flwrlabs/fed-legal huggingface dataset:
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 675 (1983) (denying injunctive relief based on a speculative belief in future harm). 21 . Wetherhorn, 156 P.3d at 381. 22 . In his complaint in superior court, Maness requested an order "enjoining Judges from issuing Ex Parte orders on the whims of vindictive people." 23 . None of the cases he cites appears to be directly on point. Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (standard of proof for indefinite commitment); Evans v. McTaggart, 88 P.3d 1078 (Alaska 2004) (clear and convincing evidence standard required for granting non-parents custody of children over parents). Maness also cites Grant v. Johnson, 15 F.3d 146 (9th Cir.1994), but probably means to cite to Grant v. Johnson, 757 F.Supp. 1127 (D.Or.1991), dismissed as moot, 15 F.3d 146 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). 24 . See Thoeni v. Consumer Elec. Servs., 151 Options: A. holding that dismissal was required where overall length of prosecution was 16 months state was responsible for 13 months of delay and six months of that delay was due to simple neglect B. holding that oregons noticeofalibi rule violated defendants due process rights under fourteenth amendment where rule did not provide for reciprocal discovery C. holding that detention of approximately eight months violated due process D. holding that oregons procedure for appointment of temporary guardian for six months violated due process E. holding that it violated due process for one adjudicator to act as grand jury and judge for same defendants

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that oregons procedure for appointment of temporary guardian for six months violated due process
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: crowdtangle , inc. ( `` crowdtangle , '' `` we '' or `` us '' ) is a social analytic platform that helps publishers and media companies surface stories that matter , measure their social performance and identify influencers .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The laws of the State of Colorado govern this Agreement without regard to conflict of laws principles. Employee and the Company each hereby consents to the personal jurisdiction of the state courts located in the City and County of Denver, State of Colorado, and the federal district court sitting in the City and County of Denver, State of Colorado, if that court otherwise possesses jurisdiction over the matter, for any legal proceeding concerning Employee’s employment or termination of employment, or arising from or related to this Agreement or any other agreement executed between Employee and the Company. Should an action be brought to enforce the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting the action.

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: strictly construed. This section is procedural and compliance with its provisions is not jurisdictional. In 2007, the notice provisions relating to counties, cities, and towns were moved and reworked by the General Assembly from Va. Code § 8.01-222 to Va. Code § 15.2-209; additionally, subsection G was added at this time. 2007 Va. Acts, eh. 368; see Annual Survey of Virginia Law: Civil Practice and Procedure, 42 U. Rich. L. Rev. 229, 263 (2007). Case law prior to the 2007 amendment “espoused a doctrine of substantial compliance and some creative relay-delivery circumstances had been treated as meeting the [notice] requirements.” Kent Sinclair & Leigh B. Middleditch, Jr., Virginia Civil Procedure § 2.30[B], at 183 (6th ed. 2014); see, e.g, Miles v. Richmond, 236 Va. 341, 344-45 (1988) (<HOLDING>); Town of Crewe v. Marler, 228 Va. 109, 112 Options: A. holding that substantial compliance with notice is sufficient B. holding that strict compliance is not required C. holding that a four percent error rate constitutes substantial compliance with a statute D. holding that defective notice can be excused if there is substantial compliance with the maine tort claims E. holding that substantial compliance is sufficient to satisfy the notice requirements of sdcl 3212 and 3

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that substantial compliance with notice is sufficient
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: be applied to the fictional liability, requiring a deduction for the prepayments and credits. It is. also plausible to read the “Notwithstanding” caveat as recognizing and reinforcing a ■ distinct method of calculating the “indemnification” obligation for the not-yet-completed 2011 taxes due, disregarding the usual method of determining a “loss.”' Indeed, as we have described, section 10.02(a) creates both a tax liability -and thus an indemnification obligation where,none in fact existed because of KOR’s financial circumstances. That explicit' fiction -belies the inevitability of the parties’ intention to.apply a literal concept of “loss” to calculate the 2011- tax indemnification amount; See Mass. Mun. Wholesale Elec. Co. v. Town of Danvers, 411 Mass. 39, 577 N.E.2d 283, 294-95 (1991) (<HOLDING>). To the contrary, while section 10.01 as a Options: A. holding that absent unusual circumstances this court must apply the plain meaning of a statute B. holding that plain meaning of legislation should be conclusive C. recognizing that plain meaning does not control where context shows that the parties have assigned an unusual meaning to a term D. holding that court of appeals erred in relying on the plain meaning of a statute when the legislative history clearly indicated another meaning E. holding that a statute should where possible be construed according to its plain meaning and as a whole giving meaning to all its parts

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing that plain meaning does not control where context shows that the parties have assigned an unusual meaning to a term
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: fall within the concept of privity is that between a nonparty and party who acts as the nonparty’s representative. See Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755, 109 S.Ct. 2180, 2191 n. 2, 104 L.Ed.2d 835 (1989); Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 41(1980). 921 F.2d at 493 (citation omitted and emphasis supplied). The Court further observed in U.S. Steel that “[ojver the years, claim preclusion has been applied to a variety of representatives” such as trustee actions, class actions, and labor union acti 7th Cir.1987) (discussing doctrine of “virtual representation” which permits privity element of res judicata to be satisfied when “the party to the first suit was an adequate representative of the ... interests” of party to second suit); Jones v. Bell Helicopter Co., 614 F.2d 1389 (5th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>), abrogated on other grounds as stated in Options: A. holding res judicata inapplicable where previous dismissal was based on lack of jurisdiction B. holding that dismissal of eeocs action for failure to comply with administrative procedures act barred subsequent private action based on same claim under res judicata principles C. holding dismissal for failure to comply with rule 8 was dismissal of entire action which was appealable final order D. holding that subsequent action barred by res judicata where party had full and fair opportunity to present case before zoning board E. holding that res judicata did not preclude the subsequent filing of an action which was a permissive claim in a prior action

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that dismissal of eeocs action for failure to comply with administrative procedures act barred subsequent private action based on same claim under res judicata principles
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: defendant on the disparate treatment claim in Count I. However, because of the temporal remoteness between the plaintiffs last request for an accommodation in October 2004 and her termination in October 2005, Count III will be dismissed. Compare Woodruff v. Peters, 482 F.3d 521, 529 (D.C.Cir.2007) (finding that “a reasonable finder of fact could infer causation” where “less than a month” elapsed between protected activity and adverse employment action), with Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 273-74, 121 S.Ct. 1508, 149 L.Ed.2d 509 (2001) (finding that 20-month period between employer’s knowledge of plaintiffs protected activity and adverse employment action “suggests, by itself, no causality at all”), Coons v. Sec’y of the Treasury, 383 F.3d 879, 887-88 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>), and Richmond v. ONEOK, Inc., 120 F.3d 205, Options: A. holding the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case that the defendants failure to promote him was discriminatory where the plaintiff failed to that show he was qualified for the relevant position B. holding that a prima facie case of retaliation requires a causal link between the employees protected activity and the employers adverse employment action C. holding that where a request for an accommodation was made one year prior to demotion the distant time sequence was inadequate to show a causal link and plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case of retaliation D. holding that a plaintiff bringing a retaliation claim under title vii must establish a prima facie case of retaliation by showing that she engaged in a protected activity that she was subjected to an adverse employment action by her employer and that there was a causal link between the two E. holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because there was no evidence that the decisionmaker knew of the plaintiffs protected conduct

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that where a request for an accommodation was made one year prior to demotion the distant time sequence was inadequate to show a causal link and plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case of retaliation
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 12:01 [and you book it the day before].' ” Defendants take issue with the bracketed statement, "[and you book it the day before],” as being supplied by Plaintiffs and as not appearing in the article itself. It is clear, however, that the interview concerned Mi-croStrategy’s revenue recognition practices, and that the alteration is consistent with, and indeed invited by, the quoted portion. Thus, Defendants’ contention that the quote is not at all probative of any issue in this case is unpersuasive. ■ 39 . The Complaint also quotes the Forbes article that questioned MicroStrategy’s revenue recognition practices, in which Saylor explained, "My job is to manage the business in such a.way that nobody’s disappointed. I have lots of levers at my disposal.'1 (¶ 101.) Final (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). 47 . See MicroStrategy Brief, at 15. 48 . Options: A. recognizing cause of action for products liability in the absence of privity of contract in light of the foreseeable risk of harm caused by defective automobiles B. holding that sale by one defendant of 11 of holdings in light of absence of any sales by other defendants undermined allegations of scienter C. holding that allegations of motive and opportunity were not enough to create a strong inference of scienter D. holding that evidence of other allegations of torture was inadmissible in part because it was not similar to the allegations made by defendant E. holding that 20 of individual defendants holdings raised an inference of scienter

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that sale by one defendant of 11 of holdings in light of absence of any sales by other defendants undermined allegations of scienter
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: your notice must include your name and address , and the email address you used to set up your headspace account ( if you have one ) , and an unequivocal statement that you want to opt-out of this arbitration agreement .

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: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the payment to the Executive of the benefits provided in Section 6 upon the Executive’s termination of employment shall be subject to the execution and non-revocation by the Executive of the Company’s standard form of release in favor of the Company and its Affiliates, as in effect immediately prior to the Change in Control. Such release must be executed by the Executive within 45 days following the Date of Termination (the “Release Deadline”).

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each of Landlord and Tenant (in this Article, each a “ Representing Party ”) guarantees, warrants and represents to the other party that (a) the Representing Party is duly incorporated or otherwise established or formed and validly existing under the laws of its state of incorporation, establishment or formation, (b) the Representing Party has and is duly qualified to do business in the state in which the Property is located, (c) the Representing Party has full corporate, partnership, trust, association or other appropriate power and authority to enter into this Lease and to perform all of its obligations hereunder, (d) each person (and all of the persons if more than one signs) signing this Lease on behalf of the Representing Party is duly and validly authorized to do so and (e) neither (i) the execution, delivery or performance of this Lease nor (ii) the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby will violate or conflict with any provision of documents or instruments under which the Representing Party is constituted or to which the Representing Party is a party. In addition, Tenant guarantees, warrants and represents that none of (x) it, (y) its affiliates or partners nor (z) to the best of its knowledge, its members, shareholders or other equity owners or any of their respective employees, officers, directors, representatives or agents is a person or entity with whom U.S. persons or entities are restricted from doing business under regulations of the Office of Foreign Asset Control (“OFAC”) of the Department of the Treasury (including those named on OFAC’s Specially Designated and Blocked Persons List) or under any statute, executive order (including the September 24, 2001, Executive Order Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism) or other similar governmental action.

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: Each of the Company and the Option Holders will bear their own costs and expenses incurred in connection with the preparation, execution and performance of this Agreement and the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, including all fees and expenses of agents, representatives, financial advisors, legal counsel and accountants. The Company shall be responsible for the fees of its transfer agent; stamp taxes and all The Depository Trust Company fees associated with the issuance of the Co-Investment Securities and the securities issuable upon exercise of the Co-Investment Warrants.

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: Upon (a) delivery to the Agent of an assignment (or, to the extent applicable, an agreement incorporating such an assignment by reference pursuant to a Platform as to which the Agent and the parties to such assignment are participants), together with any consents required by Sections 13.3.1 and 13.3.2 , (b) payment of a $3,500 fee to the Agent for processing such assignment (unless the Purchaser is an Affiliate of the assigning Lender or such fee is waived by the Agent) and (c) the delivery by the Purchaser to the Agent of an Administrative Questionnaire, such assignment shall become effective on the effective date specified in such assignment. The assignment shall contain a representation by the Purchaser to the effect that none of the consideration used to make the purchase of the Commitment and Loans under the applicable assignment agreement constitutes “plan assets” as defined under ERISA and that the rights and interests of the Purchaser in and under the Loan Documents will not be “plan assets” under ERISA. On and after the effective date of such assignment, such Purchaser shall for all purposes be a Lender party to this Agreement and any other Loan Document executed by or on behalf of the Lenders and shall have all the rights and obligations of a Lender under the Loan Documents, to the same extent as if it were an original party thereto, and the transferor Lender shall be released with respect to the Commitment and Loans assigned to such Purchaser without any further consent or action by the Borrowers, the Lenders or the Agent. In the case of an assignment covering all of the assigning Lender’s rights and obligations under this Agreement, such Lender shall cease to be a Lender hereunder but shall continue to be entitled to the benefits of, and subject to, those provisions of this Agreement and the other Loan Documents which survive payment of the Obligations and termination of the applicable agreement. Any assignment or transfer by a Lender of rights or obligations under this Agreement that does not comply with this Section 13.3 shall be treated for purposes of this Agreement as a sale by such Lender of a participation in such rights and obligations in accordance with Section 13.2 . Upon the consummation of any assignment to a Purchaser pursuant to this Section 13.3.3 , the transferor Lender, the Agent and the Borrowers shall, if the transferor Lender or the Purchaser desires that its Loans be evidenced by Notes, make appropriate arrangements so that new Notes or, as appropriate, replacement Notes are issued to such transferor Lender and new Notes or, as appropriate, replacement Notes, are issued to such Purchaser, in each case in principal amounts reflecting their respective Commitments, as adjusted pursuant to such assignment.

assistant: Effective Dates
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: Andranik Chilingaryan, a native of Azerbaijan and a citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“U”) order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). To the extent we have jurisdiction it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s decision denying Chilingaryan’s asylum application as untimely. See Ramadan v. Gonzales, 427 F.8d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). We also lack jurisdiction to consider Options: A. holding that because it fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the united states court of international trade the united states court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over a matter that was protested or protestable B. holding that jurisdiction was lacking to review an ijs determination that an asylum application was untimely when that determination was based on the fact that the petitioner offered no evidence other than his own testimony regarding his date of entry C. holding that the court lacks jurisdiction where a complaint was filed more than 30 days after the filing of the summons D. holding that because the ij denied an asylum application as untimely we lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction to review the final order of removal as it pertained to the asylum claim E. holding that the court lacks jurisdiction to review the agencys determination that an asylum application was not filed within one year after the last entry into the united states

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the court lacks jurisdiction to review the agencys determination that an asylum application was not filed within one year after the last entry into the united states
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 Sub-Originator will comply with all Applicable Laws to which it may be subject if the failure to comply therewith, individually or in the aggregate, could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Compliance With 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: Inspector DiFraneo also testified to that fact. Plaintiffs proceeded on a theory that the known risk of a mulch fire caused by the careless disposal of smoking materials imposed a duty on the landlord to address it, and that defendant’s failure to address that risk caused the fire to spread to the building. As noted, there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude that defendant’s failure to act caused the fire to spread quickly to the building. The jurors were also entitled to rely on their “common knowledge of the nature of fire” in determining what facilitated the spread of the fire in terms of the mulch’s proximity to other flammable materials on the building. Levesque, 436 Mass. at 454, 766 N.E.2d 50; see also Gates, 255 Mass. at 302, 151 N.E. 320 (<HOLDING>). Here, the Court instructed the jury that Options: A. holding no municipal liability in light of city administrators ultimate authority to approve or rescind departmental personnel decisions despite evidence that the fire chief was in charge of establishing rules regula tions policies and procedures for the operation of the fire department B. holding that the operation of the established laws of nature in the familiar forms of combustion the tendency of fire to persist when once started in wood and the effects of wind on fire are matters of common knowledge C. holding that obligation to pay mortgage on home was satisfied by payment of fire insurance proceeds where husband maintained fire insurance policy D. holding that the disciplinary rules of the code of professional responsibility are not laws of the state of texas for purposes of statute which excludes the admission of evidence obtained in violation of law E. holding that the standard fire policy and a broader homeowners policy were so intertwined that the prescriptive period in the standard fire policy applied to nonfire perils

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the operation of the established laws of nature in the familiar forms of combustion the tendency of fire to persist when once started in wood and the effects of wind on fire are matters of common knowledge
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 term, covenant or condition of this Agreement, or the application thereof to any Person or circumstance, shall to any extent be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such term, covenant or condition to other Persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby, and each term, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.

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: challenged the Muskrats’ § 1983 claim, arguing that no conscience-shocking behavior had occurred. The Muskrats’ response briefs focused entirely on rebutting that argument. But those briefs also included a passing reference to the Fourth Amendment: To determine whether there is a substantive due process violation, the Court should analyze the unreasonableness of the violation of the child’s liberty interests or seizure under the 4th and 14th Amendments. Couture v. Board of Education of Albuquerque Public Schools, 535 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.2008) [ (a school discipline case litigated under both the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard and the Fourteenth Amendment’s shocks-the-conscience standard) ]; Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 674 [97 S.Ct. 1401, 51 L.Ed.2d 711] (1977) [ (<HOLDING>) ]. App. 160; 217; 306 (bracketed material Options: A. holding that schooladministered corporal punishment implicates fourteenth amendment due process rights B. holding that a hearing is not required before a junior high school imposes corporal punishment on a student C. holding that the constitutional rights in a termination proceeding are derived from the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment of the united states constitution and not the sixth amendment D. holding that juvenile pretrial detention implicates due process rights E. holding that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment incorporates the eighth amendments guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that schooladministered corporal punishment implicates fourteenth amendment due process rights
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: For the purpose of evaluating the validity of a wiretap order, this Court has established a dichotomy between preconditions and post conditions. State v. Bailey, 289 Md. 143, 152-54, 422 A.2d 1021 (1980). Preconditions include the actions that must be taken before a judge may issue an ex parte wiretap order and the inclusion of certain provisions required to be in the wiretap order. Id. at 153-54, 422 A.2d 1021. One such precondition is the requirement in § 10-408(e)(3) that “[ejvery order and extension thereof shall contain a provision that the authorization to intercept ... shall be conducted in such a way as to minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception under this subtitle.... ” See State v. Siegel, 266 Md. 256, 273-74, 292 A.2d 86 (1972) (<HOLDING>). With regard to preconditions, we said that Options: A. holding this requirement to be a precondition to obtaining intercept authority B. holding that an identical notice requirement in resource conservation and recovery act was a mandatory precondition to suit C. holding that adequate notice is a mandatory precondition of a clean water act citizen suit D. recognizing a split of authority on this issue E. holding that this time requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional

assistant: The best answer is A. holding this requirement to be a precondition to obtaining intercept 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company has all requisite authority and corporate power, governmental licenses, authorizations, consents and approvals to enter into this Agreement and each of the Transaction Documents to which the Company is a party, to consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement and each of the Transaction Documents to which the Company is a party, to perform its obligations under this Agreement and each of the Transaction Documents to which the Company is a party, and to record the transfer of the Shares and the delivery of the new certificates representing the Shares registered in the name of the Acquiror Company. The execution, delivery and performance by the Company of this Agreement and each of the Transaction Documents to which the Company is a party have been duly authorized by all necessary corporate action and do not require from the Company Board or the Shareholders any consent or approval that has not been validly and lawfully obtained. The execution, delivery and performance by the Company of this Agreement and each of the Transaction Documents to which the Company is a party requires no authorization, consent, approval, license, exemption of or filing or registration with any Governmental Authority.

assistant: Authorizations
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 properties of the Loan Parties are insured with financially sound and reputable insurance companies that are not Affiliates of the Loan Parties, in such amounts (after giving effect to any self-insurance compatible with the following standards), with such deductibles and covering such risks as are customarily carried by companies engaged in similar businesses and owning similar properties in localities where a Loan Party operates.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each party shall do and perform, or cause to be done and performed, all such further acts and things, and shall execute and deliver all such other agreements, certificates, instruments and documents, as the other party may reasonably request in order to consummate and make effective, as soon as reasonably possible, the Commencement, and to carry out the intent and accomplish the purposes of this Agreement and the consummation of the other transactions contemplated hereby.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: in no event shall uber 's total liability to you in connection with the services for all damages , losses and causes of action exceed five hundred euros ( $ 500 ) .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the relief provided by Congress under Title VII is equitable in nature, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g), and specific procedural limitations are mandated by the Act, such as trial to the bench and expeditious disposition, Congress implicitly intended to deny pendent jurisdiction over state legal claims. To date, only one appellate court has passed on this issue. In Jones v. Intermountain Power Projects, 794 F.2d 546 (10th Cir.1986), the Tenth Circuit held that Congress did not intend to negate the exercise of jurisdiction over non-Title VII claims when it enacted Title VII. The court noted that an examination of the statute “reveals nothing to suggest an intent to negate pendent jurisdiction.” Id. at 552. Cf., Bouchet v. National Urban League, 730 F.2d 799, 805-06 & n. 2 (D.C.Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). The appellants rely on the district court Options: A. holding that the concerns cited by the district courts supra justify discretionary denial of pendent jurisdiction but not deciding whether such denial is mandated by congress B. holding that appeal from denial of rule 60b motion raised for review only the district courts order of denial and not the underlying judgment itself C. holding that the federal court could not consider under 2254d1 a rationale offered by the state for the trial courts denial of the petitioners motion for selfrepresentation when that rationale would have constituted a discretionary denial of the motion D. holding that we lack jurisdiction to review a denial of adjustment of status as a discretionary matter E. holding that congress intended for district courts to review only the secretarys denial

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the concerns cited by the district courts supra justify discretionary denial of pendent jurisdiction but not deciding whether such denial is mandated by congress
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: restriction “for any period longer than set forth [therein].” Thus, according to its terms, the release became null and void when Charles Wright conveyed his interest in the property to the Bank of Prattville. Notwithstanding that conveyance, the Wrights argue that the release protects Linda Wright, the present owner of the full interest in the property. We do not agree. The subsequent conveyance by the Bank of Prattville of Charles Wright’s interest to Linda Wright would not resurrect the terminated release. Further, Linda Wright cannot receive protection as an “heir” because of the principle that one cannot be an heir during the lifetime of the person from whom one stands to inherit. Fuller v. Nichols, 219 Ala. 58, 121 So. 52 (1929). See Pattillo v. Pattillo, 414 So.2d 915 (Ala.1982) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we affirm the trial court’s judgment Options: A. recognizing that no one has a right vested inchoate or otherwise in an intestate share until the person is dead B. holding that when a constitutional right is vested in a party and there is a doubt as to whether that right has been waived the doubt should be resolved in the defendants favor C. holding a defendant is not vested with a right to be absent from trial D. holding that until the state issues a certificate of appropriation any right to use the water remains inchoate E. holding that permits only give the applicant an inchoate or contingent right to put the water to a beneficial use

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that no one has a right vested inchoate or otherwise in an intestate share until the person is dead
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if you make suggestions to vimeo on improving or adding new features to the vimeo service , vimeo shall have the right to use your suggestions without any compensation to you .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the grandfathered public employer must comply with additional provisions enumerated in Section 10-7E-26(B) of the PEBA. Section 10-7E-26(A). Thus, as long as a public employer’s system of provisions and procedures meets the two conditions for grandfather status and the written policy adopting that system has not substantially changed after January 1, 2003, the employer does not have to comply with any other provisions of the PEBA. Id.; see Montoya, 2012-NMSC-007, ¶¶ 9, 11 (stating that Section 10-7E-26(A) is a “grandfather clause” that “remove[s] from the statute’s reach a class that would otherwise be encompassed by its language” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also City of Deming v. Doming Firefighters Local 4521, 2007-NMCA-069, ¶ 6, 141 N.M. 686, 160 P.3d 595 (<HOLDING>). The PEBA defines “collective bargaining” as Options: A. recognizing that if the grandfather clause applies the peba does not apply B. holding the fourteenth amendment does not apply to the actions of the federal government C. holding that the confrontation clause does not apply to the sentencing hearing D. holding that the contracts clause article i section 10 clause 1 to the united states constitution does not apply to the actions of the federal government E. holding the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial statements

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that if the grandfather clause applies the peba does not apply
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: Seller and Buyer shall use commercially reasonable efforts to cooperate with each other (at no cost or expense to the Party whose cooperation is requested) to provide written notice to any Person under any Tenant Leases, Contracts, Licenses and Permits, and to effect any registrations or filings with any Governmental Authority or other Person, regarding the change in ownership of the Property or the Business. This Section 7.6 shall survive the Closing as well as the termination of this Agreement.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: During the Employment Term, Executive shall serve as the President of the Bank, and President and Chief Executive Officer of the Holding Company, reporting exclusively to the Holding Company’s Board of Directors (the “ Board ”). Executive shall also serve as an appointed member of Board of Directors of the Bank (the “ Bank Board ”) and the Board of Directors of the Holding Company (the “ Holding Company Board ”). In such positions, Executive shall have such duties, authority and responsibility as shall be determined from time to time by the Board and as are customarily performed by persons situated in a similar executive capacity.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: are analogous, we are required to apply Mead’s standard of review to an IRS revenue ruling. See Matz v. Household Int’l Tax Reduction Investment Plan, 265 F.3d 572, 575 (7th Cir.2001). In light of the Supreme Court’s intervening holding in Mead, we must decide whether Revenue Ruling 76-511 commands deference. We believe it does. First, the IRS’s reasoning is valid. Although the IRS’s interpretation of I.R.C. § 6511(a) may render the statute’s time limitations somewhat “illusory,” the look-back provisions of I.R.C. § 6511(b) effectively eliminate any danger of taxpayers recovering on stale claims. Every appellate court that has addressed this issue has reached the same decision as the IRS or has indicated it would do so. See Weisbart v. United States, 222 F.3d 93, 95-96 (2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Richards v. C.I.R., 37 F.3d 587, 589 (10th Options: A. holding that the taxpayer met the claim requirement where the taxpayer first filed a timely letter with the irs that requested a refund and subsequently filed a formal refund claim B. holding a taxpayer has three years from the date his return is actually filed to file a claim for refund or credit C. holding that a taxpayer only has a refund right after the irs has credited the refund to other underpaid taxes therefore the refund was not part of the bankruptcy estate D. holding statute of limitations should not be equitably tolled for taxpayer who filed a refund claim after the applicable statute of limitations E. holding under section 7422a that the district court lacked jurisdiction over a taxpayers refund claim because the taxpayer failed to file a refund claim before the statute of limitations had run

assistant: The best answer is B. holding a taxpayer has three years from the date his return is actually filed to file a claim for refund or credit
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: showing that pursuit of administrative remedies would be futile is generally sufficient to excuse a plaintiff from the exhaustion requirement. However, if a plaintiff failed in a timely fashion to pursue administrative remedies that were available and open, the plaintiff cannot later claim futility based on her inability to pursue those remedies any longer. See, e.g., Tiger v. AT & T Technologies Plan for Employees’ Pensions, Disability Benefits, 633 F.Supp. 532, 534 (E.D.N.Y.1986) (McLaughlin, L) ("[A]bsent equitable considerations, the failure to comply with reasonable time constraints prescribed by the Plan’s review procedure precludes judicial review of a claim for benefits.") (citations omitted). 8 . See Springer v. Wal-Mart Assocs. Group Health Plan, 908 F.2d 897 (11th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Ludwig v. NYNEX Serv. Co., 838 F.Supp. 769 Options: A. holding that the decision to transfer rests within the sound discretion of the court B. holding that the trial court had abused its discretion in dismissing the case without allowing appellants an opportunity to amend C. 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 D. holding mason did not take away discretion from district court to allow suit without exhaustion of administrative remedies E. holding that the decision to transfer rests within the sound discretion of the district court

assistant: The best answer is C. 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
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: except if you opt-out or for disputes relating to : ( 1 ) your or instagram 's intellectual property ( such as trademarks , trade dress , domain names , trade secrets , copyrights and patents ) ; ( 2 ) violations of the api terms ; or ( 3 ) violations of provisions 13 or 15 of the basic terms , above ( `` excluded disputes '' ) , you agree that all disputes between you and instagram ( whether or not such dispute involves a third party ) with regard to your relationship with instagram , including without limitation disputes related to these terms of use , your use of the service , and/or rights of privacy and/or publicity , will be resolved by binding , individual arbitration under the american arbitration association 's rules for arbitration of consumer-related disputes and you and instagram hereby expressly waive trial by jury .

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if you are a copyright owner and have a good faith belief that any material available through the service infringes upon your copyrights , you may submit a copyright infringement notification to duolingo pursuant to the digital millennium copyright act by providing us with the following information in writing :

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’s intellectual property including without limitation any patents, trade secrets, processes, know-how, copyrights, trade dress, trademarks and/or trade names shall remain their exclusive property and except as provided in Section 21(g) below, nothing herein shall be construed as transferring any right, title or interest of any kind or nature whatsoever thereto to the other party hereto. Furthermore, Supplier hereby agrees that the Specifications are owned exclusively by Insulet and nothing herein shall be construed as transferring any right, title or interest of any kind or nature whatsoever thereto to Supplier. Except as specifically provided herein, neither party shall use in any way, the intellectual property of the other party, and will not do any act which would in any way infringe upon or be in derogation of the validity of such other party’s intellectual property and will notify the other party of any conflicting claims that challenge any intellectual property of such party that it is aware of.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: During the term of this Agreement, but subject at all times to the ability to satisfy a put of Common Units from A/N for cash in lieu of exchanging such Common Units for shares of Class A Common Stock pursuant to the LLC Agreement and Exchange Agreement (it being understood that, if and when such cash-out right is exercised in respect of Common Units, Liberty shall be entitled to purchase shares of Class A Common Stock on the terms set forth in Section 4.9 of the Stockholders Agreement), A/N (including any Permitted Transferee) (as applicable, the “ Transferor ”) shall not Transfer any Covered Securities, except to a Permitted Transferee (subject to Section 3(a)(ii) ), unless it shall first comply with the following provisions.

assistant: Terms