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 Borrower and each Subsidiary is a corporation, limited partnership, or limited liability company, as applicable, duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the state of its formation and, subject to any restrictions arising on account of the Borrower’s or any Subsidiaries’ status as a “debtor” under the Bankruptcy Code, is authorized to do business and in good standing as a foreign corporation, limited partnership or limited liability company in every jurisdiction in which it owns or leases real property or in which the nature of its business requires it to be so qualified, except where the failure to so qualify, individually or in the aggregate, could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

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: rob him, and where the trial court permitted the State to call witnesses who testified that Mr. Brown was not a drug dealer. We agree. We are mindful that pursuant to section 90.404(1), Florida Statutes (2004), evidence of a victim’s character is “inadmissible to prove action in conformity with it on a particular occasion.” In the instant case, however, the defense did not seek to introduce evidence that Mr. Brown was a drug dealer as an attack upon his character. The defense sought to elicit this testimony to corroborate the defendant’s testimony that he did not go to Mr. Brown’s home to rob him, but instead went there to purchase drugs, and while he was there, Mr. Brown attacked him after he rebuffed his sexual advances. See Villella v. State, 833 So.2d 192, 196-97 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)(<HOLDING>). Further, even if the evidence was Options: A. holding that it was error to exclude corroborative evidence where evidence was vital to defendants defense B. holding that it was harmless error for the trial court to exclude testimony regarding other insolvent companies C. holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony D. holding in all cases that where the evidence of guilt was sufficient any error in the exclusion of lastminute evidence and testimony was harmless error E. holding impeachment evidence was not merely cumulative where the withheld evidence was of a different character than evidence already known to the defense

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that it was error to exclude corroborative evidence where evidence was vital to defendants defense
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: J — Second Amendment (Docket Entry No. 68) (average monthly expenses of $2,350). 33 . In applying University Medical Center, some courts suggest the decision established a two-prong test for the exception to apply. See In re Montgomery Ward, LLC, 292 B.R. 49, 57 (Bankr.D.Del.2003) (stating that University Medical Center good faith exception applied "where (1) the law on the issue is not settled, and (2) the defendant has persuasive legal authority indicating that his or her actions do not violate the stay”); cf. In re Mattera, 2007 WL 594908, at *7 (Bankr.D.N.J. Feb.21, 2007) ("Courts interpreting the exception are unclear about whether both persuasive legal authority and legal uncertainty are required, or whether just one suffices.”); In re Hawk, 314 B.R. 312, 318 (Bankr.D.N.J.2004) (<HOLDING>). Other courts, however, have not applied Options: A. recognizing the two lines of child custody cases but declining to resolve conflict B. holding that where a contractor relied on montgomery countys prior reasonable and debatable interpretation of the statutory phrase nonhabitable structures and constructed its building based on that interpretation and with a valid permit it would be inequitable for the county board of appeals to apply a changed interpretation to require removal of the buildings fourth floor C. holding that an arbitrators interpretation of the scope of the issue submitted to him is entitled to the same deference accorded his interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement D. recognizing that only the illinois supreme court could finally resolve the issue of implicit repeal explaining the state must resolve this conflict internally E. recognizing the twoprong interpretation of montgomery ward but neglecting to resolve issue because the creditors satisfied both prongs

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing the twoprong interpretation of montgomery ward but neglecting to resolve issue because the creditors satisfied both prongs
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 THE OTHER LOAN DOCUMENTS SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, the LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK applicable to agreements made and to be performed entirely within such State; PROVIDED THAT THE administrative agent and the lenders SHALL RETAIN ALL RIGHTS ARISING UNDER FEDERAL LAW.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: To the extent that any court action is permitted consistent with or to enforce Section 11 of this Agreement, the parties hereby consent to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut and the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Accordingly, with respect to any such court action, the Executive (a) submits to the personal jurisdiction of such courts; (b) consents to service of process; and (c) waives any other requirement (whether imposed by statute, rule of court, or otherwise) with respect to personal jurisdiction or service of process.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Agent hereby waives the processing and recordation fee provided for in Section 9.07(b)(iv) of the Existing Credit Agreement in connection with any assignment of (i) Existing Revolving Credit Commitments (and Existing Revolving Credit Loans and participations in Letters of Credit in respect thereof) by Departing Revolving Credit Lenders or Decreasing Revolving Credit Lenders to New Revolving Credit Lenders or (ii) Term Loans by Departing Term Loan Lenders or Decreasing Term Loan Lenders to New Term Loan Lenders.

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: did not have enough information to opine on whether A.Q.W. should be placed with Dolores. Dolores testified she first became aware appellant was the child’s father about thirty days before the termination hearing when appellant told her. She said appellant wants to be a father to A.Q.W., and both she and appellant want A.Q.W. placed with her if appellant’s parental rights were terminated. She said appellant was upset when he thought he might lose his parental rights if he was sent to prison. She said her son is not a “bad person.” She did not agree his parental rights should be terminated because he has not had a chance to be a father, she thought he would be a very good father, and “[h]e wants this child.” Appellan ding same); In re 91 S.W.3d 18, 25 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2002, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Here, appellant was not confirmed as A.Q.W.’s Options: A. holding the icwa beyond a reasonable doubt standard applies only to a special verdict question here special verdict question 7 relating to whether the return of custody of the child to the parent is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child B. holding that departments preparation of several service plans designed to help a parent regain custody of her child and parents failure to complete requirements of the service plans constituted reasonable efforts on the states part to return the child to the mother under the first element of section 1610011n C. holding that fundamental error occurred in the prosecution of a mother for aggravated manslaughter of her child when the prosecutor commented on the fact that the mother had contemplated having an abortion during the course of her pregnancy with the child D. holding that an order ceasing reunification efforts and awarding foster parents guardianship was supported where the child was being harmed by the lack of permanency the mother had not made progress toward reunification despite reasonable efforts from dss and the mother had failed to remedy the risks associated with returning the child to her home E. holding that the domicile of the child follows that of the parent with lawful custody

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that departments preparation of several service plans designed to help a parent regain custody of her child and parents failure to complete requirements of the service plans constituted reasonable efforts on the states part to return the child to the mother under the first element of section 1610011n
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provision of this Warrant is prohibited by law or otherwise determined to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the provision that would otherwise be prohibited, invalid or unenforceable shall be deemed amended to apply to the broadest extent that it would be valid and enforceable, and the invalidity or unenforceability of such provision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Warrant so long as this Warrant as so modified continues to express, without material change, the original intentions of the parties as to the subject matter hereof and the prohibited nature, invalidity or unenforceability of the provision(s) in question does not substantially impair the respective expectations or reciprocal obligations of the parties or the practical realization of the benefits that would otherwise be conferred upon the parties. The parties will endeavor in good faith negotiations to replace the prohibited, invalid or unenforceable provision(s) with a valid provision(s), the effect of which comes as close as possible to that of the prohibited, invalid or unenforceable provision(s).

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: to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6), respectively. The defendants argued that an order of mandamus was not appropriate because the ATF is prohibited by law from spending funds to act upon applications such as the plaintiffs. The defendants further argued that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to review the plaintiffs application because the plaintiff did not receive a “denial” from the agency within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). The plaintiff argued in opposition that he was entitled to an order of mandamus notwithstanding the limitation on ATF expenditures, and that he should be excused from the normal exhaustion of remedies requirement because of the ATF’s ref 1998) (<HOLDING>). II. Mandamus The plaintiff has argued that he Options: A. holding that a legal conclusion on a motion to suppress is reviewed de novo B. holding that antitrust standing is question of law reviewed de novo C. holding that a circuit courts entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo D. holding that confrontation clause claims are reviewed de novo E. holding that rule 12b6 disposition is reviewed de novo

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that rule 12b6 disposition is reviewed 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Lender agrees that it will not disclose without the prior consent of the Borrowers (other than to its employees, its Subsidiaries, another Lender, an Affiliate of a Lender or to its auditors or counsel) any information with respect to the Credit Parties which is furnished pursuant to this Agreement or any of the other Loan Documents; provided that any Lender may disclose any such information (a) as has become generally available to the public or has been lawfully obtained by such Lender from any third party under no duty of confidentiality to any Credit Party, (b) as may be required or appropriate in any report, statement or testimony submitted to, or in respect to any inquiry, by, any municipal, state, provincial or federal regulatory body having or claiming to have jurisdiction over such Lender, including the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System of the United States, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or similar organizations (whether in the United States or elsewhere) or their successors, (c) as may be required or appropriate in respect to any summons or subpoena or in connection with any litigation, (d) in order to comply with any law, order, regulation, ruling or other requirement of law applicable to such Lender, and (e) to any prospective assignee or participant in accordance with Section 12.8(f) hereof.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: DanDrit does not own any capital stock or have any interest of any kind whatsoever in any corporation, partnership, or other form of business organization, except for the ownership of its 97%-owned subsidiary DanDrit Biotech A/S.

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: 251.5(b). Consideration of the alleged violation of Colo. 8.4(b) rests on different grounds. Colo. RPC 8.4(b) provides: It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects. Not only does Colo. RPC 8.4(b) require proof of a criminal act, it requires proof of the additional requirement that the criminal act so proven "reflect[s] adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects." The language of the rule recognizes that not all criminal acts are proscribed. People v. Anderson, No. 99PDJ083 (consolidated with 99PDJ066 and 99PDJ126) (Colo. PDJ July 21, 2000) 29 Colo. Law. 123, 126 (October 2000) 2000 Colo. Discipl. LEXIS 3 (<HOLDING>). Only those acts which by their nature reflect Options: A. holding that under separation of powers the legislative department makes the laws the executive department carries the laws into effect and the judicial department interprets and declares the laws B. holding that a spouse is not necessarily an agent of the debtor C. holding that not all convictions of the criminal laws necessarily justify the conclusion that colo rpc 84b has also been violated D. holding the statutory scheme of two federal laws was not void for vagueness and did not violate equal protection or due process even though the defendants conduct violated both laws E. recognizing that a criminal prosecution is not complete until a sentence has been imposed

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that not all convictions of the criminal laws necessarily justify the conclusion that colo rpc 84b has also been violated
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of the federal defendants. DISCUSSION Appellants argue that the Forest Service lacked the authority to restrict the use of the ditches to maintain instream flow levels for the protection of fish under the ESA. We agree with the district court that the placement of restrictions in the right-of-way permits was within the authority of the Forest Service. Whatever questions exist as to the standing of the various appellants, they are represented by the same counsel and make the same arguments, and the Early Winters Ditch Company as a permit holder indisputably has standing. We accordingly proceed to the merits. See Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 263-64 & n. 9, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (<HOLDING>). At bottom, appellants argue that the Forest Options: A. holding individual standing issue waived B. holding that standing existed C. holding that where one plaintiff has standing we need not consider whether the other individual and corporate plaintiffs have standing to maintain the suit D. holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing because they may not rely on the expense of credit monitoring and other preventative measures for standing E. recognizing that while in a diversity case a federal court may not address the plaintiffs claim unless the plaintiff has standing to sue under state law the plaintiff must also meet article iii standing requirements

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that where one plaintiff has standing we need not consider whether the other individual and corporate plaintiffs have standing to maintain the suit
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 mortgagor, or failure to properly execute the mortgage. Here, however, JDC requests that this court find that a title company had a duty to defend an action in which JDC, in the end, asserted eleven claims, only two of which had to do with the covered mortgages, and in which BST asserted seventeen affirmative defenses, only five of which, even by JDC’s contentions, had any relation to the mortgages at all. In issuing the title policies, Lawyers Title did not insure the validity or col-lectability of the debt underlying the mortgages; nor did Lawyers Title make itself responsible for discovering the existence of, much less predicting the ramifications of the collapse of, the partnership relationship between the mortgagee and the benefi .2d 1075, 1075-76 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1991) (<HOLDING>). We need not address whether, therefore, the Options: A. holding that when the insurer takes the position that the policy does not cover the complaint the insurer must 1 defend the suit under a reservation of rights or 2 seek a declaratory judgment that there is no coverage if the insurer fails to take either of these actions it will be estopped from later raising policy defenses to coverage B. holding that the insurer had no duty to defend the insured because the allegations of the initial complaint did not allege facts which would bring the case within the coverage of the title insurance policy C. holding despite authority for the general proposition that the duty to defend is determined based on the allegations of the complaint that an insurer had no duty to defend where the underlying claim was covered by the policy based on the facts pleaded in complaint but other facts not appearing in the complaint excluded coverage D. holding that an insurers duty to defend arises from the allegations in the complaint against the insured E. holding that an insurer had a duty to defend the insured until it could establish that those claims were not supported by the facts

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the insurer had no duty to defend the insured because the allegations of the initial complaint did not allege facts which would bring the case within the coverage of the title insurance policy
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: limit, modify, or eliminate altogether. See, e.g., Oklahoma Tax Commission, 498 U.S. at 510, 111 S.Ct. 905 (“Congress has always been.at liberty to dispense with such tribal immunity or to limit it.”); Talton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376, 384, 16 S.Ct. 986, 41 L.Ed. 196 (1896) (“Indian tribes are subject to the dominant authority of congress.”). Thus, suits such as' this one are barred by the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity, unless the plaintiff shows either a clear waiver of that immunity by the tribe, or an express abrogation of the doctrine by Congress. See, e.g., Oklahoma Tax Commission, 498 U.S. at 509, 111 S.Ct, 905 (citing Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 58, 98 S.Ct. 1670); Kiowa Tribe v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 754, 118 S.Ct. 1700, 140 L.Ed.2d 981 (1998) (<HOLDING>). There is no evidence that the Poarch Band Options: A. holding that florida does not have jurisdiction in a suit by other persons against an indian tribe absent express waiver of tribal sovereign immunity B. holding that an official of an indian tribe should be stripped of his authority and corresponding immunity to act on behalf of his tribe whenever he exercises a power his tribe was powerless to convey to him C. holding that state did not have jurisdiction over tribe where tribe paid into workers compensation program but had not waived sovereign immunity D. holding that because a waiver of immunity is altogether voluntary on the part of the tribe and thus the tribe may prescribe the terms and conditions on which it consents to be sued and the manner in which the suit shall be conducted the issue must be determined in the forum that the tribe has chosen for determination of the viability of claims against it to wit arbitration E. holding that an indian tribe is subject to suit only where congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an indian tribe is subject to suit only where congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Provided that the conditions set forth in Section 6 hereto and the last sentence of this Section 7 have been met or waived at such time, the transactions contemplated hereby shall be consummated on May 25, 2016, or at such other time and date as the parties hereto shall agree (each such time and date of payment and delivery being herein called the “ Closing ”). At the Closing, settlement shall occur through Weeden & Co. LP (the “ Settlement Agent ”), or an affiliate thereof, on a delivery versus payment basis through the DTC ID System.

assistant: Closings
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 principal balance of each 2018 Term Loan Advance shall bear interest thereon from such Advance Date at the 2018 Term Loan Interest Rate based on a year consisting of 360 days, with interest computed daily based on the actual number of days elapsed. The 2018 Term Loan Interest Rate will float and change on the day the Prime Rate changes from time to time.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall terminate and be of no further force or effect whatsoever as of the earlier of (a) such date and time as the Merger Agreement shall have been validly terminated pursuant to the terms of Article VII thereof or (b) the Effective Time (the “ Expiration Date ”); provided, however, that (i) Section 8 shall survive the termination of this Agreement, and (ii) the termination of this Agreement shall not relieve Stockholder from any liability for any inaccuracy in or breach of any representation, warranty, covenant or agreement contained in this Agreement prior to such termination.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: disqualify an employee from receiving benefits and are not applicable here. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND ANALYSIS The issue before us is whether a claimant is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits if he or she is receiving workers’ compensation for temporary total disability. Neither the Nebraska Supreme Court nor this court has addressed this question of law. Statutory interpretation is a matter of law in connection with which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent, correct conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the court below. Anderson v. Nashua Corp., 246 Neb. 420, 519 N.W.2d 275 (1994). See Dillard Dept. Stores v. Polinsky, 247 Neb. 821, 530 N.W.2d 637 (1995). Several states have statutory language sim .M. 608, 725 P.2d 584 (N.M. App. 1986) (<HOLDING>). Accord, Neuberger v. City of Wilmington, 453 Options: A. holding that in absence of statute prohibiting recovery claimant may receive workers compensation and unemployment benefits simultaneously B. holding 1001 prosecution for false statements in unemployment benefits not precluded by unemployment benefits statute specifically addressing topic C. holding that legislature clearly intended that workers compensation act and unemployment security act be construed together thus prohibiting worker from receiving both unemployment compensation and workers compensation payments for same period D. holding that claimant may simultaneously receive unemployment benefits and workers compensation for temporary partial disability where statute only precludes receipt of workers compensation for temporary total or permanent total disability if claimant is receiving unemployment benefits E. holding that pursuant to statute unemployment benefits must be offset against workers compensation payments

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that in absence of statute prohibiting recovery claimant may receive workers compensation and unemployment benefits simultaneously
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 the Company nor Engaged shall, and each Party will cause each of its Affiliates and Associates not to, issue any press release or public announcement concerning this Agreement without obtaining the prior written approval of the other Party, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, unless disclosure is otherwise required by applicable law.

assistant: Publicity
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: Banjo is a corporation duly incorporated, validly existing, and in good standing under the laws of Nevada and has the corporate power and is duly authorized under all applicable laws, regulations, ordinances, and orders of public authorities to carry on its business in all material respects as it is now being conducted. Attached as Schedule 3.01 are complete and correct copies of the articles of incorporation and bylaws of Banjo as in effect on the date hereof. The execution and delivery of this Agreement does not, and the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby will not, violate any provision of Banjo’s articles of incorporation or by-laws at the Closing Date. Banjo has or will prior to Closing have taken all action required by law, its articles of incorporation and by-laws, or otherwise to authorize the execution and delivery of this Agreement, and Banjo has full power, authority, and legal right and has or will prior to Closing have taken all action required by law, its articles of incorporation and by-laws, or otherwise to consummate the transactions herein contemplated.

assistant: Organizations
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 PLEDGOR EACH HEREBY: (i) COVENANTS AND AGREES NOT TO ELECT A TRIAL BY JURY OF ANY ISSUE TRIABLE OF RIGHT BY A JURY; AND (ii) WAIVES TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING TO WHICH THE PLEDGOR AND SECURED PARTY MAY BE PARTIES, ARISING OUT OF, IN CONNECTION WITH OR IN ANY WAY PERTAINING TO THIS AGREEMENT, AND/OR ANY TRANSACTIONS, OCCURRENCES, COMMUNICATIONS, OR UNDERSTANDINGS (OR THE LACK OF ANY OF THE FOREGOING) RELATING IN ANY WAY TO DEBTOR-CREDITOR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES. IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT THIS WAIVER CONSTITUTES A WAIVER OF TRIAL BY JURY OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST ALL PARTIES TO SUCH ACTIONS OR PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING CLAIMS AGAINST PARTIES WHO ARE NOT PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT. THIS WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL IS SEPARATELY GIVEN, KNOWINGLY, WILLINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY MADE BY THE PLEDGOR AND THE PLEDGOR HEREBY AGREES THAT NO REPRESENTATIONS OF FACT OR OPINION HAVE BEEN MADE BY ANY INDIVIDUAL TO INDUCE THIS WAIVER OF TRIAL BY JURY OR TO IN ANY WAY MODIFY OR NULLIFY ITS EFFECT. SECURED PARTY IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO SUBMIT THIS AGREEMENT TO ANY COURT HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER AND THE PLEDGOR AND SECURED PARTY, SO AS TO SERVE AS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF SUCH WAIVER OF RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY. THE PLEDGOR REPRESENTS AND WARRANTS THAT EACH OF THEM HAS BEEN REPRESENTED IN THE SIGNING OF THIS AGREEMENT AND IN THE MAKING OF THIS WAIVER BY INDEPENDENT LEGAL COUNSEL, SELECTED OF ITS OWN FREE WILL, AND/OR THAT IT HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THIS WAIVER WITH COUNSEL.

assistant: Waiver Of Jury Trials
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 plaintiff suffer an adverse employment action.” Id. In this case, the central dispute over Spees’s ADA claim revolves around whether she meets the definition of a “disabled” person. A “disability” is defined as “(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2) (2006). This section of the Act was amended in 2009, subsequent to the events giving rise to Spees’s lawsuit. But we must analyze Spees’s claims pursuant to the earlier version (provided above) because the amendments to the ADA do not apply retroactively. See Milholland v. Sumner County Bd. of Educ., 569 F.3d 562, 567 (6th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Spees does not argue that her pregnancy Options: A. holding that the ada does not contain a waiver of sovereign immunity and thus does not apply to the federal government B. holding that the ada amendments act does not apply to preamendment conduct C. holding that the protect act amendments to the standard of review apply retroactively D. holding the ada and the rehabilitation act applicable E. holding that the same standards apply to claims under the ada and under the rehabilitation act

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the ada amendments act does not apply to preamendment conduct
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 Borrowers shall provide prompt written notice to Lender if at any time the Credit Parties fail to comply with any of the covenants in Section 11 herein. In addition, the Borrowers shall, within such period of time as Lender may reasonably specify, deliver to Lender such other schedules and reports as Lender may reasonably require.

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: which requires that judgment be rendered as a matter of law, a trial court ruling on a motion for judgment on partial findings under Rule 52(c) is acting in the capacity of a finder of fact, weighing evidence and assessing the credibility of the witnesses. See United States v. $242,484-00, 389 F.3d 1149, 1172 (11th Cir.2004) (citing Caro-Galvan v. Curtis Richardson, Inc., 993 F.2d 1500, 1504 (11th Cir.1993)); see also Furth v. Inc. Publishing Corp., 823 F.2d 1178, 1179 (7th Cir.1987). Accordingly, appellate review of a judgment rendered under Rule 52(c) is for clear error only, and we afford the plaintiff no special deference and need not draw any inferences in his favor. See Int’l Union of Operating Engineers, Local 103 v. Indiana Constr. Corp., 13 F.3d 253, 257 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Von Zuckerstein v. Argonne Nat’l Options: A. holding that on appeal an appellate court does not have the right to weigh the evidence and decide the issue on the basis of its weight the courts duty goes no further than to determine whether the record contains any evidence tending to support the finding B. holding that under the advisory guidelines a district court should resolve factual disputes at sentencing by applying the preponderance of the evidence standard C. holding that the court of appeals must consider and weigh all of the evidence and may only set aside the finding if the evidence is so weak or if the finding is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence that it is clearly wrong and unjust D. holding that a proper review of the sufficiency of the evidence under the due process clause gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony to weigh the evidence and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts E. holding that the district court is within its prerogative to weigh the evidence resolve any conflicts in it and decide for itself where the preponderance lies

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the district court is within its prerogative to weigh the evidence resolve any conflicts in it and decide for itself where the preponderance lies
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: According to Plaintiff, this file shows that the KCDA conducted an investigation into Plaintiffs affairs during his New York state perjury case and refused to disclose the results to Plaintiff. Id. at 12-13. Plaintiff argues that this file constitutes new evidence of a Brady violation, demonstrating that the perjury prosecution was conducted in bad faith and justifying reconsideration of the Court’s November 30, 2015 Decision and Order. Id. at 13. Defendants counter that Plaintiffs arguments are a naked attempt to re-litigate Defendants’ motion to dismiss, noting that Plaintiff relies almost exclusively on argu- merits made in his brief in opposition to that motion. Opp. at 10. Defendants argue that the Second Department, i 455-56, 2015 WL 5569021, at *25 (E.D.N.Y.2015) (Brodie, J.) (<HOLDING>)). Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has Options: A. holding the fact that officers belief proved to be mistaken does not negate a finding of probable cause B. holding that in the absence of a prior indictment probable cause for arrest is determined by the facts in the sworn complaint C. holding that a suspects ability to proffer an innocent explanation for the facts does not negate probable cause D. holding that the dismissal of an indictment did not negate the presumption of probable cause E. holding under new york law that a grand jury indictment does not create a presumption of probable cause for false arrest claims

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the dismissal of an indictment did not negate the presumption of probable cause
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: claim is not reasonably expected to grow out of her actual disability claim. The key question presented by the exhaustion argument is whether Vasquez’s claim that she was “regarded as” disabled falls within the scope of her existing discrimination charge. This, in turn, depends on whether her allegations could have been “reasonably expected to grow out of [the] EEOC charge.” Dyer v. Wiregrass Hospice, L.L.C., 532 F.Supp.2d 933, 935 (M.D.Tenn.2008), citing Smith v. Ky. State Univ., 97 Fed.Appx. 22, 26 (6th Cir.2004); Ang v. Procter & Gamble Co., 932 F.2d 540, 545 (6th Cir.1991). Vasquez’s charge stated that “I was discriminated against because of my ... disability in the manner described above in violation of... Title I of the Americans with Disabilities A d 758, 786 (N.D.Ill.2007)(<HOLDING>); Larimer v. Int’l Bus. Machines, Corp., No. 02 Options: A. holding that retaliation claim was reasonably related to prior sex discrimination claim B. holding disability discrimination claim barred C. holding that regarded as claim was reasonably related to claim of discrimination on the basis of disability D. holding that allegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex E. holding that fraudulent collection on promissory note was reasonably related to breach of contract claim

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that regarded as claim was reasonably related to claim of discrimination on the basis of disability
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of educational institutions. On the other hand, it does not provide a standard for courts to follow and ensures that every nontraditional school will litigate its exemption status. Other states have adopted an even less restrictive definition of schools. In most of those jurisdictions, however, the inquiry focuses on whether the institution serves “an educational purpose.” See, e.g., McKee v. Evans, 490 P.2d 1226, 1230-31 (Alaska 1971) (granting exemption to-Apprentice and Manpower Training Trust’s nonprofit educational school because “educational purposes” were defined to “include[] systematic instruction in any and all branches of learning from which a substantial public benefit is derived”); see also J.A.T.T. Title Holding Corp. v. Roberts, 258 Ga. 519, 371 S.E.2d 861, 862 (1988) (<HOLDING>); Smith v. Feather, 149 Tex. 402, 234 S.W.2d Options: A. holding that legislation cannot prohibit school children from learning languages other than english B. holding that a rico action by union members was properly dismissed where any financial improprieties occurred with union funds and directly injured solely the union C. holding that extracurricular activities like a high school dance are within the charitable purpose of conducting a school for learning even where the organization charged admission D. holding trade school operated by union trust was seminary of learning E. recognizing that union members interests are adequately represented by the union

assistant: The best answer is D. holding trade school operated by union trust was seminary of learning
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the internal laws of the State of New York. This Agreement is executed by the Additional Originator for the benefit of the Company, and its assigns, and each of the foregoing parties may rely hereon. This Agreement shall be binding upon, and shall inure to the benefit of, the Additional Originator and its successors and permitted assigns.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Executive will not make false, malicious, disparaging remarks about Company or its employees or agents. Executive agrees s/he will not make any negative statements regarding the Company or any statements which are intended to diminish the Company’s reputation, goodwill, or ability to do business.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Plan has been adopted by the Board as of August 5, 2016, subject to the approval of the stockholders of the Company. The initial effective date of the Plan is the date the stockholders of the Company approve the Plan. The Plan shall remain in effect until terminated by action of the Board; provided, however, that no Awards may be granted hereunder after the tenth anniversary of its initial effective date.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Administrative Agent may perform any and all of its duties and exercise its rights and powers hereunder or under any other Loan Document by or through any one or more sub-agents appointed by Administrative Agent. Administrative Agent and any such sub-agent may perform any and all of its duties and exercise its rights and powers by or through their respective Related Parties. The exculpatory provisions of this Article shall apply to any such sub-agent and to the Related Parties of Administrative Agent and any such sub-agent, and shall apply to their respective activities in connection with the syndication of the Loan as well as activities as Administrative Agent. Administrative Agent shall not be responsible for the negligence or misconduct of any sub-agents except to the extent that a court of competent jurisdiction determines in a final and nonappealable judgment that Administrative Agent acted with gross negligence or willful misconduct in the selection of such sub-agents.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Upon written notice of any Dispute, the Parties shall attempt to resolve it promptly by negotiation between the senior management of the Parties who have authority to settle the Dispute within thirty (30) days after a Party sends such written notice. If such negotiations do not resolve the Dispute, the Parties shall further attempt to resolve it promptly by direct negotiation between the CEOs of each Party within sixty (60) days after a Party sends such written notice. Such CEO negotiations shall occur by video conference or, if in person, in New York City, unless the Parties agree otherwise.

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: "person" is defined in AS 23.30.045 and 055. 13 . AS 01.10.040(b). 14 . Minutes, Sen. Judiciary Comm. Hearing on S.B. 323, 23d Leg.2d Sess. at 34 (Apr. 14, 2004) (statement of Sen. Scott Ogan). 15 . Id. at 35 (testimony of Jack Miller). 16 . Id. 17 . Minutes, Sen. Judiciary Comm. Hearing on S.B. 323, 23d Leg.2d Sess. at 20 (Apr. 2, 2004) (statement of Sen. Ralph Seekins); Minutes, Sen. Judiciary Comm. Hearing on S$.B. 323, 23d Leg.2d Sess. at 9-10 (Apr. 16, 2004) (statement of Sen. Ralph Seekins). 18 . Cf. Seward Marine Servs., Inc. v. Anderson, 643 P.2d 493, 496-97 n. 8 (Alaska 1982) (noting committee testimony must have been "endorsed by the legislature or relied on" to be persuasive evidence of legislative intent). 19 . See Mustafoski v. State, 867 P.2d 824, 833-34 (Alaska App.1994) (<HOLDING>). 20 . Mech. Contractors of Alaska, Inc. v. Options: A. holding that a state is not a person within the meaning of 1983 B. holding state university is not a person under 1983 C. holding that this statute was the most analogous state statute for purposes of erisa action filed in utah D. holding kansas public employees retirement system is not as a state agency considered a person for purposes of 1983 liability E. holding state is person for purposes of judicial recusal statute

assistant: The best answer is E. holding state is person for purposes of judicial recusal statute
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 acceptance of Bank at any time and from time to time of part payment on the Indebtedness shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any Event of Default then existing. No waiver by Bank of any Event of Default shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other then-existing or subsequent Event of Default. No waiver by Bank of any of its Rights hereunder, in the other Loan Documents, or otherwise shall be considered a waiver of any other or subsequent Right of Bank. No delay or omission by Bank in exercising any Right under the Loan Documents shall impair such Right or be construed as a waiver thereof or any acquiescence therein, nor shall any single or partial exercise of any such Right preclude other or further exercise thereof, or the exercise of any other Right under the Loan Documents or otherwise.

assistant: Waivers