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: on the child’s dependence upon her.” Id. at 75-76 (citing Pamela L. v. Farmer, 112 Cal.App.3d 206, 169 Cal.Rptr. 282 (1980)). ¶ 17. As with Mississippi’s premises liability and teacher liability doctrines, California’s spousal liability is based on the foreseeability of the husband or wife’s behavior. “[WJhere a child is sexually assaulted in the defendant wife’s home by her husband, the wife’s duty of reasonable care to the injured child depends on whether the husband’s behavior was ented evidence that she had reported to her teacher that she had been slapped, scratched, and kicked by her classmates in the past, creating a jury issue of whether her teacher should have foreseen her being injured by her classmates. Summers, 759 So.2d at 1214 (¶ 48); see also Doe, 930 S.W.2d at 927 (<HOLDING>). ¶21. In contrast, Perlman had known Adkins Options: A. holding that the plaintiffs evidence of pretext which included but was not limited to her supervisors statement that she had enough of the plaintiff going to her supervisor about her was not sufficient to preclude summary judgment B. holding that the elevenyearold victims twentyonemonth delay in reporting her grandfathers inappropriate sexual conduct was adequately explained where the child testified that she did not tell anyone about the incident because her grandfather told her not to tell she did not think anybody was going to believe her and she felt scared and threatened by the defendant C. holding that a grandmother could be held liable for failure to protect her granddaughter from a known risk of sexual abuse by the grandfather D. holding evidence granddaughter told her grandmother she was being molested by her grandfather was sufficient to raise factual issue about grandmothers knowledge of husbands sexual activities E. holding that a grandmother who frequently babysat her granddaughter was not in loco parentis and thus lacked standing to seek custody of her granddaughter

assistant: The best answer is D. holding evidence granddaughter told her grandmother she was being molested by her grandfather was sufficient to raise factual issue about grandmothers knowledge of husbands sexual activities
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: the licensor shall notify the licensee of any revisions with reasonable notice , at the licensor 's sole discretion , through the service , by e-email , via an online service or otherwise , or using any combination of the foregoing .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of the Loan Parties and each other Subsidiary owns or has the right to use, under valid license agreements or otherwise, all material patents, licenses, franchises, trademarks, trademark rights, service marks, service mark rights, trade names, trade name rights, trade secrets and copyrights (collectively, “ Intellectual Property ”) necessary to the conduct of its businesses, without known conflict with any patent, license, franchise, trademark, trademark right, service mark, service mark right, trade secret, trade name, copyright, or other proprietary right of any other Person. All such Intellectual Property is fully protected and/or duly and properly registered, filed or issued in the appropriate office and jurisdictions for such registrations, filing or issuances. No material claim has been asserted by any Person with respect to the use of any such Intellectual Property by the Borrower, any other Loan Party or any other Subsidiary, or challenging or questioning the validity or effectiveness of any such Intellectual Property. The use of such Intellectual Property by the Borrower, the other Loan Parties and the other Subsidiaries does not infringe on the rights of any Person, subject to such claims and infringements as do not, in the aggregate, give rise to any liabilities on the part of the Borrower, any other Loan Party or any other Subsidiary that could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any notice required to be delivered to the Company under this Award Agreement shall be in writing and addressed to the General Counsel of the Company at the Company’s principal corporate offices. Any notice required to be delivered to the Participant under this Award Agreement shall be in writing and addressed to the Participant at the Participant’s address as shown in the records of the Company at the time such notice is to be delivered. Either party may designate another address in writing (or by such other method approved by the Company) from time to time.

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: 3.3, so it is not deficient for them to refrain from doing so. Mickey also argues that counsel should have deployed the penalty phase experts in surrebuttal of the prosecution’s expert. But such testimony might not even have been allowed by the trial judge. People v. Lamb, 136 Cal.App.4th 575, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 609, 614 (2006). And it is not deficient to refuse to join a battle royale of experts. Hendricks, 70 F.3d at 1037 (citing Harris v. Vasquez, 949 F.2d 1497, 1525 (9th Cir.1990)) (“[E]ven where there is a strong basis for a mental defense ... an attorney may forego that defense where the attorney’s experts would be subject to cross-examination based on equally persuasive psychiatric opinions that reach a different conclusion.”); see Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). It was reasonable for counsel to conclude Options: A. holding that court may refuse leave to amend because of undue delay B. holding that defense counsels decision not to call defendant to the stand despite defendants repeatedly expressed desire to testify on his own behalf was not ineffective assistance of counsel but was a reasonable tactical decision by counsel not to subject defendant to all of the risk attendant on crossexamination C. holding that defense counsel may call attention to the states failure to produce evidence D. holding that limitation on scope and breadth of crossexamination did not significantly curtail effectiveness of witness crossexamination because crossexamination was lengthy and extensive E. holding that counsel may refuse to call experts because of their weakness on crossexamination

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that counsel may refuse to call experts because of their weakness on crossexamination
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: garnishment Answer against the garnishee defendant that (a) awards those attorney fees and/or costs against the judgment debtor in favor of the judgment plaintiffs, or (b) awarding funds held by writ to the judgment plaintiffs (iv) in connection with attempts to collect debts incurred for personal, family, or household purposes (v) for the period prior to July 13, 1999, the date this action was filed, corresponding to the statute of limitations of the violated statute (one year for the FDCPA; four years for the WCPA and WCAA). A. Inclusion of the Affidavit Class in the Complaint Defendants assert that the Affidavit Class cannot be certified because it is beyond the scope and allegations of Plaintiffs’ complaint. Plaintiffs essentially reply that the Affidavit Class is included 1976) (<HOLDING>). The prerequisites of a class action are 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 the claims of the class representative and class members must be based on the same legal or remedial theory C. holding that it is elementary that in order to maintain a class action the class sought to be represented must be adequately defined and clearly ascertainable D. holding that to maintain a class action the existence of the class must be pleaded and the limits of the class must be defined with some specificity E. recognizing a narrow class of cases in which the termination of the class representatives claim for relief does not moot the claims of the class members

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that to maintain a class action the existence of the class must be pleaded and the limits of the class must be defined with some specificity
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the extent that it is determined reasonable during contract negotiations.”).) Alternatively, it argues that the contract cabins profit to no more than 10% of the reimbursable costs. (See id. (noting that "the combination of profit and administrative cost must not exceed 10%”).) KRA on the other hand argues that the contract is silent as to profit under hybrid contracts and that therefore such profit is permitted without limits. 6 . In its brief, KRA also seems to broadly challenge all of PWDC’s FY 2009 disallow-ances. But the administrative and indirect cost disallowances are the only ones that KRA points to with any specificity. We therefore find that KRA has failed to preserve its arguments regarding PWDC's other disallow-anees. See Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 182 (3d Cir. 1993) Options: A. recognizing that conclusory statements do not preserve an issue for appeal B. recognizing that it is well settled that casual mention of an issue in a brief is cursory treatment insufficient to preserve the issue on appeal citing simmons v city of philadelphia 947 f2d 1042 1066 3d cir 1991 C. holding a onesentence conclusory objection to an issue in the magistrates recommendation insufficient to preserve that issue for appeal D. holding that failure to raise issue in brief constitutes waiver of appeal of the issue E. holding that a partys failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waived the issue even though the party raised the issue in his reply brief

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that it is well settled that casual mention of an issue in a brief is cursory treatment insufficient to preserve the issue on appeal citing simmons v city of philadelphia 947 f2d 1042 1066 3d cir 1991
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: entirely within a single lane” (emphasis added). While I find that Crivello is credible that the rig op were justified, defendants argue that Crivello did not have a reasonable suspicion authorized borrower of the ear, had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the RV itself, but only that he lacked such an expectation in the closet. I disagree because he was the driver of the car at the time of the stop, had possession of the keys to the car, had been living in the RV for the two days prior to the search, and planned to use the RV as a home for the duration of the cross-country trip. Courts have recognized standing by homeowners to challenge searches of containers found on their premises but owned by third parties. See United States v. Garcia-Rosa, 876 F.2d 209, 218 (1st Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Issacs, 708 F.2d 1365, Options: A. holding that a defendant who had constructively possessed a shotgun that was owned by his brother and used solely for lawful sporting purposes was entitled to a reduction under ussg 2k21b2 B. holding that defendant had standing to challenge the seizure of a box regardless of who owned it because it was in a house owned and possessed by defendant C. holding that owner of a chattel seized during an illegal search of a car owned by a third party has standing to object to the seizure but no standing to object to the search D. holding that religious corporation which owned property had standing to challenge zoning ordinance E. holding defendant who was employee of and had key to his fathers business premises searched lacked standing to challenge search of building his father owned

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that defendant had standing to challenge the seizure of a box regardless of who owned it because it was in a house owned and possessed by defendant
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: does not violate the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.” 435 U.S. at 340-41. The Court rejected the defendant’s argument that giving the instruction was “like waving a red flag in front of the jury,” finding this assertion premised on an “indulgence in two very doubtful assumptions” that (1) jurors would not notice the defendant did not testify absent the instruction, and (2) jurors would disregard the instruction not to give weight to the defendant’s failure to testify. Id. at 340. 7 The right to testify was extended to criminal defendants in Vermont by Public Act No. 40, § 1, 1866 (predecessor to 13 V.S.A. § 6601). 8 Baker's ruling is no longer controlling in light of Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 613 (1965) (<HOLDING>), and the 1955 statutory amendment. 1955, No. Options: A. holding that admitting evidence of a defendants prior statement to an investigator proffered by the commonwealth did not violate the defendants fifth amendment rights by forcing him to testify to dispute it B. holding that a defendants fifth amendment rights were violated when an interpreter was withdrawn by the court C. holding that state prosecutor violated fifth amendment by telling jury that a defendants failure to testify supports an unfavorable inference against him D. recognizing that the fifth amendment forbids comment by the prosecution on a defendants failure to testify E. holding that prosecutors direct comments on a defendants failure to testify were not cured by subsequent inclusion in the jury charge of an instruction regarding the defendants right not to testify

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that state prosecutor violated fifth amendment by telling jury that a defendants failure to testify supports an unfavorable inference against him
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: interest as expressed in the NGA. As recently stated, “Congress passed the Natural Gas Act and gave gas companies condemnation power to ensure that consumers would have access to an adequate supply of natural gas at reasonable prices.” Sage, 361 F.3d at 830. By virtue of the FERC Certificate, FERC found that the construction and operation of an expanded Line MB pipeline promoted these congressional goals. Furthermore, improvements to aging infrastructure, pipeline safety, and service reliability serve the public interest... .Denying immediate access to and possession of the easements would result in a delay in construction, thus delaying the benefit of a pipeline that improves reliability and safety. In turn, this would pose a risk of harm to the public. See Sage, 361 F.3d at 826 (<HOLDING>). Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. 252.071 Options: A. holding that although the ngpa authorizes certain price ceilings for natural gas it is the gas sales contract not federal law that creates the right to receive any price at all B. recognizing the public interest exception C. holding that injury caused by criminal fleeing after stealing gas from gas station was not foreseeable result of stations policy of not requiring customers to prepay for gas D. recognizing the need for natural gas supply as a substantial public interest E. holding that an agencys policy shift reallocating the burden of proof from natural gas importers to parties opposing importation was based on a reasonable interpretation of the natural gas act

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing the need for natural gas supply as a substantial public interest
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: 267 F.3d 524, 531 (6th Cir.2001) (quoting Herbert v. Billy, 160 F.3d 1131, 1135 (6th Cir.1998)). 18 . Welch v. City of Pratt, Kansas, 214 F.3d 1219, 1222 (10th Cir.2000) (internal citations and quotations omitted). 19 . Bocian v. Godinez, 101 F.3d 465, 471 (7th Cir.1996). 20 . Bell v. Jarvis, 236 F.3d 149, 162 (4th Cir.2000) (en banc). 21 . Id. at 162. 22 . Williams v. Bowersox, 340 F.3d 667 (8th Cir.2003). 23 . Id. at 672. 24 . Ouber v. Guarino, 293 F.3d 19, 26 (1st Cir.2002). 25 . Matteo v. Superintendent, 171 F.3d 877, 889-90 (3rd Cir.1999). 26 . U.S. Const. amend. VI. 27 . See generally 20 Am. Jur. 2D Courts § 225 (1965) (noting that state courts free to ignore a federal ruling on a state law); see also Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 80, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938) (<HOLDING>); Collier v. Bayer, 408 F.3d 1279, 1283 n. 4 Options: A. holding that federal courts are bound by state interpretations of state law B. holding that state courts in construing and interpreting state law are not bound by the decisions of federal courts C. recognizing that federal courts are bound by pronouncements of the california supreme court on applicable state law D. holding that the scope and application of state exemptions are defined by the state courts and that we are bound by their interpretations E. holding federal courts are bound by state court determinations of state law

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that federal courts are bound by state interpretations of state 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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: in no event will the total liability of niantic , tpc , or tpci arising out of or in connection with these terms or from the use of or inability to use the services or content exceed one thousand dollars ( $ 1,000 ) .

assistant: Limitation of 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: The decedent, who had his prescriptions filled by the defendant pharmacy, had a stroke because of an adverse drug interaction. Id. at 200-201. The plaintiff sued, alleging, among other things, that the defendant’s representation that its computer system prevented adverse drug interactions violated the MCPA. Id. at 206-207. The defendant argued that MCL 445.904(1)(a) exempted it from a claim under the MCPA, because pharmacies are regulated by the Michigan Board of Pharmacy. This Court held that the defendant was not exempt from the MCPA, because regulation of advertising was not within the purview of the Ph preemption, our Supreme Court has recognized that common-law claims may also be “preempted” by a state statute. See Jackson v PKM Corp, 430 Mich 262, 279; 422 NW2d 657 (1988) (<HOLDING>); Millross v Plum Hollow Golf Club, 429 Mich Options: A. holding that plaintiffs negligence claim which arose out of the selling giving or furnishing of alcoholic liquor by a liquor licensee is preempted by the exclusive remedy of the dramshop act B. holding that expunction unavailable for individual charge arising out of arrest for improper relationship between an educator and student when petitioner convicted of possessing illegal firearms arising out of the same transaction C. holding that an arising out of exclusion applies to claims flowing from or growing out of the excluded activity D. holding a limitation on damages arising out of bodily injury to one person involved in an accident applies to all claims arising from the death of that person E. holding that the dramshop act mcl 43622 affords the exclusive remedy for injuries arising out of an unlawful sale giving away or furnishing of intoxicants thereby preempting all commonlaw actions arising out of these circumstances

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the dramshop act mcl 43622 affords the exclusive remedy for injuries arising out of an unlawful sale giving away or furnishing of intoxicants thereby preempting all commonlaw actions arising out of these circumstances
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 no record of the underlying facts.”). 14 . Bridges correctly points out that in United States v. Donaghe, 50 F.3d 608 (9th Cir.1995), the Ninth Circuit declined to examine "the specific circumstances of this case” in concluding that the defendant’s instant crime of passport fraud was not similar to his prior convictions for child molestation. Id. at 612. But the government did not contend that the underlying facts of those crimes were similar; it contended only that their motives were similar because the passport fraud was committed to escape an investigation into a new charge of child molestation. To resolve Bridges’ case, we need not decide whether similarity can be based solely on motive. Compare Donaghe, supra, with United States v. Dzielinski, 914 F.2d 98, 101-02 (7th Cir.1990) Options: A. holding that instant offense of bank robbery was similar to prior conviction for fraud because robberys motive was to repay victim of another of defendants fraudulent schemes B. holding judge in bank robbery prosecution did not abuse discretion in refusing to excuse juror whose wife was bank employee or juror whose daughter had been victim of bank robbery C. holding evidence of defendants prior drug use and heroin addiction admissible to establish defendants motive to commit robbery D. holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction E. holding that argument regarding victim of prior offense was improper

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that instant offense of bank robbery was similar to prior conviction for fraud because robberys motive was to repay victim of another of defendants fraudulent schemes
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 exercise price per share of a Stock Appreciation Right shall be an amount determined by the Committee but in no event shall such amount be less than the Fair Market Value of a share of the class of Common Stock covered by the Stock Appreciation Right on the date the Stock Appreciation Right is granted (other than in the case of Stock Appreciation Rights granted in substitution of previously granted awards, as described in Section 3 of the Plan); provided , that in the case of a Stock Appreciation Right granted in conjunction with an Option, or a portion thereof, the exercise price may not be less than the Option Price of the related Option. Each Stock Appreciation Right granted independent of an Option shall entitle a Participant upon exercise to an amount equal to (i) the excess of (A) the Fair Market Value on the exercise date of one share of the applicable class of Common Stock on which the Stock Appreciation Right is granted over (B) the exercise price per share, multiplied by (ii) the number of shares of the applicable class of Common Stock covered by the Stock Appreciation Right. Each Stock Appreciation Right granted in conjunction with an Option, or a portion thereof, shall entitle a Participant to surrender to the Company the unexercised Option, or any portion thereof, and to receive from the Company in exchange therefor an amount equal to (i) the excess of (A) the Fair Market Value on the exercise date of one share of the applicable class of Common Stock over (B) the Option Price per share, multiplied by (ii) the number of shares of the applicable class of Common Stock covered by the Option, or portion thereof, which is surrendered. In addition, each Stock Appreciation Right that is granted in conjunction with an Option or a portion thereof shall automatically terminate upon the exercise of such Option or portion thereof, as applicable. Payment shall be made in shares or in cash, or partly in shares and partly in cash (any such shares valued at such Fair Market Value), all as shall be determined by the Committee. Stock Appreciation Rights may be exercised from time to time upon actual receipt by the Company of written notice of exercise stating the number of shares with respect to which the Stock Appreciation Right is being exercised. The date a notice of exercise is received by the Company shall be the exercise date. No fractional shares of Class C Common Stock or Class V Common Stock, as applicable, will be issued in payment for Stock Appreciation Rights, but instead cash will be paid for a fraction or, if the Committee should so determine, the number of shares will be rounded downward to the next whole share.

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: supported by substantial evidence in the record. Accordingly, the record neither compels, nor supports, a reversal of the IJ and BIA’s decisions. Thus, we deny the petitioners’ petition for review. PETITION DENIED. 1 . Repizo also argues that the lack of corroborative evidence to support his allegations of persecution was due to ineffective assistance of counsel, and indicates that he recendy filed a motion to reopen removal proceedings with the BIA on said grounds. Since the BIA has yet to make a determination with regard to his motion to reopen, we lack jurisdiction to review Repizo's ineffective assistance of counsel claim because he has not yet exhausted his administrative remedies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir.2006) Options: A. holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider claims that have not been raised before the bia B. holding that appellate jurisdiction over final orders of removal are limited to claims that have been exhausted before the bia C. holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review claims that have not been raised before the bia D. holding that court of appeals statutory jurisdiction over final orders of removal extends to reinstatement orders E. recognizing that orders denying motions to reopen are treated as final orders of removal

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that appellate jurisdiction over final orders of removal are limited to claims that have been exhausted before the bia
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: P. 9(g). As a practical matter, the effect of a trial court’s finding that a defendant is mentally retarded is that the State loses the option to pursue the death penalty. Once a defendant is tried and judgment is entered, the State has no appeal as of right under the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tenn. R.App. P. 3(c) (providing for State’s appeal as of right in limited circumstances, not including a trial court’s finding that a defendant is mentally retarded). Furthermore, even if a defendant were to appeal on other grounds and successfully obtain a retrial, the State would arguably be barred by principles of double jeopardy from seeking the death penalty in subsequent sentencing proceedings. See Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203, 212, 104 S.Ct. 2305, 81 L.Ed.2d 164 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, denying the State an Options: A. holding that where penalty phase jury deadlocked on sentence and trial court imposed default life sentence required by state law but conviction was later reversed neither double jeopardy nor due process barred new trial for capital murder with exposure to death penalty B. holding that leaning towards the death penalty is not the same as an automatic vote for the death penalty C. holding that a defendant must have notice that the trial court might sentence him to death D. holding that if a trial court has rejected death as a possible sentence double jeopardy bars the state from seeking the death penalty at resentencing even where rejection of the death sentence was based on a legal error E. holding that defendant may be subject to death penalty on resentencing

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that if a trial court has rejected death as a possible sentence double jeopardy bars the state from seeking the death penalty at resentencing even where rejection of the death sentence was based on a legal error
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: No delay or failure on the part of Lender or on the part of any holder of the Note in the exercise of any right, power or privilege granted under this Loan Agreement, or under any other Loan Document, or available at law or in equity, shall impair any such right, power or privilege or be construed as a waiver of any Event of Default or any acquiescence therein. No single or partial exercise of any such right, power or privilege shall preclude the further exercise of such right, power or privilege. No waiver shall be valid against Lender unless made in writing and signed by Lender, and then only to the extent expressly specified therein.

assistant: No Waivers
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 the dispute has a claimed value of more than $ 10,000,000 , then the arbitration will be heard and determined by a three ( 3 ) member panel , with one member to be selected by each party and the third ( who will chair the panel ) selected by the two ( 2 ) party-appointed members or by the aaa in accordance with the commercial arbitration rules .

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: status of a business invitee. It is not easy to reconcile this concession with Sherwood’s argument that, at the moment of the terminal ion of the claimant’s employment, he ceased being an employee. 7 The decision of the Appellate Court in Fulco was codified by the 1993 enactment of § 31-275 (16) (B) (iii). 8 The facts of this case do not require us to consider the more difficult question of whether an injury is compensable if it is incurred when a discharged employee returns to the job site. There is authority for the proposition that such an injury is compensable if industry custom allows a discharged employee to return to pick up his or her paycheck on a designated day, or to retrieve his or her personal belongings. See Nails v. Market Tire Co., 29 Md. App. 154, 347 A.2d 564 (1975) (<HOLDING>); Parrott v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 145 Options: A. holding that even when employee was driving employers vehicle employee was not acting within the scope of his employment absent evidence that he had undertaken a special mission at his employers direction B. holding that a civilian employee injured when her automobile was hit by a military vehicle while she was driving on a road on the employers premises the military base to report to work sustained a compensable injury under the federal employees compensation act C. holding that injury incurred when employee returned to retrieve paycheck six days after employment had been terminated occurred in course of employment D. holding that notwithstanding fact that employer brought suit in its own name pursuant to ocga 349111 c only for the liquidated amount that had been paid to the employee in workers compensation benefits after employee failed to file his own tort action within one year of injury employee was not precluded from bringing his own separate action to recover for personal injuries and loss of consortium but noting that employee received notice of employers suit only after filing his own action suggesting that court in which employers action was pending had wrongly denied the employees motion to intervene to which motion employer had objected noting that if employee had not moved to intervene in other action employees separate action would have been barred by laches and holding that thirdparty tortfeasor could move for mandatory joinder of the employer in the employees action E. holding compensable injuries sustained when employee returned to employers premises two days after employment had been terminated in order to retrieve personal tools and tool box

assistant: The best answer is E. holding compensable injuries sustained when employee returned to employers premises two days after employment had been terminated in order to retrieve personal tools and tool box
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 Leavitt informed Ridgely of this further contact, but Ridgely responded to the worker’s compensation claims that were enclosed with the letter. Def.’s Mot., Ex. 38. Accordingly, a reasonable jury could infer that Ridgely had knowledge of the letter. Addressing the temporal proximity, the plaintiff sent the November 2006 letter two months before Ridgely proposed the plaintiffs termination. Def.’s Reply at 21. This district has varied as to whether two months is sufficient to establish a causal connection. See Edwards v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 456 F.Supp.2d 72, 92 (D.D.C.2006) (concluding that a two-month gap is not sufficient to establish temporal proximity); Baker v. Potter, 294 F.Supp.2d 33, 41 (D.D.C.2003) (same); but see Sewell v. Chao, 532 F.Supp.2d 126, 139 (D.D.C.2008) (<HOLDING>); Buggs v. Powell, 293 F.Supp.2d 135, 149 Options: A. holding that a two month period might be enough to prove the causation prong B. holding that a three to four month period between the protected activity is not enough to show very close temporal proximity C. holding two days is sufficient to prove causation D. holding that three sexually suggestive comments over a three month period were not frequent enough nor severe enough to be unreasonable interference with the plaintiffs work environment E. holding that a 17 month time period between the employees protected speech and his termination could not support an inference of causation

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a two month period might be enough to prove the causation prong
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: defective. If anything, his testimony suggests the battery in the ICD device was working too well; the ICD activated at times when he believed his heart rate was normal. At one point, Melton testified that the battery powering the ICD “never malfunctioned between the date that it was implanted and the date it was explanted.” Further, to the extent the ICD was “defective” in the sense that it was prone to over-activation, Melton also failed to present evidence that Dr. Feldman or Columbia Heart Clinic knew this at the time Dr. Feldman implanted the ICD. Accordingly, Melton failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Dr. Feldman’s implantation of the ICD, in and of itself, constituted malpractice. 3. Improper Corp., 324 S.C. 359, 365, 478 S.E.2d 81, 84 (Ct.App.1996) (<HOLDING>). Specifically, Melton failed to present Options: A. holding that a physicians negligence need only be a proximate cause not the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury B. holding expert testimony is generally required to establish proximate cause in medical malpractice cases C. holding expert testimony is ordinarily required in legal malpractice cases to establish the standard of care D. holding that expert medical testimony was not necessary to establish negligence where surgeon left a needle in the patients body but stating that proof of proximate cause requires some expert testimony in medical malpractice cases E. holding expert testimony not required to defeat summary judgment in medical malpractice suit because defendant doctors admissions were sufficient to establish the standard of care

assistant: The best answer is B. holding expert testimony is generally required to establish proximate cause in medical malpractice cases
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 to advance any “new argument” to Judge Bryant. That being so, the publication of Viernes did not and could not justify Judge Bryant’s “reconsideration” of Judge Town’s order. Because neither the evidentiary nor legal bases of Oughterson’s de minimis arguments had changed in the interim between Judge Town’s entry of his order denying Oughter-son’s motion to dismiss and Judge Bryant’s subsequent entry of his order granting Oughterson’s motion for reconsideration of Judge Town’s order, we hold that Judge Bryant lacked any cogent reason for granting Oughterson’s motion for reconsideration, and, therefore, abused his discretion in doing so. As a final matter, we are compelled to note that, in his December 10, 1999 findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order, Jud , 271-72 (1992) (<HOLDING>); State v. Park, 55 Haw. 610, 615-18, 525 P.2d Options: A. holding that trial court abused its discretion in denying defendants de minimis motion because defendant established that his conduct in connection with benevolently assisting a runaway did not alter the custodial relationship with which prosecution accused him of interfering B. holding the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendants motion to withdraw his guilty plea because the defendant did not admit to facts demonstrating the required mental state C. holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint D. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion to dismiss on de minimis grounds where his expert witness testimony was inadmissible E. holding that trial court abused its discretion in granting defendants de minimis motion because there was no evidence showing that their conduct was in fact an innocent technical infraction not actually causing or threatening any harm or evil sought to be prevented by the statute that they were accused of violating

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that trial court abused its discretion in denying defendants de minimis motion because defendant established that his conduct in connection with benevolently assisting a runaway did not alter the custodial relationship with which prosecution accused him of interfering
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and all of the provisions hereto shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of, and be enforceable by, the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns, but neither this Agreement nor any of the rights, interests or obligations set forth herein shall be assigned by any party hereto without the prior written consent of the other parties hereto and any purported assignment without such consent shall be void; provided , however , either Party may assign any or all of its rights and obligations under this Agreement to (i) an Affiliate or (ii) in connection with a reorganization or a sale or disposition of any assets or lines of business of such Party, provided that the transferee of such assets shall agree in writing to be bound by the terms of this Agreement as if named as a “Party” hereto.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Borrower has disclosed to Lender all agreements, instruments and corporate or other restrictions to which it or any of its Subsidiaries is subject, and all other matters known to it, that, individually or in the aggregate, would reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect (in the case of agreements, if violated). No report, financial statement, certificate or other information furnished by or on behalf of any Loan Party to Lender in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby or delivered hereunder or under any other Loan Document (in each case, as modified or supplemented by other information so furnished) contains any material misstatement of fact or omits to state any material fact necessary to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; provided that, with respect to projected information, Borrower represents only that such information was prepared in good faith based upon assumptions or estimates believed to be reasonable at the time.

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: it offers an opinion with no factual substantiation .... The expert must explain how he reached his conclusion.” Sparks, 232 S.W.3d at 863. Here, we conclude that Quinn’s opinion regarding LTC’s state of mind amounts to no more than nonproba-tive speculation. Although the unauthenticated documents attached to his affidavit do refer to LTC, the documents do not indicate on their face that LTC ever saw them, much less assented to any terms found in them. Quinn’s testimony about LTC’s understanding and intention based on those documents is mere speculation and guesswork, and it constitutes no evidence that LTC actually agreed to the “nonstacking endorsement” that U.S. Fire seeks to reform the policy to include. See Buis v. Fuselier, 55 S.W.3d 204, 209 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2001, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). In sum, we hold that U.S. Fire failed to Options: A. holding that experts opinion on proximate causation amounted to no more than mere conjecture and speculation as to events surrounding accident B. holding that district court properly admitted property owners opinion testimony that was based on more than naked conjecture C. holding speculation insufficient to avoid summary judgment D. holding that speculation and conjecture cannot support an adverse credibility finding E. holding that experts opinion that doctor performed surgeries in order to avoid financial losses due to insurance deductibles was nothing more than conjecture and speculation

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that experts opinion that doctor performed surgeries in order to avoid financial losses due to insurance deductibles was nothing more than conjecture and speculation
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: Prior to the Closing Date, no party hereto may assign or transfer its rights or obligations arising under this Agreement, without the prior written consent of the other party hereto; provided, however, that the Buyer shall have the right in its sole discretion to assign its rights and obligations under this Agreement and the documents and agreements executed in connection herewith, to any of its Affiliates, provided that a fully executed copy of such instrument of assignment is delivered to the Seller, it being understood and agreed that no such assignment shall relieve the Buyer of any of its duties, liabilities or obligations hereunder or under the documents and agreements executed in connection herewith.

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

user: 7. In the event that a Receiving Party is requested pursuant to, or required by, applicable law, regulation or legal process to disclose any of the Disclosing Party’s Information, the Receiving Party will notify the Disclosing Party promptly before such Information is disclosed so that the Disclosing Party may seek a protective order or other appropriate remedy or, in the sole reasonable discretion of the Disclosing Party, waive compliance with the terms of this Agreement.

assistant: Yes
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: (a) Subject to the provisions of Section 2.09(b), (i) each Eurocurrency Rate Loan shall bear interest on the outstanding principal amount thereof for each Interest Period at a rate per annum equal to the Eurocurrency Rate for such Interest Period plus the Applicable Rate; (ii) each Base Rate Loan shall bear interest on the outstanding principal amount thereof from the applicable Borrowing date at a rate per annum equal to the Base Rate plus the Applicable Rate and (iii) each Swing Line Loan shall bear interest on the outstanding principal amount thereof from the applicable Borrowing date at a rate per annum equal to the Base Rate plus the Applicable Rate for Revolving Credit Loans.

assistant: Interests