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: Unless otherwise required by applicable law or stock exchange requirements (based upon the reasonable advice of counsel), no Party shall make any public announcements in respect of this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby or otherwise communicate with any news media without the prior written consent of the other Party (which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed), and the Parties shall cooperate as to the timing and contents of any such announcement.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: been ... and it need not be.” Id. 594 F.2d at 488. Similarly, a District of Columbia district court has established a legal standard for waiver of further confidential treatment of an exempt document that requires that the requester demonstrate “that the withheld information has already been specifically revealed to the public and that it appears to duplicate that being withheld.” United States Student Ass’n v. CIA, 620 F.Supp. 565 (D.D.C.1985) (emphasis added); see Dow, Lohnes & Albertson v. Presidential Comm’n, 624 F.Supp. 572 (D.D.C.1984). This standard has been affirmed generally by the D.C. Circuit. See Afshar v. Department of State, 702 F.2d 1125, 1133 (D.C.Cir.1983). Other courts have reached similar conclusions. See Stein v. Dep’t of Justice, 662 F.2d 1245, 1259 (7th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>); Nissen Foods, Co. v. NLRB, 540 F.Supp. 584, Options: A. recognizing common law right of access to judicial documents B. recognizing a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents including judicial records and documents C. holding that by exercising its discretion to make public some classified documents the government does not waive any right it has to withhold other properly classified documents of a similar nature 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 it was appropriate for the district court to refer to the documents attached to the motion to dismiss since the documents were referred to in the complaint

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that by exercising its discretion to make public some classified documents the government does not waive any right it has to withhold other properly classified documents of a similar nature
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: Interest and fees hereunder shall be computed on the basis of a year of (a) for LIBOR Rate Loans, 360 days and for the actual number of days elapsed, and (b) for Base Rate Loans, 365 or 366 days, as applicable, and for the actual number of days elapsed. If any payment to be made hereunder becomes due and payable on a day other than a Business Day, the due date thereof shall be extended to the next succeeding Business Day and interest thereon shall be payable at the Revolving Interest Rate for Domestic Rate Loans during such extension.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: immigration document under § 1546(a) to constitute a continuing offense, it easily could have stated so. See Toussie, 397 U.S. at 120, 90 S.Ct. 858 (noting that congressional silence on whether a crime is a continuing offense supports the conclusion that it is not). In addition, unlike other statutes that have been held to proscribe a continuing offense, § 1546(a) does not include language which would indicate that the offense involves ongoing conduct. See Toussie, 397 U.S. at 120, 90 S.Ct. 858 (“Unlike other instances in which this Court has held that a particular statute describes a continuing offense, there is no language in this Act that clearly contemplates a prolonged course of conduct.”); see, e.g., United States v. Cores, 356 U.S. 405, 408-09, 78 S.Ct. 875, 2 L.Ed.2d 873 (1958) (<HOLDING>). Citing the principle that each term in a Options: A. holding that the phrase resident alien means an alien lawfully residing in the united states B. holding that because a 1326 violation constitutes a continuing offense venue may lie in any district in which the continuing conduct occurred C. holding that the plaintiff should have brought her lawsuit in the court of federal claims because she advanced a contract claim against the united states in excess of 10000 D. recognizing that the plain language of 1326a establishes that a previously deported alien who illegally enters and remains in the united states can violate the statute at three different points in time namely when the alien 1 enters 2 attempts to enter or 3 is at any time found in the united states E. holding that punishment of any alien crewman who willfully remains in the united states in excess of the number of days allowed is a continuing offense

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that punishment of any alien crewman who willfully remains in the united states in excess of the number of days allowed is a continuing offense
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Prior to the issuance or delivery of Common Stock in connection with the vesting of the RSUs, payment must be made by the Participant of any federal, state, local or other taxes that become due on account of the Award. Such obligations shall be satisfied by withholding whole shares of Common Stock with an aggregate Fair Market Value equal to such obligations, unless the Participant makes other arrangements for withholding with the Company. The amount that is calculated for withholding shall not exceed the maximum withholding rate. Any fractional share of Common Stock remaining shall be paid in cash to the Participant.

assistant: Tax Withholdings
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 is governed by and is to be construed, administered, and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Maryland, without regard to conflicts of law principles. If under the governing law, any portion of this Agreement is at any time deemed to be in conflict with any applicable statute, rule, regulation, ordinance, or other principle of law, such portion shall be deemed to be modified or altered to the extent necessary to conform thereto or, if that is not possible, to be omitted from this Agreement. The invalidity of any such portion shall not affect the force, effect, and validity of the remaining portion hereof.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 25-34. Second, the Government has admitted that it made a mistake in failing to invoke FOIA Exemptions 7(C), 7(D), and 7(F) in the district court, acknowledging that it “did not fulfill its responsibility under FOIA in a timely fashion.” Appellees’ Br. at 12-13. The Government’s behavior in this case, moreover, is far more consistent with simple human error than with the kind of tactical maneuvering we disapproved in Maydak. To begin with, at the time this litigation commenced, Maydak had not yet been decided, and under then-governing law, the Government might quite plausibly have believed that it could rely solely on Exemption 7(A) without reviewing its voluminous investigative file on August to determine whether other exemptions might apply. See Senate of Puerto Rico, 823 F.2d at 581 (<HOLDING>). Indeed, Maydak was not decided until well Options: A. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling whether to proceed with a declaratory judgment action B. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in changing the surname of the child where the court made factual findings that the name change would be in the best interest of the child C. holding that the district courts decision whether to remand for further proceedings or payment of benefits is discretionary and is subject to review for abuse of discretion D. holding that the decision whether to apply the exhaustion requirement in an erisa case is committed to the district courts sound discretion but that the district court abused its discretion by not dismissing the suit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies E. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the government to invoke other foia exemptions after its initial reliance on 7a collapsed and leaving open the question of whether the conclusion of lawenforcement proceedings constitutes a substantial change in the factual context of the case sufficient to invoke an appellate courts section 2106 discretion to remand

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the government to invoke other foia exemptions after its initial reliance on 7a collapsed and leaving open the question of whether the conclusion of lawenforcement proceedings constitutes a substantial change in the factual context of the case sufficient to invoke an appellate courts section 2106 discretion to remand
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: As of the Effective Date, subject to Section 3.1(f) , Endocyte shall be solely responsible for the Development of the Compound and Product in the Field in the Territory, including all Development and Commercialization Costs, and ABX shall have no obligations with respect thereto. For the avoidance of doubt, Endocyte shall have final decision-making authority over any disputes arising out of the Development of the Compound or Product.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in the judgment the trial court ordered that the parties divide the children’s medical expenses that had been previously incurred and paid. The court also reserved jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees and costs. We conclude that the reasoning provided in the final judgment does not support the inequitable distribution of marital assets. Therefore, we reverse the equitable distribution and remand for the trial court to identify, value, and equitably distribute the parties’ assets and make findings in accordance with section 61.075(1) and (3). See Silverman, 940 So.2d at 617-18. ALIMONY The Wife correctly contends that the trial court committed an error of law in denying her request for alimony, and this error is apparent on the face of the judgment. See Silverman, 940 So.2d at 616 (<HOLDING>). The Wife sought rehabilitative alimony, and Options: A. recognizing that the appellate court may reverse an error of law on the face of the judgment when the record contains no transcript of the final hearing B. recognizing appellate court may not reverse a summary judgment on a basis not raised by the appellant on appeal C. holding that the court of appeals may not reverse a trial courts judgment in the absence of properly assigned error D. holding that the lack of evidence that the magistrate judge examined the trial transcript in its sufficiencyoftheevidence analysis left the court no alternative but to reverse the denial of habeas relief and remand for review of the transcript E. recognizing that appellate court may reverse trial courts judgment when it is based on an erroneous conclusion of law

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that the appellate court may reverse an error of law on the face of the judgment when the record contains no transcript of the final hearing
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: you can reactivate the skype credit by following the reactivation link at http://www.skype.com/go/store.reactivate.credit .

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: may be described either as a bequest or as a distribution. Since the parties' rights are the same in either event, we refer throughout to Ms. Krauss as the testator and to the gift as a bequest 5 . Here, the authorities are divided and are thus of little help. 6 . Of course, a testator might leave a bequest for the specific purpose of enabling a charita- . ble organization, whether or not solvent, to pay its debts. That sort of bequest is beyond the scope of this opinion. 7 . Our emphasis on the testator’s intent is buttressed by our- knowledge that, under Massachusetts law, a testator could expressly include a provision in her will precluding a bankrupt charity from taking thereunder. See Springfield Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Friele, 304 Mass. 224, 23 N.E.2d 138, 141 (1939) (<HOLDING>). 8 . In the case of charities, a named Options: A. holding that a testator is generally entitled to place such conditions and limitations on a bequest as she sees fit B. holding a bequest to foreign school district not deductible for estate tax purposes C. holding that the district court did not err in failing to address the defendant personally to determine whether she understood the rights she was waiving by admitting that she violated the conditions of her probation D. holding that a plaintiff can show that she is qualified by presenting credible evidence that she continued to possess the objective qualifications she held when she was hired E. holding that even where rule in question admits of two interpreta tions agency is entitled to interpret its rule as it sees fit

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a testator is generally entitled to place such conditions and limitations on a bequest as she sees fit
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 refrain from speaking “applies ... equally to statements of fact the speaker would rather avoid,” Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 573, 115 S.Ct. 2338, 132 L.Ed.2d 487 (1995). The compelled speech at issue here raises particularly troubling First Amendment concerns. At bottom, the disclaimer portrays abortion as one among a menu of morally equivalent choices. While that may be the City’s view, it is not the Center’s. The message conveyed is antithetical to the very moral, religious, and ideological reasons the Center exists. Its avowed mission is to “provid[e] alternatives to abortion.” J.A. 360. Its “pro-life Christian beliefs permeate all that the Center does.” J.A. 354. Its staff and volunteers are trained “in encoura 75 L.Ed. 1357 (1931) (<HOLDING>). But over time, adjunct First Amendment rights Options: A. holding that a state may not exercise a prior restraint on publishing a newspaper B. holding that unlawful restraint could not even be an included offense C. holding that prior restraint analysis applies to commercial speech but that the general health claim regulation 21 cfr 10114 was sufficiently welldefined to survive prior restraint analysis D. recognizing that courts should exercise judicial restraint in a facial challenge E. holding that a regulation was not a prior restraint because it did not authorize suppression of speech in advance of its expression

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a state may not exercise a prior restraint on publishing a newspaper
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: applies to Freeman’s conduct Freeman contends that “the circumstance relied upon by the court, that [Freeman] was planning on robbing [the undercover agent], was not one which is ‘not identified in the guidelines’ ” because § 2K2.1(b)(6) covers the use or possession of a firearm in combination with another offense. He argues, in other words, that the planned robbery of the undercover agent was just the sort of “other offense” contemplated by the Guidelines. Freeman is correct that § 5K2.0(a)(2)(B) does not apply to conduct that could be punished by another Guidelines provision because, in such a situation, the conduct at issue cannot be considered “a circumstance that the Commission has not identified in the guidelines.” See United States v. Waugh, 207 F.3d 1098, 1101 (8th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). But the district court’s imposition of the § Options: A. holding that the defendants substantial rights were not affected by a sentencing guidelines enhancement even in the absence of a specific finding by the district court because the evidence amply supported the enhancement B. holding without discussion that the district court erred by applying the numberofweapons enhancement to an offense underlying the defendants 924c conviction C. holding that application of 2a31 is appropriate even when the victim is fictional as an enhancement for a fictitious victim is consistent with the utilitarian purpose of the enhancement D. holding that the district court erred in imposing an enhancement under the 5k20 departure provision where an enhancement under the separate guidelines provision for restraining a victim during the course of an offense would have been appropriate E. holding that where mandatory life sentence enhancement was the tail which wags the dog of defendants firearm conviction which raised constitutional due process issues the district court had authority to consider a downward departure under section 5k20 of the guidelines

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the district court erred in imposing an enhancement under the 5k20 departure provision where an enhancement under the separate guidelines provision for restraining a victim during the course of an offense would have been appropriate
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 substantive immunity. The state of Alabama has long embraced the rule of “substantive immunity” as a matter of public policy. Nunnelee v. City of Decatur, 643 So.2d 543 (Ala.1994); see Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (1985). Substantive Immunity “shields [city police] officers from liability in the exercise of their discretionary decision-making functions.” Nunnelee, 643 So.2d at 543. The court has already noted in this opinion that Sanders was behaving well within his discretionary authority when he placed Rose under arrest for disorderly conduct in violation § 13A-11-7 of the Alabama Code (1995), and, therefore, the court finds that Sanders is entitled to substantive immunity against Rose’s claims of false imprisonment. See Lightfoot v. Floyd, 667 So.2d 56 (Ala.1995) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the court finds that defendant’s Options: A. holding that a videotaped interview between the child and an investigator was admissible B. holding that a police investigator detaining plaintiff for questioning was exercising a discretionary function C. holding trunk search was for general exploration not for detaining prisoner or preventing escape D. holding that videotaped interview between child and investigator was admissible E. holding police violated edwards when they continued questioning a defendant after his initial invocation of the right to counsel even though he responded to the subsequent questioning

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a police investigator detaining plaintiff for questioning was exercising a discretionary function
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: Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the Company shall pay Employee, and Employee shall accept, an annual base salary (“Base Salary”) of no less than Four Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars ($480,000.00). The Base Salary shall be paid in accordance with Company’s normal payroll practices (but no less frequently than monthly) and may be increased from time to time at the sole discretion of the Company.

assistant: Base Salary
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: further , by accessing and using our services , you understand and agree that your personal data ( as that term is defined in our privacy policy ) and user-generated content ( defined below ) that is shared with a service may also be shared among the entirety of under armour and its other services .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each party shall indemnify the other party against any loss, cost or damages (including reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses) incurred as a result of such party’s breach of any representation, warranty, covenant or agreement set forth in this Agreement.

assistant: Indemnifications
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: Montes was not the addressee, therefore, the service of process was defective. Under Rule 107, when a citation is served by registered or certified mail as authorized under Rule 106, the return by the officer or authorized person must contain the return receipt with the addressee’s signature. Tex.R. Civ. P. 107. In Pharmakinetics Laboratories, Inc. v. Katz, the court held that a domestic return receipt signed by Charlotte Young, while the name of the appointee designated to receive service for defendant was listed as Steve Woodman, was invalid. Pharmaki-netics Laboratories, Inc., 717 S.W.2d at 706. The discrepancy rendered service of process invalid since the record on its face showed that the return was not signed by the person appointed. Id.; see also Keeton, 53 S.W.3d at 19 (<HOLDING>); Bronze & Beautiful, Inc. v. Mahone, 750 Options: A. holding service of process defective when the return receipt is not signed by the addressee B. holding that trial rule 415f will not cure defective service of process where no person authorized by the rules was actually served C. holding that a party loses its right to contest default final judgment on grounds of defective service of process by entering general appearance unless it also contests service of process or raises issue of personal jurisdiction D. holding that service of notice of lien statements on homeowners was sufficient even though endorsement stated return receipt requested instead of return receipt requested showing address where delivered where service was handled in same manner and where homeowners received and signed for address shown on return receipt moreover actual notice was sufficient under statute E. holding service of process defective when the receipt card was signed by someone who was not the registered agent

assistant: The best answer is A. holding service of process defective when the return receipt is not signed by the addressee
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: as a fixed list of requirements.” 55 Fed.Reg. at 8793. The court therefore disagrees with Cooper’s suggestion that this case can be decided on the basis of a simple comparison of Aviall’s conduct with the “potentially relevant” provisions that the NCP cites. The fact that Aviall did not adhere to particular provisions of the NCP is not controlling, and the court declines to undertake the potentially antially comply with the NCP, have emphasized what the party did, without explaining why the actions were sufficient. See La.-Pac. Corp., 24 F.3d at 1576 (emphasizing various meetings that party had held, along with fact that feasibility study was made publicly available at party’s office). But while a guiding principle is not always expressed, 7 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1168 (C.D.Cal.2003) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 433 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir.2006); Norfolk Options: A. holding that the ncp public participation requirement was fulfilled because the indiana department of environmental management gave public notice and received public comments before issuing an npdes permit for the cleanup even if it did not hold a public hearing B. holding that public participation requirement was satisfied in part because the ncp policy is to allow potentially responsible parties an opportunity to comment before costs are incurred and no prps were denied an opportunity to comment C. holding that the department of transportation was liable under the mtca but that it was not responsible for any of the cleanup costs D. holding that government involvement must be accompanied by public comment because a purpose of ncp is to ensure that those responsible for the cleanup receive citizens input regarding environmental conditions in the community E. holding that significant involvement of government agency charged with protecting public environmental interest satisfies public participation requirement in certain circumstances

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that government involvement must be accompanied by public comment because a purpose of ncp is to ensure that those responsible for the cleanup receive citizens input regarding environmental conditions in the community
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: and reinvest the proceeds. “Courts may not permit the positing of transactions which are unlikely and plainly contrary to the economic interest of a hypothetical buyer.” Estate of Smith v. Comm’r, 198 F.3d 515, 529 (5th Cir.1999), citing Eisenberg, 155 F.3d at 57. The Tax Court’s internally inconsistent assumptions, that a hypothetical purchaser of Johnco stock would engage in long-range timber production even though the Timber Property’s annual rate of return is substantially lower than the investor’s required return, fatally flawed its decision to discount s, proximity, and time, the more probative it is of value. Id. Courts have observed, however, that agreed valuations near in time to a decedent’s death are not conclusive. United States v. Simmons, 346 F.2d 213, 216 (5th Cir.1965) (<HOLDING>); First Nat’l Bank of Kenosha v. United States, Options: A. holding that a decedents tax settlement with the irs did not establish the value of his estates claim against the irs as a matter of law B. holding that irs claim for taxes and claim of debtor against irs for violation of automatic stay did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence C. holding that the irss full participation in the bankruptcy proceeding in relation to an income tax debt did not bar it from collecting a gift tax debt that had also been listed in the debtors schedules where the irs did not file a proof of claim and the debtor did not force the irs into the proceeding on the gift tax debt D. holding that irs was bound by plan and bankruptcy codes method of determining amount of nondischargeable claim where irs had filed proof of claim for nondischargeable tax debt E. holding that the irs has a law enforcement purpose in the context of a criminal tax investigation

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a decedents tax settlement with the irs did not establish the value of his estates claim against the irs as a matter of law
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Employer shall pay or reimburse Executive for all reasonable expenses actually incurred or paid by Executive during the Term in connection with the performance of Executive’s services hereunder upon presentation of expense statements, vouchers or other supporting documentation as Employer may require of Executive; provided that, such expenses are otherwise in accordance with Employer’s policies applicable to members of the Key Executive. Executive shall undertake such travel as may be required in the performance of Executive’s duties pursuant to this Agreement. Under no circumstances shall the Employer’s reimbursement for expenses incurred in a calendar year be made later than the end of the next following calendar year; provided, however, this requirement shall not alter the Employer’s obligation to reimburse Executive for eligible expenses on a current basis.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: To induce each Lender to make Advances from time to time and the Administrative Agent to take any action required to be performed by it hereunder, the Borrower makes the following representations and warranties to each Lender and the Administrative Agent on the Restatement Effective Date, each Reinvestment Date and each Advance Date, each and all of which shall survive the execution and delivery of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provision of this Agreement, or the application thereof to any Person or entity or any circumstance, is invalid or unenforceable in any jurisdiction, so long as no party is deprived of the benefits of this Agreement in any material respect: (i) a suitable and equitable provision shall be substituted therefor in order to carry out, so far as may be valid and enforceable, the extent and purpose of such invalid and unenforceable provision, and (ii) the remainder of this Agreement and the application of such provision to other Persons, entities or circumstances shall not be affected by such invalidity or unenforceability, nor shall such invalidity or unenforceability affect the validity or enforceability of such provision, or the application thereof, in any other jurisdiction.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Neither this Agreement nor any other Loan Document may be amended, changed, waived, discharged or terminated, nor shall any consent or approval of Lender be granted hereunder, unless such amendment, change, waiver, discharge, termination, consent or approval is in writing signed by JPP or such other Lender as may be designated in the applicable intercreditor, participation or co-lender agreement among the Lenders.

assistant: Modifications
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: against it, see, e.g., Van Westrienen v. Americontinental Collection Corp., 94 F.Supp.2d 1087, 1109 (D. Or. 2000), but a finding of adoptive approval of a third party’s statement must be decided in light of the circumstances surrounding the statement’s use. Shemman v. 1074, 1078 (10th Cir. 1985) (finding that newspaper articles were admissible under rule 801(d)(2)(B) where the defendant reprinted and distributed articles that made- representations about the defendant’s financial condition because “[b]y- reprinting the newspaper articles and distributing them to persons with whom clefendants were doing business, defendants unequivocally manifested their adoption of the inflated statements made in the 'newspaper' articles”); Grundberg v. Upjohn Co., 137 F.R.D. 365, 370 (D. Utah 1991) (<HOLDING>). Thus, a website link alone cannot be Options: A. holding that expert reports were not required to mention the defendant hospital because reports were based upon the actions of hospital physicians B. recognizing that we have consistently held that a party who wishes to introduce evidence of past false reports of sexual assault bears the threshold burden of establishing the falsity of the past reports C. holding corporate officer liable as aider and abettor in filing of false reports even though reports were not authorized or approved of by officers D. holding that court was within its discretion to refuse to consider reports that did not meet the supreme courts standards for admitting reports into evidence E. holding that a party adopted clinical reports by nonparty physicians when it used the reports to help secure fda approval of new drug

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a party adopted clinical reports by nonparty physicians when it used the reports to help secure fda approval of new drug
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: you may not use any amazon service if you are the subject of u.s. sanctions or of sanctions consistent with u.s. law imposed by the governments of the country where you are using amazon services .

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: Inc., 898 F.2d 1096, 1100 (5th Cir.1990) (“We accord no deference to the [plan administrator’s] conclusions as to the controlling law, which involve statutory interpretation.”) ERISA’s anti-cutback rule provides, with certain exceptions not relevant here, that “[t]he accrued benefit of a participant under a plan may not be decreased by an amendment of the plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1054(g)(1). The rule applies to the participant’s basic accrued benefit, as well as to accrued early retirement benefits, retirement-type subsidies, and optional forms of benefits. 29 U.S.C. § 1054(g)(2). Such benefits may only be eliminated or reduced by amendment on a prospective basis, i.e., with respect to benefits that have not yet accrued. See, e.g., Campbell v. BankBoston, 327 F.3d 1, 8-9 (1st Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). This case is unique because Plaintiffs are Options: A. holding that an erisa violation accrued each time faulty investment contracts were renewed because erisa fiduciaries had a continuing duty to review plan investments B. holding that the claims to a statutory benefit had not yet vested when the legislature eliminated the benefit C. holding that retirement benefits are accrued benefits under erisa D. holding that elimination of a future expected benefit that has not yet accrued does not constitute an erisa violation E. holding that federal common law of erisa preempts state law in the interpretation of erisa benefit plans

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that elimination of a future expected benefit that has not yet accrued does not constitute an erisa violation
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: § 9543.1. Thus, under Section 9543.1(a): The statute sets forth several threshold requirements to obtain DNA testing: (1) the evidence specified must be available for testing on the date of the motion; (2) if the evidence was discovered prior to the applicant’s conviction, it was not already DNA tested because (a) technology for testing did not exist at the time of the applicant’s trial; (b) the applicant’s counsel did not request testing in a case that went to verdict before January 1, 1995; or (c) counsel sought funds from the court to pay for the testing because his client was indigent, and the court refused the request despite the . client’s indigency. B. Williams, supra at 49 (citing 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 9543.1(a)(2)). See also Commonwealth v. Perry, 959 A.2d 932 (Pa.Super.2008) (<HOLDING>). Additionally: The text of the statute set Options: A. holding pcra counsel was not ineffective for declining to pursue postconviction dna testing where technology for testing existed at time of trial verdict came after january 1 1995 and court had not refused request for funds for testing consequently appellant could not have met his threshold burden under section 95431a2 B. holding that there is no postconviction due process right to biological evidence for purposes of dna testing C. holding that no 1983 claim exists for injunctive relief to compel dna testing D. holding that trial delay for dna testing was attributable to the state but was mere negligence E. holding that a claim seeking dna testing is cognizable under section 1983

assistant: The best answer is A. holding pcra counsel was not ineffective for declining to pursue postconviction dna testing where technology for testing existed at time of trial verdict came after january 1 1995 and court had not refused request for funds for testing consequently appellant could not have met his threshold burden under section 95431a2
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: v. Nelson, 409 N.W.2d 222, 224 (Minn.App.1987); cf. McCollum v. Western Nat’l Mut. Ins. Co., 597 N.W.2d 307, 309 (Minn.App.1999) (right to appeal not waived by involuntarily satisfied judgment). Because the judgment against Waddill was involuntarily satisfied, her motion to vacate was not moot and should not have been dismissed. We note that Reardon was decided before Dorso and that the broad language of Dorso may suggest that the supreme court implicitly rejected the Reardon exception for involuntarily satisfied judgments. We do not believe this was the court’s intent, however. While the court has made clear that the Dorso rule is to have broad application, it also has recognized circumstances in which the rule does not apply. See Jorissen v. Miller, 399 N.W.2d 82, 84 (Minn.1987) (<HOLDING>). The majority rule on the right to appeal Options: A. holding art v 8b does not apply to judgments rendered by the office of workers compensation B. holding that the discovery rule does not apply to bill of review claims to set aside probate judgments C. holding that the requirements of title iii apply and must be satisfied D. recognizing that judgments of arizona courts on foreign judgments will not be conclusive in the jurisdiction of origin E. holding rule does not apply to satisfied conciliationcourt judgments

assistant: The best answer is E. holding rule does not apply to satisfied conciliationcourt judgments
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 Royalty Right Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same Royalty Right Agreement. Any counterpart may be executed by facsimile or other electronic transmission, and such facsimile or other electronic transmission shall be deemed an original.

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: Each Subsidiary Guarantor shall remain obligated hereunder notwithstanding that, without any reservation of rights against any Subsidiary Guarantor and without notice to or further assent by any Subsidiary Guarantor, any demand for payment of any of the Obligations made by the Administrative Agent or any Lender Party may be rescinded by the Administrative Agent or such Lender Party and any of the Obligations continued, and the Obligations, or the liability of any other Person upon or for any part thereof, or any collateral security or guarantee therefor or right of offset with respect thereto, may, from time to time, in whole or in part, be renewed, extended, amended, modified, accelerated, compromised, waived, surrendered or released by the Administrative Agent or any Lender Party, and this Agreement and the other Loan Documents and any other documents executed and delivered in connection herewith or therewith may be amended, modified, supplemented or terminated, in whole or in part, as the Administrative Agent (or the Required Lenders or all Lenders, as the case may be) may deem advisable from time to time, and any guarantee or right of offset at any time held by any Agent or Lender Party for the payment of the Obligations may be sold, exchanged, waived, surrendered or released.

assistant: Amendments
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 the Executive’s employment is terminated by the Company by reason of the Executive’s Disability during the Employment Period, this Agreement shall terminate without further obligations to the Executive, other than for (i) payment of Accrued Obligations, (ii) the timely payment or provision of Other Benefits, (iii) payment of the Pro Rata Bonus, (iv) the Welfare Benefits, and (v) the Equity Benefits. Accrued Obligations shall be paid to the Executive or his estate or beneficiary, as applicable, in a lump sum in cash within 30 days of the Date of Termination and the Pro Rata Bonus shall be paid to the Executive or his estate or beneficiary, as applicable, on the date specified in Section 5(a)(i). With respect to the provision of Other Benefits, the term Other Benefits as utilized in this Section 5(c) shall include, and the Executive shall be entitled after the Disability Effective Date to receive, disability and the continued provision of Welfare Benefits.

assistant: 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: verdict. I am allowed to bring up anything else — the law says — that I want to bring up. I had mentioned this to you before at the trial. He has a girlfriend who — I think he said— who he is still going with. He wants to live. (Tr. 1/26/82, at 137-38). 60 . The evidence concerning Jermyn’s mother was particularly relevant because he had been convicted of killing her. Id. 61 . This is Claim 2 in Pursell's Memorandum of Law. Dkt. no. 26, Claim 2, at 57. 62 . Although Maynard was decided two and a half years after Pursell’s conviction became final, Maynard was not a new rule in 1985. See Stringer v. Black, 503 U.S. 222, 228-29, 112 S.Ct. 1130, 117 L.Ed.2d 367 (1992). Reliance on this decision is neither barred by Teague, id., nor by AEDPA itself, Williams, 529 U.S. at 412, 120 S.Ct. 1495 (<HOLDING>). 63 . The prosecutor even referred to injuries Options: A. holding that clearly established federal law as determined by the supreme court under aedpa is the law at the time of the statecourt adjudication on the merits not at the time the conviction becomes final B. recognizing privilege under federal rules C. holding that a change between old and new rules was fundamental to a degree that impacts our jurisdiction over the plaintiffs challenges to the old rules D. recognizing the test set forth in strickland as clearly established law for aedpa purposes E. holding that old rules under teague constitute clearly established federal law under aedpa

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that old rules under teague constitute clearly established federal law under aedpa
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 the prior supplemental hearing, claimant indicated that the medication he was taking for pain was Extra Strength Tylenol and Extra Strength Excedrin, both nonprescription medicines. At the latest supplemental hearing, claimant testified that he was taking Nalfon, which the Physician’ 7) (stating that evidence of conservative treatment permits the ALJ to discount the claimant’s testimony regarding the severity of an impairment); Sienkiewicz v. Barnhart, 409 F.3d 798, 804 (7th Cir.2005) (noting with approval the ALJ’s consideration of the nature of plaintiffs treatment as having been “routine and conservative” in making his credibility decision) (internal quotation marks omitted); Knepp v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 78, 83 (3d Cir.2000) (same); Wolfe v. Chater, 86 F.3d 1072, 1078 (11th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Fourth, and finally, as to Appellant’s Options: A. holding that a history of conservative medical treatment undermines allegations of disabling symptoms B. holding that a physicians conservative medical treatment for a particular condition tends to negate a claim of disability C. holding that opting for conservative treatment instead of surgery is not substantial evidence that the claimant was not disabled D. holding that a claimant establishes a prima facie case for compensable medical treatment where a qualified physician indicates treatment was necessary for a workrelated condition E. holding that emtala does not provide a private cause of action against individual physicians or against physicians medical corporations

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a physicians conservative medical treatment for a particular condition tends to negate a claim of disability