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: The issued and outstanding shares of capital stock of the Company as set forth in the General Disclosure Package and the Final Offering Memorandum have been duly authorized and validly issued, and are fully paid and nonassessable; the shares of Common Stock initially issuable upon conversion of the Securities (assuming that conversions will be settled physically by a single holder thereof and that the maximum number of “make-whole” shares are added to the conversion rate of the Securities) have been duly and validly authorized and reserved for issuance and, when issued and delivered in accordance with the provisions of the Securities and the Indenture, will be duly and validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable, free of preemptive or similar rights and will conform in all material respects to the description of the Common Stock of the Company contained in the General Disclosure Package and the Final Offering Memorandum.

assistant: Capitalization
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: Bailey maintained an objection on the stipulated testimony and the admission of the eight-millimeter tape as fruits of the poisonous tree in order to appeal the suppression issue. Given the unusual circumstances of the trial proceedings, the court engaged in a colloquy with Bailey to ensure that he understood the proceedings and the rights he was foregoing. 8 . We have addressed in several cases the effect of police deception in contexts different than that presented here. For example, in State v. Barlow we held that consent that resulted from submitting to an officer's false claim of lawful authority to search regardless of a warrant is constitutionally impermissible. 320 A.2d 895, 900 (Me.1974); cf. Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 548, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968) (<HOLDING>). When confronted with undercover agents Options: A. holding that consent was freely and voluntarily given despite officers advisement that the police could get a search warrant if consent was not given B. holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises C. holding threat to obtain a search warrant if individual does not consent to a search is just one factor in deciding whether the totality of the circumstances supports a voluntary consent finding D. holding where officer falsely represented he had a valid search warrant consent not voluntary E. holding that a consent to search that is given only after an official falsely asserts possession of a search warrant is unconstitutional

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a consent to search that is given only after an official falsely asserts possession of a search warrant is unconstitutional
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: 7.3 skype and/or its licensors retain exclusive ownership of the software , products and skype websites and all intellectual property therein ( whether or not registered and anywhere in the world ) .

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: prison guards in their position would have believed that the conduct was within the scope of their authority. This, alone, precludes summary judgment in their favor on the qualified immunity defense, if not precluding the defense altogether. See In re Allen, 106 F.3d 582 (4th Cir.1997). As the Fourth Circuit explained in In re Allen: Before permitting an official to claim qualified immunity a court must determine that the official’s acts were not clearly established to be beyond the scope of his authority. The defendant official bears the burden of demonstrating that the conduct of which the plaintiff complains “falls within the scope of the defendant’s duties.” Shechter v. Comptroller of New York, 79 F.3d 265, 268 (2d Cir.1996); Rich v. Dollar, 841 F.2d 1558, 1563 (11th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Zeigler v. Jackson, 716 F.2d 847, 849 Options: A. holding that for immunity an official must first prove that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred B. holding that the court has an affirmative obligation to ensure that it is acting within the scope of its jurisdictional authority C. holding that the inquiry into whether an employee was acting within the scope of his employment depends on the respondeat superior law of the state in which the tort occurred D. holding that a state official can be held individually hable under 1983 for acts taken within the scope of his or her official duties E. holding that attorneys acts within scope of his authority are binding on client

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that for immunity an official must first prove that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred
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: with Plaintiffs wage loss claim, a reasonable jury could not conclude that Defendant’s requests and continued investigative efforts are clear and convincing evidence of bad faith. Under Pennsylvania law, investigative delay is a relevant factor in determining whether an actor’s conduct was in bad faith, but it is not dispositive. Kosierowski v. Allstate Ins. Co., 51 F.Supp.2d 583, 588-589 (E.D.Pa.1999). [A] long period of time between demand and settlement does not, on its own, necessarily constitute bad faith. Rather, courts have looked to the degree to which a defendant insurer knew that it had no basis to deny the claimant; if delay is attributable to the need to investigate further or even to simple negligence, no bad faith has occurred. Id.; see also Williams 83 F.Supp.2d at 572 (<HOLDING>). Here, Defendant denies that any delay was a Options: A. holding title company liable for bad faith B. holding that in reviewing a defendants motion for judgment of acquittal based on insanity which the defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence the court must determine whether no reasonable jury could have failed to find that the defendants criminal insanity at the time of the offense was established by clear and convincing evidence C. holding that even though insurance company could have completed claim investigation more quickly delay was not clear and convincing evidence for jury to determine presence of bad faith D. holding that a bad faith claim must be met through the clear and convincing evidence standard E. holding that bad faith andor prejudice must be shown by clear and convincing evidence

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that even though insurance company could have completed claim investigation more quickly delay was not clear and convincing evidence for jury to determine presence of bad faith
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: brief submitted in support of the government’s motion for summary judgment below. See Defendant’s Answer ¶ 24; Defendant’s Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and in Support of Defense Cross-Motion (“Def.’s Memo Below”) at 31. While the Bankruptcy Court did not address the statute of limitations issue created by § 6532(a), this actually presents a jurisdictional question as to whether the Bankruptcy Court properly exercised its jurisdiction for the 1984 and 1985 tax years. See Finkelstein v. United States, 943 F.Supp. 425, 431 (D.N.J.1996). This Court must consider the application of the statute of limitations contained in § 6532(a) to the debtor’s adversary proceeding below. See Becton Dickinson and Co. v. Wolckenhauer, 215 F.3d 340, 343 (3d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Pransky filed tax returns for the 1984 Options: A. holding that a reviewing court has the power to reject the findings and conclusions of the trial court where the findings are not supported by the evidence B. holding that reviewing court may consider trial evidence in reviewing denial of motion to suppress C. holding that the court had discretion to allow substitution of plaintiffs to satisfy diversity jurisdiction requirements in order to give the court jurisdiction where no jurisdiction existed when the complaint was filed D. holding that a reviewing court will not address those issues not raised below or not addressed by the trial court E. holding that a reviewing court has an obligation to satisfy itself of the jurisdiction of the court below

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a reviewing court has an obligation to satisfy itself of the jurisdiction of the court below
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: For purposes of this Mortgage and in order to comply with Title 46, Section 31321(b)(3), of the United States Code, the amount of the direct or contingent obligations that are or may be secured by this Mortgage (excluding interest, expenses and fees) is $100,000,000.00, together with interest, expenses, fees, indemnities and costs of performance of the covenants of the Mortgage, the Guaranty, the Indenture and the Notes Purchase Agreement.

assistant: General
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 one or more counterparts, including by means of facsimile, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall together constitute one and the same document. Delivery of an executed signature page to this Agreement by facsimile or other electronic transmission shall be as effective as delivery of a manually signed counterpart of this Agreement.

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 following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 362 U.S. 402 80 S.Ct. 788 4 L.Ed.2d 824 Milton R. DUSKY, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. No. 504, Misc. April 18, 1960. Mr. James W. Benjamin, for petitioner. Solicitor General Rankin, for the United States. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. Upon consideration of the entire record we agree with the Solicitor General that 'the record in this case does not sufficiently support the findings of competency to stand trial,' for to support those findings under 18 U.S.C. § 4244, 18 U.S.C.A. § 4244 the district judge 'would need more information than this record presents.' We also agree with the suggestion of the Solicitor General that it is not enough for the district judge to find that 'the defendant (is) oriented to time and place and (has) some recollection of events,' but that the 'test must be whether he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding—and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.' In view of the doubts and ambiguities regarding the legal significance of the psychiatric testimony in this case and the resulting difficulties of retrospectively determining the petitioner's competency as of more than a year ago, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of conviction, and remand the case to the District Court for a new hearing to ascertain petitioner's present competency to stand trial, and for a new trial if petitioner is found competent. It is so ordered. 2 Reversed and remanded with directions.

assistant: 4
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 via facsimile or other electronic transmission and in two (2) or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. The section headings of this Agreement are for convenience only and will not affect the construction or interpretation of any of its provisions.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that the only credible testimonial evidence the BIA considered in determining that the Mexican government was unwilling or unable to control Ornelas-Chavez’s alleged persecutors was the fact that Ornelas-Chavez did not report the incidents of abuse he suffered to the police. Such treatment of the evidence was tantamount to making the reporting of private persecution a sine qua non for the success of Ornelas-Chavez’s withholding of removal claim. Neither IIRIRA nor the regulations implementing it require that an alien seeking withholding of removal based on third-party persecution must have reported that persecution to the authorities. In fact, any such requirement would contradict the BIA’s own precedent. See, e.g., In re SA-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1328, 1335, 2000 WL 827754 (BIA 2000) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, a reporting requirement conflicts Options: A. holding that procedural due process requires that a student suspended for disciplinary reasons be given oral or written notice of the charges against her and if she denies them an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present her side of the story B. holding that a teachers complaint to school authorities that her principal had instructed her to make improper changes in her own students grades was unprotected because it was made pursuant to her official duties C. holding that an applicant who convincingly demonstrated that she could not rely on the authorities to protect her from her fathers abuse and that by turning to governmental authorities for help her circumstances may well have worsened was not required to report private persecution to government authorities to qualify for asylum D. holding that it did not violate the defendants right to remain silent when the prosecutor questioned her about inconsistencies between her pretrial statements to authorities and her defense at trial E. holding that mother was not proper outcry witness despite being first person child told of fathers abuse because mother refused to admit statement was made to her refused to cooperate with authorities and had been convicted of related offense

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that an applicant who convincingly demonstrated that she could not rely on the authorities to protect her from her fathers abuse and that by turning to governmental authorities for help her circumstances may well have worsened was not required to report private persecution to government authorities to qualify for asylum
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: Neither Buyer nor any Person acting on Buyer’s behalf has paid or become obligated to pay any fee or commission to any third party broker, finder or intermediary for or on account of this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event that any provision of this Agreement becomes or is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, unenforceable or void, the parties shall use their commerically reasonable efforts to reform such illegal, unenforcable or void provision to best express their original intent and this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect without said illegal, unenforcable or void provision; provided that such severability shall be ineffective if it materially changes the economic benefit of this Agreement to any party.

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: has a great deal of discretion in evaluating the relevancy and admissibility of evidence. Jefferson v. State, 818 So.2d 1099, 1104(¶ 6) (Miss.2002). “Unless the judge abuses this discretion so as to be prejudicial to the accused, the Court will not reverse” the trial judge’s rulings. Id. (citing Hughes v. State, 735 So.2d 238, 270 (¶ 134) (Miss.1999)). Turner v. State, 950 So.2d 243, 246(¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App.2007). “However, the discretion of the trial judge must be exercised within the boundaries of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence.” Stubbs v. State, 878 So.2d 130, 134(¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.2004). ¶ 13. Kea claims that the passports and the stamps on them were not properly authenticated as required by Mississippi Rules of Evidence 901 and 902(3), which deprived him of the rig h Cir.1940) (<HOLDING>). The State argues that the passports were Options: A. holding that attorneys affidavit was not competent evidence of his clients agreement or communications with the defendants because it was not based on personal knowledge B. holding that the evidence that the defendant violated a probation condition was not competent and substantial because the state presented only hearsay evidence C. holding that a signed but unsworn letter which is not otherwise authenticated is hearsay and should not be considered as evidence in opposition to a motion for summary judgment D. holding that seventh application for postconviction relief which was rejected because evidence on which it was based was not properly authenticated was properly filed E. holding that a passport which was not authenticated or identified was not competent evidence to prove the facts stated therein

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a passport which was not authenticated or identified was not competent evidence to prove the facts stated therein
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: at a 95% confidence level. Pursuant to Rule 2:5-4(a), the State argues that the letter from Professor Feingold in defendant’s appendix concerning confidence intervals should be stricken from the record along with the portions of defendant’s brief relying on the letter. The State contends that such material is outside the record on appeal. The defense counters that Dr. Shaler alluded at trial to confidence intervals and that Dr. Feingold’s letter is simply an “illustration of the importance of confidence intervals to a fair understanding of statistical evidence.” We grant the State’s motion to strike. An appellate court, when reviewing trial errors, generally confines itself to the record. See County of Bergen v. Borough of Paramus, 79 N.J. 302, 309-10 n. 2, 399 A.2d 616 (1979) (<HOLDING>); Ambassador Ins. Co. v. Montes, 76 N.J. 477, Options: A. holding that settlement documents were admissible under both section 90408 and federal rule of evidence 408 because the documents were offered not to establish liability but to establish violation of consumer credit laws B. holding that the court properly refused to instruct on an issue for which no evidence was offered C. holding that the appellant could not complain that an affidavit and mediated settlement agreement were not in evidence even though those documents were not formally offered and admitted D. holding that pursuant to the best evidence rule trial testimony relying on documents was inadmissible without submission of such documents or an explanation as to why the documents were unavailable E. holding that appellants appendix which contained numerous documents not offered into evidence clearly violated r 254

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that appellants appendix which contained numerous documents not offered into evidence clearly violated r 254
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: reviewed on appeal from the final judgment. Id. at 451. Even the former client’s acquittal would not render the revocation order unreviewable at the conclusion of the underlying case. Id. Thus, the order was not appeal-able under the collateral order exception to the final judgment rule. Id. These cases establish that settlement of an underlying case does not preclude appellate review of an order disqualifying an attorney from further representation insofar as that order rests on grounds that could harm his or her professional reputation. We therefore conclude the appeal is not moot insofar as the district court’s order found that Attorney Greer had violated the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. See Kirkland v. National Mortgage Network, Inc., 884 F.2d 1367, 1370 (11th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). That the underlying cases were dismissed Options: A. holding challenge to order disqualifying attorney was not moot despite dismissal of underlying case where orders brand of disqualification on grounds of dishonesty and bad faith could hang over attorneys name and career for years B. holding that disqualification orders do not fall in the collateral order exception C. holding that a bad faith claim arises out of contract for attorney fee statute D. holding that a disqualification order in a criminal case is not appealable E. holding that although courts have inherent power to dismiss bad faith litigant 707a does not provide basis for dismissal on grounds of bad faith filing

assistant: The best answer is A. holding challenge to order disqualifying attorney was not moot despite dismissal of underlying case where orders brand of disqualification on grounds of dishonesty and bad faith could hang over attorneys name and career for years
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 First Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, but all of such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same agreement. In making proof of this First Amendment, it shall not be necessary to produce or account for more than one counterpart thereof signed by each of the parties hereto. Delivery of an executed counterpart of this First Amendment by telecopier or other electronic means shall have the same force and effect as delivery of an original executed counterpart of this First Amendment. Any party delivering an executed counterpart of this First Amendment by telecopier or other electronic means also shall deliver an original executed counterpart of this First Amendment, but the failure to deliver an original executed counterpart shall not affect the validity, enforceability, and binding effect of this First Amendment as to such party or any other party.

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: Certificate Seller has no subsidiaries other than Trusts. Each of Loan Seller’s subsidiaries is set forth on Exhibit B-2. Neither Seller has any Indebtedness other than the Indebtedness created pursuant to this Agreement or as set forth on Exhibit B-1.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 835 (Meyers, J., concurring, joined by Mansfield and Johnson, JJ.) (stating that the Blockburger test is employed when multiple offenses for the same act in the same transaction are at issue, not when multiple acts constitute multiple offenses in the same transaction). In those analyses, we can also consider other factors to determine, despite the outcome of the Blockburger and cognate-pleadings test, if the Legislature intended to authorize multiple punishments. Compare Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 369-69, 103 S.Ct. 673, 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983) (authorizing multiple punishments, if it is the intent of the Legislature, despite the Blockburger test indicating the offenses are the same for double-jeopardy purposes), with Ex parte Ervin v. State, 991 S.W.2d 804, 807 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (<HOLDING>). 3 . In the relevant indictment, Appellant was Options: A. holding that when the legislature intends to punish separate acts even ones in close temporal proximity the blockburger test does not apply because the precondition for employing that test that the two offenses involve the same conduct is absent B. holding that possession with intent to distribute and simple possession are the same offense under blockburger C. holding that determining legislative intent is a question of law D. holding that because the ultimate question is legislative intent the blockburger test cannot authorize two punishments where the ljegislature clearly intended only one E. holding that congress intended to allow multiple punishments for rico conspiracies and conspiracies to commit the underlying predicate offense even though the offenses were the same under the blockburger test

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that because the ultimate question is legislative intent the blockburger test cannot authorize two punishments where the ljegislature clearly intended only one
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: Neither Company nor any of its Subsidiaries is in default in the performance, observance or fulfillment of any of the obligations, covenants or conditions contained in any of its Contractual Obligations, and no condition exists which, with the giving of notice or the lapse of time or both, could constitute such a default, except where the consequences, direct or indirect, of such default or defaults, if any, could not reasonably be 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: SPV further promises to pay interest on the outstanding unpaid principal amount hereof from the date hereof until payment in full hereof at a rate equal to the Prime Rate; provided , however , that if SPV shall default in the payment of any principal hereof, SPV promises to pay, on demand, interest at the rate of the Prime Rate plus 2.00% per annum on any such unpaid amounts, from the date such payment is due to the date of actual payment. Interest shall be payable on the first Business Day of each month in arrears; provided , however , that SPV may elect on the date any interest payment is due hereunder to defer such payment and upon such election the amount of interest due but unpaid on such date shall constitute principal under this Subordinated Note. The outstanding principal of any loan made under this Subordinated Note shall be due and payable on the Collection Date and may be repaid or prepaid at any time without premium or penalty.

assistant: Interests
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: rate that is added to the total amount of commissions earned. As such, NHC’s nonrecoverable draw functions much more like a salary than a true draw on commissions. Regardless of whether the Level I plan constitutes a salary plus commission, a quota bonus plan, or a hybrid of both, the pre-determined compensation referred to by the Defendant as a “non-recoverable draw” does not represent commissions. To the contrary, in light of the way that compensation actually functions, it represents a salary. Therefore, this portion of the account executives’ compensation cannot be taken into account when determining whether more than fifty percent of the Plaintiffs’ earnings represent commission, as is required to qualify for the retail-service exemption. See Donovan, 1986 WL 11266, at *4 (<HOLDING>). Rather, the Court must examine only the true Options: A. holding over B. holding that the commission exercises substantial discretion in selecting the appropriate ratemaking methodology and this is especially true where as here the issues involve complex factual determinations peculiarly within the expertise of the commission C. recognizing that the allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true on a threshold motion to dismiss D. recognizing that the only true commission portion of the salaries appears to be those amounts over the threshold level E. holding that the commission may only exercise jurisdiction over utilities expressly included in the scope of the pua

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that the only true commission portion of the salaries appears to be those amounts over the threshold level
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Borrower waives any right to require the Administrative Agent, the Collateral Agent, the Issuing Lenders or the Lenders to (a) proceed against any other Borrower, any Guarantor or any other party, (b) proceed against or exhaust any security held from any Borrower, any Guarantor or any other party or (c) pursue any other remedy in the Administrative Agent’s, the Collateral Agent’s, the Collateral Agent, any Issuing Lender’s or Lenders’ power whatsoever. Each Borrower waives any defense based on or arising out of suretyship or any impairment of security held from any Borrower, any Guarantor or any other party or on or arising out of any defense of any other Borrower, any Guarantor or any other party other than payment in full in cash of the Obligations, including any defense based on or arising out of the disability of any other Borrower, any Guarantor or any other party, or the unenforceability of the Obligations or any part thereof from any cause, or the cessation from any cause of the liability of any other Borrower, in each case other than as a result of the payment in full in cash of the Obligations.

assistant: 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: turn to the issue of the $7,500 bond. 1. Bias, Conspiracy, and Fraud Claims. On the bias, conspiracy, and fraud issues, Appellant argues that he will not have an adequate remedy by appeal and that he will suffer irreparable injury because of the time it takes for the appeals to be decided and the effect of the delay on his relationship with his children. He believes that he and his children are injured because his visitation with them is more limited than it should be, and this error cannot be corrected until the Court of Appeals considers the appeals, which could take many months. This Court has repeatedly held that the delay and expense of appeals does not constitute irreparable injury or render remedy by appeal inadequate. See, e.g., Buckley v. Wilson, 177 S.W.3d 778, 781 (Ky.2005) (<HOLDING>); Ison v. Bradley, 338 S.W.2d 784, 786 Options: A. holding that identification of appellant in notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement and that the failure to name a party in a notice to appeal constitutes a failure of that party to appeal B. holding that the appellant had an adequate remedy by appeal for his discovery violation allegations C. holding that there was no right to appeal an order denying a motion for correction of judgment which was filed after delays for applying for new trial and appeal expired D. holding that the delays inherent in every lawsuit and appeal do not constitute inadequate remedy by appeal E. holding that an issue not raised on direct appeal of sentence is barred by the law of the case from presentation in a subsequent appeal

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the delays inherent in every lawsuit and appeal do not constitute inadequate remedy by appeal
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Unless the Company notifies the Grantee in writing of a different procedure or address, any notice or other communication to the Company with respect to this Agreement will be in writing and will be delivered personally or sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the Company’s then current headquarters, which as of the Grant Date is the address specified for the Company on Schedule I hereto. Unless the Company elects to notify the Grantee electronically pursuant to the online grant and administration program or via email, any notice or other communication to the Grantee with respect to this Agreement will be in writing and will be delivered personally, or will be sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the Grantee’s address as listed in the records of the Company or any Subsidiary of the Company on the Grant Date, unless the Company has received written notification from the Grantee of a change of address.

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: only. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion for reconsideration, but entered an order for a new trial on causation and damages'but not on liability. Both sides appeal the order. The trial court found that it was “inconceivable ... that a jury of reasonable persons could find negligence and causation ... but not award at least some damages for the intangible elements.” Our review of the record’ and briefs leads us to conclude that “it is more than merely conceivable that the jury ‘interwove the issues of liability and damages in the jury form in an inconsistent way, suggestive of a compromise on liability, possible confusion on the law of damages, or both.’ ” Calloway v. Dania Jai Alai Palace, 1387, 1389 (Fla 4th DCA 1997), rev’d on other grounds, 709 So.2d 1381 (Fla. 1998) (<HOLDING>). Because the Estate rejected the additur of Options: A. holding verdict inadequate when stipulated medical expenses were 319499 and verdict was in same amount notwithstanding evidence of additional uncontested damages B. holding that verdict of liability that awarded past medical expenses only and nothing for pain and suffering clearly shows it was result of compromised verdict where negligence was seriously disputed C. holding there is no dutyimposed on trial judge to question jurys verdict of liability but no damages unless requested to by a party D. holding that jurys damagesrelated questions and verdict of liability with clearly inadequate damages of only medical expenses but no noneconomic damages in case where liability was hotly contested strongly suggested compromised verdict E. holding that verdict of 1000 was inadequate where special damages for medical expenses were stipulated in amount of 164118

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that jurys damagesrelated questions and verdict of liability with clearly inadequate damages of only medical expenses but no noneconomic damages in case where liability was hotly contested strongly suggested compromised verdict
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as set forth on Schedule 5.3 , the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement and the other Transaction Documents by the Credit Parties party thereto, the issuance of the Unsecured Note and the use of proceeds thereof, and the consummation by the Credit Parties of the transactions contemplated hereby and thereby will not (a) result in a violation of the Credit Parties’ certificate or articles of incorporation or bylaws or other governing documents, or the terms of any Capital Stock or other Equity Interests of the Credit Parties, (b) conflict with, or constitute a breach or default (or an event which, with notice or lapse of time or both, would become a breach or default) under, or give to others any rights of termination, amendment, acceleration or cancellation of, any Material Contract to which the Credit Parties or any of their Subsidiaries is a party, (c) result in any “price reset” or other material change in or other modification to the terms of any Indebtedness, Equity Interests or other securities of the Credit Parties or any of their Subsidiaries, or (d) result in a violation of any law, rule, regulation, order, judgment or decree (including, without limitation, (i) any Environmental Laws, or (ii) federal and state securities laws and regulations and the rules and regulations of the Principal Market), which, for purposes of clauses (b), (c) and (d), would reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: No Conflicts
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Corp., 26 F.3d 1368, 1376 (6th Cir.1994). As the district court noted, the sole question in this case is whether plaintiffs’ transfer of employment from ANSI to Cargill was a “release” as defined by the ANSI severance plan. In order to qualify as a “release” in this context, plaintiffs must have been permanently separated due to “lack of work,” an “economic reduction in the workforce,” or some other reason covered by the plan’s use of the term “etc.” Courts should interpret ERISA plan provisions “according to their plain meaning, in an ordinary and popular sense.” Perez v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 150 F.3d 550, 556 (6th Cir.1998). In applying this “plain meaning analysis,” the court “must give effect to the unambiguous terms of an Rockwell Int’l Corp., 24 F.3d 1272 (10th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Bradwell v. GAF Corp., 954 F.2d 798, 800 (2d Options: A. holding that a change in employer from one federal contractor to another caused employees no lack of work B. holding that employees of successor corporation were not laid off for lack of work after transfer of ownership C. holding that employees who continued at a comparable job with a successor company had not been permanently terminated or laid off by the company due to lack of work D. holding that claims of corporation vest in corporation E. holding that a denial of transfer was not an adverse employment action where the plaintiff asserted only that the transfer would allow him to work closer to home

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that employees of successor corporation were not laid off for lack of work after transfer of ownership
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: 2. All the information that (i) is written and marked as CONFIDENTIAL, or (ii) is disclosed verbally, and at the time of its disclosure, the Disclosing Party's identify such information to be protected in accordance with this Agreement ("Confidential Information"), shall be considered confidential and restricted property of the Disclosing Party. 5. The Receiving Party agrees for the period specified in Section 13 that it will: a. Restrict disclosure of the Confidential Information to the minimum required number of people (such as employees, directors, officers, legal counsels, accountants or consultants who shall also be personally bound to maintain the Information in confidence);

assistant: No
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: before a different judge. This is only done where special circumstances warrant it, that is, where we are persuaded that the original judge would have substantial difficulty in putting out of her mind her previously expressed views, or where reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice. United States v. Robin, 553 F.2d 8, 10 (2d Cir.1977) (in banc) (per curiam). No special circumstances here suggest reassignment before a different judge and we decline therefore to take such action. Of course, on remand, the government cannot withdraw its § 5K1.1 motion, as that action under the circumstances would be a violation of defendant’s due process rights protected by the Fifth Amendment. Cf. Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 28-29, 94 S.Ct. 2098, 2103, 40 L.Ed.2d 628 (1974) (<HOLDING>). Finally, as we have already concluded that Options: A. holding statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review B. holding following whitney that defendant was deemed to have waived right to a de novo jury trial where failure to appear at de novo trial was due to his own neglect in not informing the clerks office of his change of address C. holding that the proper review for the trial courts application of the law is de novo D. holding that it was not constitutionally permissible for the state to respond to defendants invocation of his statutory right to appeal by bringing a more serious charge against him prior to the trial de novo E. holding that the defendant by not bringing his knowledge of possible juror bias to the attention of the district court prior to verdict waived his right to a new trial

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that it was not constitutionally permissible for the state to respond to defendants invocation of his statutory right to appeal by bringing a more serious charge against him prior to the trial de novo
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: Co., 168 N.C. 296, 84 S.E. 363 (1915); Plemmons v. Southern Improvement Company, 108 N.C. 614, 13 S.E. 188 (1891). This rule was amended somewhat by the enactment of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 4(b), (hereinafter N.C.R. Civ. P.), which provides that a summons shall be directed to the defendant rather than to a process officer ordering him to summon the defendant. Still, the strict requirement that the summons command the appearance of the defendant and not that of an individual designated an agent or officer of the defendant has been carried over in the interpretation of the sufficiency of summonses under Rule 4. Carl Rose & Sons Ready Mix Concrete, Inc. v. Thorp Sales Corporation, 30 N.C. App. 526, 227 S.E. 2d 301 (1976); see also, Philpott v. Kerns, 285 N.C. 225, 203 S.E. 2d 778 (1974), (<HOLDING>). In reviewing the summons issued in this case, Options: A. holding that the statutory definition of motor vehicle is not controlling B. holding that the sensible and popular understanding of what a motor vehicle accident entails necessarily involves the motor vehicle being operated as a motor vehicle C. holding that insurance provisions excluding damage arising out of the use of land motor vehicles subject to registration and damage arising out of the use of land motor vehicles if the injury or damage occurs away from the insured premises were ambiguous because together they could be read in four different ways D. holding that a summons directed to the commissioner of motor vehicles was defective process as against a nonresident defendant in an action arising out of operation of a motor vehicle in this state E. recognizing that in 1982 kentucky converted to a new title system for motor vehicles under which the secured creditor must perfect its security interest by noting the lien on the certificate of title to the motor vehicle

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a summons directed to the commissioner of motor vehicles was defective process as against a nonresident defendant in an action arising out of operation of a motor vehicle in this state
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The execution, delivery and performance by each Credit Party of the Operative Documents to which it is a party (a) are within its powers, (b) have been duly authorized by all necessary action pursuant to its Organizational Documents, (c) require no further action by or in respect of, or filing with, any Governmental Authority and (d) do not violate, conflict with or cause a breach or a default under (i) any Law applicable to any Credit Party, (ii) any of the Organizational Documents of any Credit Party, or (iii) any agreement or instrument binding upon it, except for such violations, conflicts, breaches or defaults as could not, with respect to this clause (iii), reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Organizations