d 800, 805 n. 11 (Alaska 2004) (quoting almost identical language in Prosser and Keeton on Torts for the proposition that a special relationship may yield a duty to protect another from a third party); Joseph v. State, 26 P.3d 459, 471 n. 67 (Alaska 2001) (citing § 302B for the proposition that "a reasonably foreseeable occurrence cannot be an intervening/superseding cause if the actor has a duty to prevent that occurrence"); Wil 011) (<HOLDING>); Kim v. Budget Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 143 Options: A. holding that a prior conviction for abusive sexual contact under 18 usc 2244a3 was a per se crime of violence within the meaning of the application notes and declining to consider application of the residual clause B. holding that defendants constitutionally protected privacy interest began at the door to his room not at the door to the rooming house C. holding that violence was not the foreseeable result of opening the door to an abusive and upset exhusband while a new boyfriend was over D. holding that opening the door in response to a police demand and then failing to object when officers entered was not voluntary consent E. holding that arrest by the back door of defendants house was unlawful

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that violence was not the foreseeable result of opening the door to an abusive and upset exhusband while a new boyfriend was over
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: (7th Cir.2001). Nor must we consider the preliminary question of whether the Superintendent should be deemed to have waived any objection to that hearing by not raising the issue on appeal. See Aeid, 296 F.3d at 64 (declining, where this Court could dispose of the case on its merits, to address the argument that the respondent had waived any objection to an evidentiary hearing by repeated failures to object to the hearing); Bryan v. Mullin, 335 F.3d 1207, 1214 (10th Cir.2003) (declining to address “what steps a respondent must undertake to preserve an objection, predicated on § 2254(e)(2), to a district court decision to grant a habeas petitioner an evidentiary hearing,” where the district court had not erred in holding the hearing); cf. Acosta v. Artuz, 221 F.3d 117, 121 (2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). 16 . In Sparman v. Edwards, 154 F.3d 51, 52 Options: A. holding that a district court has the power to raise the aedpa limitations period sua sponte because the defense implicates values beyond the interests of the parties B. holding that the court can raise res judicata sua sponte even on appeal C. holding that a district court has the discretion to raise a 2254 timeliness consideration sua sponte D. holding that a district court has the authority to raise the aedpa statute of limitations on its own motion E. holding that the district court had no right to apply the statute of limitations sua sponte because it had been waived

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a district court has the power to raise the aedpa limitations period sua sponte because the defense implicates values beyond the interests of the parties
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: There are no actions, suits, claims, demands, investigations, inspections, audits, charges, or proceedings by or before any Governmental Authority pending or, to the actual knowledge of an Authorized Officer of any Parent Guarantor or any other Obligor, threatened (i) with respect to the Transaction or any Document or (ii) that has had, or could reasonably be expected to have, either individually or in the aggregate, a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Litigations
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 their capacity as Trustees of the Family Trust. Nonetheless, Sternberg contends that the Olsons waived any defects in service of process and jurisdiction. Pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(1), the defenses of insufficiency of service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction are waived by failure to raise them in either a motion to dismiss filed under the rule or in the answer. In the present case, however, the Olsons never filed any motions or responsive pleadings but rather, allowed a default judgment to be entered against them. Because they never entered an appearance in the original action in their capacities as Trustees of the Family Trust, they did not waive the defenses of deficient process and lack of jurisdiction. Compare Smith v. Arnold, 4 Mass.App.Ct. 614, 616 (1976) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Judgment and Order of Options: A. holding that defendant did not waive his special appearance by filing a motion for new trial subject to the special appearance B. holding that party waived special appearance C. holding that defendant did not waive special appearance D. holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts E. holding that where the defendant filed a special appearance to challenge the courts jurisdiction over his person he was bound by the courts determination and could not relitigate it

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that where the defendant filed a special appearance to challenge the courts jurisdiction over his person he was bound by the courts determination and could not relitigate 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: (1) seek recovery of benefits under the plan; (2) enforce his rights as provided by the plan; or (3) obtain clarification of any possible future benefits to which he may be entitled under the plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). The law is clear, however, that “Section 514(a) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a), expressly ‘supersedes any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan’ covered by ERISA.” Rozzell v. Security Services, Inc., 38 F.3d 819, 821 (5th Cir.1994) (quoting Ingersoll-Rand Company v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133, 138, 111 S.Ct. 478, 112 L.Ed.2d 474 (1990)) (citations omitted). Courts have held that ERISA completely preempts the specific state law claims McSperitt alleges. See, e.g., Metropolitan Life, 481 U.S. at 62-64, 107 S.Ct. 1542 (<HOLDING>); McNeil v. Time Insurance Company, 205 F.3d Options: A. holding the state law claims were not preempted B. holding that erisa preempted a state law claim because the courts inquiry centered on the employee benefits plan at issue C. holding that claims for misrepresentation under texas insurance code were preempted because the plaintiffs sought to recover benefits under an erisa plan D. holding that erisa completely preempted certain state law claims and finding that erisa preempted an employees common law tort and contract claim when the employee sought benefits under the employers disability policy E. holding that the state law contract claim alleged the same conduct as in the erisa claim and was therefore preempted

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that erisa completely preempted certain state law claims and finding that erisa preempted an employees common law tort and contract claim when the employee sought benefits under the employers disability policy
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 Maker is not in default in any respect under any contract, lease, loan agreement, indenture, mortgage, security agreement or other agreement or obligation to which it is a party or by which any of its properties is bound which default would have or would be reasonably expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: No Defaults
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: is warranted under the particular circumstances. See id. Mr. Carter argued in the district court that his sentence should be reduced based on Amendment 709, which modified the manner in which a defendant’s criminal history score is determined. See USSG App’x C Supp., Amend. 709 (Nov. 1, 2007). Amendment 709 became effective on November 1, 2007, see id., but it is not listed as one of the covered amendments in USSG Manual § 1B1.10(c). Therefore, in considering Mr. Carter’s motion, the district court correctly concluded at the first step in the analysis that a reduction in Mr. Carter’s term of imprisonment was not consistent with the policy statement in § 1B1.10 and was therefore not authorized under § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Torres-Aquino, 334 F.3d 939, 940-41 (10th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Avila, 997 F.2d 767, 768 Options: A. holding a reduction in defendants sentence as a career offender was not authorized under 3582c2 because amendment 706 did not lower his applicable guideline range under the careeroffender guidelines B. holding that a defendant is not eligible for a sentence reduction under section 3582c2 when the application of that amendment does not result in a lower sentencing range C. holding that 3582c2 does not authorize a resentencing but merely provides for a sentence reduction within the bounds established by the sentencing commission and that booker does not apply to 3582c2 proceedings D. holding reduction of sentence under 3582c2 based on amendment not listed in 1b110c is not authorized E. holding that the limitations on the degree of a sentence reduction under 3582c2 are mandatory

assistant: The best answer is D. holding reduction of sentence under 3582c2 based on amendment not listed in 1b110c is not authorized
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 computations of interest for Base Rate Loans (including Base Rate Loans determined by reference to the Eurodollar Rate) shall be made on the basis of a year of 365 or 366 days, as the case may be, and actual days elapsed. All other computations of fees and interest shall be made on the basis of a 360-day year and actual days elapsed (which results in more fees or interest, as applicable, being paid than if computed on the basis of a 365-day year). Interest shall accrue on each Loan for the day on which the Loan is made, and shall not accrue on a Loan, or any portion thereof, for the day on which the Loan or such portion is paid; provided that any Loan that is repaid on the same day on which it is made shall, subject to Section 2.10(a), bear interest for one day. Each determination by the Administrative Agent of an interest rate or fee hereunder shall be conclusive and binding for all purposes, absent manifest error.

assistant: Fees
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: if you purchased `` game time '' under a program that provided you the right to utilize the service for a set period of time at a discounted rate ( `` discounted fees '' ) , and you request that blizzard entertainment terminate your account , blizzard entertainment shall provide a pro rata refund calculated by deducting from the discounted fees an amount equal to the monthly fee that is in effect at as of the date you request termination of your account divided by 30 , and then multiply that amount times with the number of days that you have utilized the service in the billing period that you purchased for the discounted fees .

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 shall be entitled to prompt reimbursement by the Company for all reasonable ordinary and necessary travel, entertainment, and other expenses incurred by the Executive while employed (in accordance with the policies and procedures established by the Company for its senior executive officers) in the performance of her duties and responsibilities under this Agreement; provided, that the Executive shall properly account for such expenses in accordance with Company policies and procedures.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Lender, upon execution and delivery hereof or upon succeeding to an interest in the Term Loan Commitments and Term Loans, as the case may be, represents and warrants as of the Closing Date or as of the Assignment Effective Date that (i) (A) it is an Eligible Assignee and (B) it is not a Disqualified Lender, it being acknowledged by the Credit Parties, the Lenders and the other Secured Parties that the Administrative Agent will be entitled to rely on such representations and warranties set forth in this clause (i) without any diligence in respect to the accuracy of such representations and warranties and any breach of such representations and warranties by such Lender will not give rise to any liability on the part of the Administrative Agent; and (ii) it has experience and expertise in the making of or investing in commitments or loans such as the applicable Term Loan Commitments or Term Loans, as the case may be.

assistant: Representations
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: as a host , you are responsible for your own acts and omissions and are also responsible for the acts and omissions of any individuals who reside at or are otherwise present at the accommodation at your request or invitation , excluding the guest ( and the individuals the guest invites to the accommodation , if applicable ) .

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: (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2014); Clark v. New York State Office of State Comptroller, 09-CV-716 (GLS/CFH), 2014 WL 823289 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2014); Davis v. Vermont, Dep’t of Corr., 868 F.Supp.2d 313, 322 (D.Vt.2012); Perciballi v. New York, 09-CV-6933 (WHP), 2010 WL 3958731 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2010); Padilla v. New York State Dep’t of Labor, 09-CV-5291 (CM)(RLE), 2010 WL 3835182 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2010) (“[E]very district court in this Circuit to consider the issue has concluded that sovereign immunity bars Title V claims.”); Emmons v. City Univ. of New York, 715 F.Supp.2d 394, 408 (E.D.N.Y.2010); Mosh-enko v. State Univ. of New York at Buffalo, 07-CV-0116 (RJA)(JJM), 2009 WL 5873236 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2009); Chiesa v. New York State Dep’t of Labor, 638 F.Supp.2d 316, 323 (N.D.N.Y.2009) (<HOLDING>); see also Demshki v. Monteith, 255 F.3d 986, Options: A. holding state immune from suit involving a federal question B. holding state immune from suit brought in state court C. holding that the state is immune from punitive awards D. holding that if a state is immune from underlying discrimination then it follows that the state must be immune from claims alleging retaliation for protesting against discrimination E. holding that prosecutors are absolutely immune from claims alleging conspiracy to present false testimony but witnesses including police officerwitnesses are not absolutely immune from such claims

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that if a state is immune from underlying discrimination then it follows that the state must be immune from claims alleging retaliation for protesting against discrimination
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any Lender may at any time, without the consent of, or notice to, the Borrower or the Administrative Agent, sell participations to any Person (other than a natural person or the Borrower or any of the Borrower’s Affiliates or Subsidiaries) (each, a “ Participant ”) in all or a portion of such Lender’s rights and/or obligations under this Credit Agreement (including all or a portion of its Commitment and/or the Loans (including such Lender’s participations in L/C Obligations) owing to it); provided that (i) such Lender’s obligations under this Credit Agreement shall remain unchanged, (ii) such Lender shall remain solely responsible to the other parties hereto for the performance of such obligations and (iii) the Borrower, the Administrative Agent, the Lenders and the L/C Issuers shall continue to deal solely and directly with such Lender in connection with such Lender’s rights and obligations under this Credit Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: evidence and that all investigative files were made available to the prosecutor. The County defendants point out that the Walkers failed to submit affidavits or proffer any other evidence to support their claim that the County defendants withheld a separate file of exculpatory evidence. The County defendants thus assert that they are entitled to summary judgment because the Walkers have not made a sufficient proffer. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(e) (“When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported [by affidavits], an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party’s pleading, [but must respond with] affidavits [that] set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”); Williams v. Griffin, 952 F.2d 820, 823 (4th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). The Walkers respond that their verified Options: A. holding that a claim not pleaded in the petition ie the complaint was not properly before the court on a motion for summary judgment B. holding that a nonmovant cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment merely on the basis of conjecture or surmise C. recognizing the general rule that when one party files a motion for summary judgment the nonmovant cannot merely rely on matters pleaded in the complaint but must by factual affidavit or the like respond to the motion D. holding that where a court considering a rule 12b6 motion relies on matters outside the pleading the motion must be treated as a rule 56 motion for summary judgment E. holding that the judge cannot consider factual statements of counsel in a motion for summary judgment

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing the general rule that when one party files a motion for summary judgment the nonmovant cannot merely rely on matters pleaded in the complaint but must by factual affidavit or the like respond to the motion
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: There is no action, suit, litigation, investigation or proceeding pending or, to the knowledge of the Borrower, threatened against the Borrower, that (i) except as set forth in filings made by the Borrower with the SEC in the Borrower’s reasonable opinion might reasonably be expected to materially adversely affect the business, operations or financial condition of the Borrower and its Subsidiaries (taken as a whole) (collectively, “ Material Litigation ”) or (ii) purports to affect the legality, validity or enforceability of the Loan Documents or the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby.

assistant: Litigations
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: Purchaser and Edelman, jointly and severally, represent and warrant to Seller that Purchaser is duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the State of New York. Purchaser has taken all necessary steps to authorize the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: are due and owing for services rendered. However, the dispute lies over who should be made to pay the fees, appellant or IHR, Inc. In his order granting summary judgment, the trial court based the dismissal on its finding that IHR, Inc. served as a mere paying agent for appellant. However, contrary to such findings, the pleadings, admissions, and affidavits filed in the instant case suggest a material dispute exists over appellant’s personal involvement in the contract. In the instant case, both appellant’s and appellee’s submissions regarding the extent of IHR’s involvement in the employment contract are conclusory. Conclusory statements alone are insufficient to support the grant of motion for summary judgment. See Verchick v. Hecht Invs., Ltd., 924 So.2d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (<HOLDING>). In addition, the trial court further erred Options: A. holding that party may not rely on conclusory statements or an argument that the affidavits in support of the motion for summary judgment are not credible B. holding that affidavits that are conclusory and based on hearsay can not be used to oppose motion for summary judgment C. holding that district court properly refused to rely on affidavits to the extent that they contained only legal conclusions D. holding that a trial court could not rely on two individuals conclusory affidavits proclaiming to be employees of a business E. holding affidavits based on conclusory allegations insufficient at summary judgment

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a trial court could not rely on two individuals conclusory affidavits proclaiming to be employees of a business
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: reviews de novo the application of the law to those facts.” Mungin v. State, 982 So.2d 986, 998 (Fla.2006). A. Stipulating to Evidence for the Motion to Suppress Parker’s May 7, 1982, Statement In this claim, Parker contends that trial counsel was ineffective for stipulating to the evidence used to decide whether his May 7, 1982, statement was admissible. Parker’s May 7 statement was admitted during the resentencing proceeding through the testimony of Detective Powers. Because Parker had invoked his right to counsel prior to making the May 7 statement, the admissibility of that statement under United States Supreme Court precedent turns on whether Parker initiated the May 7 contact with law enforcement. See Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-85, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981) (<HOLDING>). The stipulated evidence included hearsay Options: A. holding that under the fifth amendment once an accused person in custody has expressed his or her desire to deal with the police only through counsel that person is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available unless the accused himself initiates further communication exchanges or conversations with the police B. holding that when an accused has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he responded to further policeinitiated custodial interrogation even if he has been advised of his rights an accused having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him unless the accused himself initiates further communication exchanges or conversations with the police C. holding that edwards precludes further interrogation unless he the accused himself initiates further communications D. holding that subsequent to an invocation of counsel the edwards per se rule does not apply if an accused himself initiates further communication exchanges or conversations with the police E. holding that an accused who has invoked the right to counsel is not subject to further interrogation unless the accused himself initiates further communication exchanges or conversations with the police

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that under the fifth amendment once an accused person in custody has expressed his or her desire to deal with the police only through counsel that person is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available unless the accused himself initiates further communication exchanges or conversations with the police
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 agrees not to make any public disparaging, negative, or defamatory comments about the Company including the Company’s business, its directors, officers, employees, parents, subsidiaries, partners, affiliates, operating divisions, representatives or agents, or any of them, whether written, oral, or electronic. In particular, the Executive agrees to make no public statements including, but not limited to, press releases, statements to journalists, employees, prospective employers, interviews, editorials, commentaries, or speeches, that disparage or may disparage the Company’s business, are critical of the Company or its business, or would cast the Company or its business in a negative light. In addition to the confidentiality requirements set forth in this Agreement and those imposed by law, the Executive further agrees not to provide any third party, directly or indirectly, with any documents, papers, recordings, e-mail, internet postings, or other written or recorded communications referring or relating the Company’s business, that would support, directly or indirectly, any disparaging, negative or defamatory statement, whether written or oral. This Section 8(d) shall not be violated by (i) responding publicly to incorrect, disparaging, or derogatory public statements to the extent reasonably necessary to correct or refute such public statements or (ii) making any truthful statement to the extent (y) reasonably necessary in connection with any litigation, arbitration, or mediation or (z) required by law or by any court, arbitrator, mediator or administrative or legislative body (including any committee thereof) with apparent jurisdiction to order the person to disclose or make accessible such information. The Company agrees not to make any public statement which is disparaging or defamatory about the Executive, whether written, oral, or electronic. The Company’s obligations under the preceding sentence shall be limited to communications by its senior corporate executives having the rank of Senior Vice President or above and any member of the Board (“ Specified Executives ”), and it is agreed and understood that any such communication by any Specified Executive (or by any executive at the behest of a Specified Executive) shall be deemed to be a breach of this Section 8(d) by the Company.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Party agrees with the other that, unless and until the transactions contemplated by this Agreement have been consummated, it and its representatives will hold in strict confidence all data and information obtained with respect to another Party or any subsidiary thereof from any representative, officer, director or employee, or from any books or records or from personal inspection, of such other Party, and shall not use such data or information or disclose the same to others, except (i) to the extent such data or information is published, is a matter of public knowledge, or is required by Law to be published; or (ii) to the extent that such data or information must be used or disclosed in order to consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. In the event of the termination of this Agreement, each Party shall return to the other Party all documents and other materials obtained by it or on its behalf and shall destroy all copies, digests, work papers, abstracts or other materials relating thereto, and each Party will continue to comply with the confidentiality provisions set forth herein.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: to the extent permitted by law , these terms and conditions and the provision of our services shall be governed by and construed in accordance with dutch law and any dispute arising out of these general terms and conditions and our services shall exclusively be submitted to the competent courts in amsterdam , the netherlands .

assistant: Choice of law, 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 may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same Agreement. Licensor and Licensee agree that the delivery of an executed copy of this Agreement by facsimile or by attachment to an e-mail shall be legal and binding on the transmitting party and shall have the same full force and effect as if an original executed copy of this Agreement had been delivered.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If consent is required for some action under this Agreement, or except as otherwise provided herein an approval of the Lenders or the Required Lenders is required or permitted under this Agreement, each applicable Lender agrees to give the Agent, within ten (10) Business Days of receipt of the request for action together with all reasonably requested information related thereto (or such lesser period of time required by the terms of the Loan Documents), notice in writing of approval or disapproval (collectively “ Directions ”) in respect of any action requested or proposed in writing pursuant to the terms hereof. To the extent that any Lender does not approve any recommendation of Agent, such Lender shall in such notice to Agent describe the actions that would be acceptable to such Lender. If consent is required for the requested action, any Lender’s failure to respond to a request for Directions within the required time period shall be deemed to constitute a Direction to take such requested action. In the event that any recommendation is not approved by the requisite number of Lenders and a subsequent approval on the same subject matter is requested by Agent, then for the purposes of this paragraph each Lender shall be required to respond to a request for Directions within five (5) Business Days of receipt of such request. Agent and each Lender shall be entitled to assume that any officer of the other Lenders delivering any notice, consent, certificate or other writing is authorized to give such notice, consent, certificate or other writing unless Agent and such other Lenders have otherwise been notified in writing.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 973 F.2d 704, 705 (9th Cir.1992) (takings claim against the city based directly on the Constitution was barred because 42 U.S.C. § 1983 could be utilized instead), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1081, 113 S.Ct. 1049, 122 L.Ed.2d 357 (1993). {34} The South Dakota Supreme Court and the Oregon Court of Appeals also examined the same question that we address here. See Benson v. State, 710 N.W.2d 131 (S.D.2006); Boise Cascade, 164 Or.App. 114, 991 P.2d 563; SDDS, Inc. v. State, 650 N.W.2d 1, 9 (S.D.2002). Both held that sovereign immunity does not bar just compensation claims brought against the state in state court, even after the Alden decision. See also First Union Nat. Bank v. Hi Ho Mall Shopping Ventures, Inc., 273 Conn. 287, 869 A.2d 1193, 1197-98 (2005) (<HOLDING>). {35} In Boise Cascade, 991 P.2d at 565, a Options: A. holding that state sovereign immunity did not bar a claim based on bankruptcy proceedings under article i section 8 clause 4 because states agreed in the plan of the convention to be subject to such suits B. holding a foreclosure claim on a municipal tax lien asserted against the state was barred by sovereign immunity but sovereign immunity would not bar the bank from seeking just compensation for the states taking of its property as a result of the allegedly unpaid taxes under the takings clause as applied to the states under the fourteenth amendment C. holding that sovereign immunity bars an attorneys lien against the united states D. holding that sovereign immunity barred claim for compensatory sanctions against the government E. holding that sovereign immunity barred a wrongful death claim against the board and stating that the only question is whether the boards sovereign immunity protection was waived emphasis added

assistant: The best answer is B. holding a foreclosure claim on a municipal tax lien asserted against the state was barred by sovereign immunity but sovereign immunity would not bar the bank from seeking just compensation for the states taking of its property as a result of the allegedly unpaid taxes under the takings clause as applied to the states under the fourteenth amendment
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: evidence should be excluded on the basis of unfair prejudice or any other ground of inadmissibility set out in Tennessee Rule of Evidence 403. The Defendant instead claims that the lay testimony was improper under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 701(a), which provides that non-expert witnesses may testify as to opinions only when they are “rationally based on the perception of the witness” and are either “helpful to a clear understanding of the -witness’s testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.” Rule 701(a) authorizes the admission of this testimony. Mr. Payne and Mr. Car-ringer merely testified to the presence of asbestos without offering a scient 354 N.C. 572, 558 S.E.2d 867 (2001); Olinger v. Pretty Prods., Inc., No. 96-CA-29, 1997 WL 33814208, at *4 (Ohio Ct.App. Nov. 7,1997) (<HOLDING>); Per-man v. C.H. Murphy/Clarlc-Ullman, Inc., Options: A. holding improperly admitted testimony was cumulative to the other properly admitted evidence and was therefore harmless B. holding that lay testimony as to the presence of asbestos in the workplace was admissible because it was rationally based upon the perception of the witness C. holding that lay opinion testimony on the technical subject of asbestos in the workplace was inadmissible when the witness failed to demonstrate sufficient personal experience or technical knowledge to qualify him to offer an opinion D. holding that lay testimony as to the presence of asbestos in the workplace which was based upon personal knowledge of employees was properly admitted E. holding that it was error to allow a police officer who was admitted as a lay witness after a prosecution motion to admit him as an expert was denied for lack of timeliness to give testimony as to a matter about which he had no personal knowledge

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that lay testimony as to the presence of asbestos in the workplace which was based upon personal knowledge of employees was properly admitted
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: federal courts that have encountered the FEGLIA preemption issue. Ms. Maretta cites a number of federal decisions that she claims stand for the proposition that FEGLIA preempts state laws providing for constructive trusts and other equitable remedies. In each of these federal cases, however, the plaintiffs asserted their entitlement to the decedent’s FEGLI proceeds through a divorce decree or separation agreement that required the insured to maintain his or her FEGLI policy for their benefit. These courts, employing the Ridgway rationale, held that the divorce decrees at issue directly conflicted with the FEGLIA provision granting an insured the absolute right to designate any beneficiaiy that he or she chooses. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Zaldivar, 413 F.3d 119, 120 (1st Cir. 2005) (<HOLDING>); Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Christ, 979 Options: A. recognizing that a divorce decree which obligated the divorcing husband to name the children of his first marriage as the irrevocable beneficiaries of an insurance policy precluded him from naming his new wife as a beneficiary entitled to a portion of the insurance benefits B. holding that the asserted right of the insureds child based on his agreement with his mother during their divorce to name the child as his fegli beneficiary was preempted by feglia C. holding that feglia preempted a state divorce decree which ordered the insured to maintain his fegli policy for the benefit of his children from his first marriage D. holding debtor could not discharge that portion of his monthly army retirement benefits awarded to his wife pursuant to a divorce decree E. recognizing that basis for deportation was aliens misrepresentation about his marriage not the validity of his marriage

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that feglia preempted a state divorce decree which ordered the insured to maintain his fegli policy for the benefit of his children from his first marriage
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: when you share your content with other people , you understand that they may be able to , on a worldwide basis , use , save , record , reproduce , transmit , display ( and on healthvault delete ) your content without compensating you .

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: pursuant to Section 566.226. 2 . All statutory references are to RSMo 2000 cumulative as currently supplemented unless otherwise indicated. 3 .We view the facts in the light most favorable to the verdict. State v. Peal, 393 S.W.3d 621, 623 n. 1 (Mo.App.W.D.2013). 4 . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). 5 .Olivas was in Cass County's Juvenile Justice Detention Facility from January 7, 2010, until at least February 19, 2010, the date the juvenile court relinquished its jurisdiction over Olivas. 6 . K.R’s body showed no signs of sexual abuse and no semen was found on it. 7 . All statutory references are to RSMo 2000 cumulative as supplemented unless otherwise indicated. 8 . See Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) Options: A. holding that a person who was a juvenile at the time of the offense cannot be sentenced to death B. holding that a term of imprisonment begins at the time a prisoner is sentenced C. holding that the death penalty is unconstitutional as applied to juvenile defendants D. holding that a juvenile seventeen years old or younger cannot be sentenced to life without parole in a nonhomicide case E. holding there was no reasonable suspicion where an officer relied solely on the dispatch that there was a suspicious person at the exxon gas station that the juvenile matched the hispanic male description of the suspicious person that the juvenile was wearing baggy clothes and that the juvenile chose to walk away from the patrol car

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a person who was a juvenile at the time of the offense cannot be sentenced to death
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any notice, payment, demand or communication required or permitted to be given by the provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to have been effectively given and received on the date personally delivered to the respective party to whom it is directed, or five (5) days after the date when deposited by registered or certified mail, with postage and charges prepaid and addressed to such party at its address below its signature. Any party may change its address by delivering a written change of address to all of the other parties in the manner set forth in this Section 8.14.

assistant: Notices