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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Lenders and the Administrative Agent shall have received all fees required to be paid, and all reasonable expenses for which invoices have been presented (including the reasonable fees and expenses of legal counsel), on or before the Closing Date and (ii) each Departing Lender shall have received payment in full of all of the “Obligations” under the Prior Credit Agreement that are owing to it (other than obligations to pay fees and expenses with respect to which the Borrower has not received an invoice, contingent indemnity obligations and other contingent obligations owing to it under the “Loan Documents” as defined in the Prior Credit Agreement).

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If the Executive’s employment is terminated by reason of the Executive’s death during the Employment Period, the Company shall provide the Executive’s estate or beneficiaries with the Accrued Obligations and the Pro Rata Bonus and the timely payment or delivery of the Other Benefits, and shall have no other severance obligations under this Agreement. The Accrued Obligations (subject to the proviso set forth in Section 6(a)(1)(A) to the extent applicable) and the Pro Rata Bonus shall be paid to the Executive’s estate or beneficiary, as applicable, in a lump sum in cash within 30 days of the Date of Termination. With respect to the provision of the Other Benefits, the term “Other Benefits” as utilized in this Section 6(b) shall include, without limitation, and the Executive’s estate and/or beneficiaries shall be entitled to receive, benefits (either pursuant to a plan, program, practice or policy or an individual arrangement) at least equal to the most favorable benefits provided by the Company and the affiliated companies to the estates and beneficiaries of peer executives of the Company and such affiliated companies under such plans, programs, practices and policies relating to death benefits, if any, as in effect with respect to other peer executives and their beneficiaries at any time during the 120-day period immediately preceding the Effective Date or, if more favorable to the Executive’s estate and/or the Executive’s beneficiaries, as in effect on the date of the Executive’s death with respect to other peer executives of the Company and its affiliated companies and their beneficiaries.

assistant: Death
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 Participant recognizes and acknowledges that the opportunity to earn compensation or receive shares of Company stock under this Award Agreement is adequate consideration for the covenants set forth in this Paragraph 14. The Participant further acknowledges that the Company has no adequate remedy at law should the Participant violate or threaten to or attempt to violate any one or more of the covenants in this Paragraph 14 and the Participant agrees that the Company is entitled to an injunction or other equitable relief restraining the Participant from violating or threatening to or attempting to violate any one or more of the covenants set forth in Paragraph 14.

assistant: 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In no event shall the termination of the Executive’s employment by the Company or any such termination by the Executive pursuant to this Agreement release any claim by the Executive for indemnification that he is otherwise entitled to under any director or officer’s insurance policy or any articles, bylaws or other foundation documents of the Company. Without limiting the foregoing, the Company shall provide Executive with reasonable director’s and officer’s insurance coverage that is at least as favorable as the coverage in existence on the date of this Agreement (the “ Existing D&O Coverage ”); provided, however, that in no event shall the Company be obligated to maintain director’s and officer’s insurance coverage to the extent that premiums thereunder exceed 200% of the premiums payable by the Company under the Existing D&O Coverage on the date hereof (the “ Threshold ”); provided, further, that to the extent such premiums exceed the foregoing Threshold, the Company shall obtain director’s and officer’s insurance coverage on terms as similar as reasonably practicable to the terms of the Existing D&O Coverage without exceeding the Threshold. Such insurance coverage shall continue in effect during the Employment Period and after the Employment Period ends for a period of six (6) years thereafter. The cost of such coverage shall be paid by the Company. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, upon the occurrence of a Change of Control, the obligations set forth in this section shall terminate, provided that the Company shall (x) secure “tail insurance” with respect to the Existing D&O Insurance on reasonable terms and conditions of coverage, and (y) require any successor (whether direct or indirect, by purchase, merger, consolidation or otherwise) to all or substantially all of the business or assets of the Company to honor any indemnification obligations that the Executive is otherwise entitled to under any articles, bylaws or other foundation documents of the Company in the same manner as the Company’s directors and officers immediately prior to such Change of Control.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: ] [of] the defense attorney” and continuing by emphasizing that there was no evidence presented to support such a claim, the prosecutor was properly answering an argument of opposing counsel. See Felder, 848 S.W.2d at 94-95. Case law supports this conclusion. For example, in Coble the prosecutor argued that the defense attorney’s lawyer was arguing “something ridiculous.” 871 S.W.2d at 205. The court of criminal appeals noted that such a statement was not directed at defense counsel, but at defense counsel’s argument. Id. This stands in stark contrast to the cases cited by Davis and other cases in which the appellate court has determined that a prosecutor’s comment did strike at the defendant over defense counsel’s shoulders. See Gomez v. State, 704 S.W.2d 770, 772 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (<HOLDING>); Lopez v. State, 500 S.W.2d 844, 846 Options: A. holding prosecutors argument that defense counsels goal was to keep evidence from the jury was improper B. holding prosecutors argument that defense counsel was manufacturing evidence and thus suborning perjury was improper C. holding the prosecutors argument if it was there they can bring it to you was not an improper jury argument D. holding prosecutors statement that defendant and defense counsel were lying when they pleaded not guilty was improper E. holding prosecutors isolated argument referencing punishment was not improper because it was responsive to evidence in the record and was not intended to inflame the jury

assistant: The best answer is B. holding prosecutors argument that defense counsel was manufacturing evidence and thus suborning perjury was improper
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: Justice v. Miller, 51 S.W.3d 583 (Tex.2001), an inmate was treated for nausea and severe headaches by the administration of various medications and other treatments before he was diagnosed with meningitis and died of that illness. Id. at 585. His widow claimed that his death was caused by the misuse of tangible property because the staff improperly administered medication and misused certain medical equipment. Id. The supreme court noted: There cannot be waiver of sovereign immunity in every ease in which medical treatment is provided by a public facility. Doctors in state medical facilities use some form of tangible personal property nearly every time they treat a patient. If there is waiver in all of those cases, the waiver of im 77, 380-82 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2004, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); Ward, 280 S.W.3d at 356 (holding that alleged Options: A. holding that contractors who constructed a large machine to employers specifications cannot be liable to injuries caused to employee as a result of the absence of certain safety features B. holding that printouts from a breath test machine are not hearsay but rather the mechanicallygenerated reports automatically created by the machine they do not constitute outofcourt statements by any person or the conclusion of a third party not before the court internal citations omitted C. holding that state trade secret law could not protect vending machine mechanism where machine was sold to third party D. holding that a machine that allegedly eliminated lumps from womens breasts was governed by the ffdca even though the fda did not require the use of such a machine E. holding that allegations that injuries were caused by misuse of ekg machine did not fall within waiver provisions of ttca because plaintiff had not made affirmative allegation that ekg machine was incorrectly used or that its results were erroneous and reasoning that misuse of information produced by ekg machine caused injuries rather than device itself

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that allegations that injuries were caused by misuse of ekg machine did not fall within waiver provisions of ttca because plaintiff had not made affirmative allegation that ekg machine was incorrectly used or that its results were erroneous and reasoning that misuse of information produced by ekg machine caused injuries rather than device itself
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 of this Agreement, the Company agrees to employ the Executive, and the Executive agrees to serve the Company, as its Executive Vice President, Supply Chain (“Executive’s Position”). The parties intend that the Executive shall continue to so serve in this capacity throughout the Employment Term (as such term is defined below).

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: employees’ interests might become “so attenuated” that § 7 no longer applied, the Court held that it is for the Board in “the first instance” to consider the precise boundaries of the “mutual aid and protection” clause of § 7. Id. at 568. In this case, the Board held that participation in preparing the Report came within the ambit of § 7. The Board reasoned that since the Report dealt with, among other concerns, nursing staff shortages, it raised issues directly related to employee working conditions. The Board also stressed that the Report dealt with issues of sanitation that were of concern to hospital staff, as well as to patients; accordingly, the Board held, the Report was analogous to complaints concerning 11 (1976), enforced, No. 76-2496, 96 LRRM 2512 (3rd Cir. Sept. 16, 1977) (<HOLDING>). The Hospital contends, however, that the Options: A. holding protected threat by operating room nurse to complain to newspaper that proposed elimination of surgical residency program might require performance of surgical duties beyond her competence B. holding that a breach of duties that a fiduciary contractually assumes beyond those duties imposed by law is considered to arise out of contract C. holding that the plaintiffs challenge to a state law affecting the performance of her job duties was mooted when she left state employment D. holding that letter that was copied to the schools board of directors was written pursuant to her duties and was not protected speech E. holding that a plaintiff did not complain to the eeoc pursuant to official duties but rather as a citizen

assistant: The best answer is A. holding protected threat by operating room nurse to complain to newspaper that proposed elimination of surgical residency program might require performance of surgical duties beyond her competence
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: clearly noted that there were disputed points of fact with regard to whether Ceccarelli’s representation of Stuart was authorized; however, the trial court did not resolve this factual dispute. Before the trial court could set aside the judgment under OCGA § 9-11-60 (d) for lack of personal jurisdiction based on insufficient service, the trial court had to make a determination of whether that defense was waived when Ceccarelli filed the answer on Stuart’s behalf without raising that defense. See Hall, supra, 282 Ga. at 441 (1). If Ceccarelli was authorized to represent Stuart when the answer was filed, then Stuart’s insufficient-service defense must be deemed waived. See Smith v. Local Union No. 1863, Intl. Longshoremen’s Assn. of Clerks, 260 Ga. App. 683, 687 (4) (580 SE2d 566) (2003) (<HOLDING>). Since a determination of whether Ceccarelli Options: A. holding that attorneys acts within scope of his authority are binding on client B. recognizing general rule that attorneys apparent authority terminates at death of client C. holding trial court erred when it sanctioned client where the evidence showed that the attorney filed frivolous pleadings on behalf of the client but the client did nothing more than rely on her attorneys advice D. holding that for immunity an official must first prove that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority when the allegedly wrongful acts occurred E. holding that an attorneys filing a notice of appearance on behalf of his or her client constitute a waiver of service of process by the client

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that attorneys acts within scope of his authority are binding on client
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: his DUI-3 does not even fall under the purview of Rule 35, which is focused on sentences, not on convictions. His challenge is a challenge to a conviction, not a challenge to a sentence, because a DUI-3 is a chargeable offense rather than simply an enhanced sentence. See State v. Morrissette, 170 Vt. 569, 569, 743 A.2d 1091, 1091 (1999) (mem.) (upholding defendant’s DUI-3 conviction, where he was both charged with and convicted of DUI-3, rather than merely subject to enhanced punishment), overruled on other grounds by In re Manosh, 2014 VT 95, 197 Vt. 424, 108 A.3d 212. Moreover, as defendant concedes, the “[third conviction] was correct when it was entered” because it was based on the two prior unsealed DUI convictions. See State v. Oscarson, 2006 VT 30, ¶ 9, 179 Vt. 442, 898 A.2d 123 (<HOLDING>). In short, the DUI-3 cannot now be amended Options: A. holding that defendant cannot successfully challenge legal sentence or attack underlying conviction through motion for sentence reconsideration B. holding that when a first 2255 motion succeeds in obtaining a sentence amendment a subsequent motion will be considered a first motion to the extent that it challenges a new or amended component of the sentence and a second motion to the extent that it challenges either a component of the original unamended sentence or the underlying conviction C. holding that a judge who imposes a more severe sentence after the original sentence is successfully attacked must affirmatively state objective reasons for the harsher sentence to ensure that vindictiveness against the defendant plays no part in the sentence he receives after a new trial D. holding that a habeas petitioner must be in custody under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed E. holding that a court may not impose a harsher sentence on a defendant who successfully challenges his sentence on appeal

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that defendant cannot successfully challenge legal sentence or attack underlying conviction through motion for sentence reconsideration
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: beyond its borders. In re Ginther, 282 B.R. 16, 19 (Bankr.D.Kan.2002); In re Peters, 91 B.R. 401, 403 (Bankr.W.D.Tex.1988). Both Illinois and Michigan statutes are without extraterritorial effect absent clear legislative intent. See Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 216 Ill.2d 100, 296 Ill.Dec. 448, 835 N.E.2d 801, 852 (2005); Sexton v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 413 Mich. 406, 320 N.W.2d 843, 854-55 (1982). Various bankruptcy courts have prohibited debtors from applying the exemption laws of their domicile state to property located beyond that state’s boundaries. See, e.g., In re Sipka, 149 B.R. 181, 182-83 (D.Kan.1992); Ginther, 282 B.R. at 19-20; In re Peters, 91 B.R. 401, 413 (Bankr.W.D.Tex. 1988). But see Arrol v. Broach (In re Arrol), 170 F.3d 934, 936-37 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); In re Stratton, 269 B.R. 716, 718-19 (Bankr. Options: A. holding that the general rule is that temporary absence from the premises will not itself cause an abandonment of the homestead but to retain the homestead exemption one leaving the homestead must in good faith intend to return albeit the intent to return need not be at any particular time in the future B. holding that california law permitted the application of a homestead exemption to property located outside the state C. holding that the general homestead exemption may not be invoked to defeat claims against the holder for taxes and assessments against the homestead property D. holding that a wife could claim a homestead exemption even though she only had a beneficiary interest in the property held in trust E. holding that homestead exemption was unavailable even though claimants were living on the land and claiming it as homestead with the permission or acquiescence of the owner for they could have no homestead right or interest in land to which they had no title

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that california law permitted the application of a homestead exemption to property located outside the state
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Party represents and warrants to the other Party that, as of the Effective Date: (i) it is duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the Laws of the jurisdiction of its incorporation and has all requisite corporate power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to perform its obligations under this Agreement, (ii) execution of this Agreement and the performance by such Party of its obligations hereunder have been duly authorized, (iii) this Agreement has been duly executed and delivered on behalf of such Party, and is legally binding and enforceable on each Party in accordance with its terms, (iv) the performance of this Agreement by it does not create a breach or default under any other agreement to which it is a Party, (v) the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement by such Party does not conflict with any agreement, instrument or understanding, oral or written, to which it is a party or by which it is bound, nor violate any Law or regulation of any court, governmental body or administrative or other agency having jurisdiction over such Party, (vi) no government authorization, consent, approval, license, exemption of or filing or registration with any court or governmental department, commission, board, bureau, agency or instrumentality, domestic or foreign, under any Laws currently in effect, is or will be necessary for, or in connection with, the transaction contemplated by this Agreement or any other agreement or instrument executed in connection herewith, or for the performance by it of its obligations under this Agreement and such other agreements, and (vii) neither such Party, nor any of its employees, officers, subcontractors, or consultants who have rendered services relating to the Licensed Compounds: (a) has ever been debarred or is subject to debarment or convicted of a crime for which an entity or person could be debarred by the FDA under 21 U.S.C. Section 335a or (b) has ever been under indictment for a crime for which a person or entity could be so debarred.

assistant: Warranties
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: Notices and all other communications shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given when personally delivered or when mailed by United States registered or certified mail. Notices to the Company shall be sent to 1880 South Dairy Ashford, Suite 300, Houston, Texas 77077 attention: General Counsel. Notices and communications to Executive shall be sent to the address Executive most recently provided to the Company.

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: All prior understandings and agreements between the parties are merged within this Lease, which alone fully and completely sets forth the understanding of the parties; and this Lease may not be changed or terminated orally or in any manner other than by an agreement in writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement of the change or termination is sought.

assistant: Integration
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: information about their search precludes a finding of good faith on their part. And it is enough for us to make clear that Thomas in no way protects evidence obtained on the basis of a warrant which, like this one, was gotten not only illegally but in clear bad faith. CONCLUSION Because the district court’s findings, on the basis of which it correctly concluded that the search in this case constituted an illegal invasion of the defendant’s curtilage, were not clearly erroneous, and because the good faith exception, valuable though it is, does not apply on these facts, we affirm the decision of the district court. 1 . The government argues that in United States v. Paulino, 850 F.2d 93, 95 108 S.Ct. 128, 98 L.Ed.2d 85 (1987); United States v. Ceballos, 812 F.2d 42, 46-47 (2d Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Consistent with these cases, we hold that the Options: A. holding that the issue of whether distress was so extreme that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it is a question of law B. holding that a person is seized when a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave C. holding that while the question of whether a reasonable person would believe his person was seized was normally a question of law that the district court was still entitled to deference because its determination in this case is inextricably intertwined with the credibility of the witnesses D. holding that question of whether a state law tort claim was preempted by the lmra focused on whether evaluation of the tort claim is inextricably intertwined with consideration of the terms of the labor contract E. recognizing that a person has been seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment only if in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that while the question of whether a reasonable person would believe his person was seized was normally a question of law that the district court was still entitled to deference because its determination in this case is inextricably intertwined with the credibility of the witnesses
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: should you file a claim contrary to this dispute resolution section , the company may recover attorneys ' fees and costs up to $ 5,000 , provided that the company has notified you in writing of the improperly filed claim , and you have failed to promptly withdraw the claim .

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 contained herein to the contrary, the Company shall not be obligated to provide any benefits to a Participant under Section 3.4 or 3.6 hereof unless: (a) Participant first executes no later than forty-five (45) calendar days after the Date of Termination a release of claims agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B , with such changes as the Company may determine to be required or reasonably advisable in order to make the release enforceable and otherwise compliant with applicable law, (b) Participant does not revoke the release within seven (7) days after signature, and (c) the release becomes effective and irrevocable in accordance with its terms. If the combined release execution period and revocation period span two (2) calendar years, payments subject to the release will commence in the second calendar year.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: a number of areas has recognized or developed exclusionary rules where evidence has been gained in violation of the accused’s rights under the Constitution, federal statutes, or federal rules of procedure."); see also Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 313-14, 78 S.Ct. 1190, 2 L.Ed.2d 1332 (1958) (upholding suppression of evidence obtained in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3109, the federal “knock and announce” statute); Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 455, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479 (1957) (stating that suppression of statements obtained in violation of Fed.R.Crim.P. 5 would be proper if failure to arraign "without unnecessary delay” provided "an opportunity for the extraction of a confession”). Nor have we. See, e.g., United States v. Gantt, 194 F.3d 987, 994 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Doe, 170 F.3d 1162, 1168 Options: A. holding that consequence of deliberate violation of parental notification statute is suppression of statements made by defendant B. holding that the defendant was prejudiced by the rule 41 violation because had the magistrate judge followed rule 41b the search of defendants computer would not have occurred C. holding that technical violations of fedrcrimp 41 d require suppression if there was a deliberate disregard of the rule or if the defendant was prejudiced D. holding that laches dismissal is on the merits under federal rule 41 E. holding that only reckless or deliberate police conduct will trigger suppression

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that technical violations of fedrcrimp 41 d require suppression if there was a deliberate disregard of the rule or if the defendant was prejudiced
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 form of an admission or as a response to a discovery request. Id. In this case, the plaintiffs’ specification of the multiple different values of their claims (based upon the resolution of numerous variables) in their stipulation with PPG will be considered binding. The Askins and Geer decisions (and the other apparently contradictory decisions cited above) may be reconcilable after considering which decisions reflect the impact of the burden of production (or the burden of moving forward) in situations like the one presently before the court which must be placed on the defendant, and which decisions address the plaintiffs ultimate retention of the burden of persuading the court that it has jurisdiction over his or her claims. See Cardinal Chem., 508 U.S. at 98, 113 S.Ct. 1967 (<HOLDING>); Cappuccio v. Prime Capital Funding LLC, 649 Options: A. holding that the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related statelaw claims once it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction B. holding that court of claims has jurisdiction over actions for breach of standard contract C. holding that a federal court must order arbitration once it is satisfied that an agreement for arbitration has been made and has not been honored D. holding that the court may presume it has jurisdiction over a case once the plaintiffs initial burden of establishing jurisdiction has been satisfied E. holding that the trial court had continuing jurisdiction over all subsequent custody orders once the trial court acquired jurisdiction

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the court may presume it has jurisdiction over a case once the plaintiffs initial burden of establishing jurisdiction has been satisfied
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any and all notices, elections, offers, acceptances, and demands permitted or required to be made under this Agreement shall be in writing, signed by the Party giving such notice, election, offer, acceptance, or demand and shall be delivered personally, by messenger, courier service, telecopy, first class mail or similar transmission, to the Party, at its address on file with the other Party or at such other address as may be supplied in writing. The date of personal delivery or the date of mailing, as the case may be, shall be the date of such notice, election, offer, acceptance, or demand.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: However, Pe-trohawk filed suit against J.P. Morgan, a corporate trustee, and we have already concluded that based on the plain language of section 115.001, any proceeding brought against a trustee falls within section 115.001. Therefore, sections 115.001 and 115.002 are applicable. We conclude mandamus relief is appropriate in this case. Chapter 15 authorizes parties to seek mandamus relief to enforce its mandatory venue provisions. Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem.Code Ann. § 15.0642. Although section 115.002 of the Texas Property Code is found outside Chapter 15 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, it is still a mandatory venue provision for which mandamus relief is available to enforce the provision. In re Transcon. Realty Investors, Inc., 271 S.W.3d 270, 271 (Tex.2008) (orig. proceeding) (<HOLDING>). “In seeking mandamus under section 15.0642, a Options: A. holding that venue in the district identified in 9 was mandatory B. holding that the statute is mandatory C. recognizing that due on sale clauses are enforceable in texas D. holding that where the entity was incorporated in texas and the shareholders reside in texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in texas texas law not arizona law should be applied E. holding that section 21013 of the texas property code is a mandatory venue statute and is enforceable by mandamus

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that section 21013 of the texas property code is a mandatory venue statute and is enforceable by mandamus
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement for any reason shall be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement and this Agreement shall be construed to the maximum 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: From and after the Effective Date, the applicable Administrative Agent shall make all payments in respect of the Assigned Interest (including payments of principal, interest, fees and other amounts) to the Assignee whether such amounts have accrued prior to or on or after the Effective Date. The Assignor and the Assignee shall make all appropriate adjustments in payments by the applicable Administrative Agent for periods prior to the Effective Date or with respect to the making of this assignment directly between themselves.

assistant: Payments
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 Assumption, Mr. Cleveland’s premiums were sent to Central United. However, the question of what sort of “assent” on the part of a policyholder is required to achieve a novation which relieves the original insurer of liability on the insurance contract has not been addressed by either the Texas or Mississippi courts which is to say, there is nothing in the jurisprudence of either state that provides an answer to the question whether Mr. Cleveland’s actions could be held or found to constitute the requisite assent to relieve Commonwealth of any potential liability on the insurance contract. Some courts have indeed held that a policyholder’s payment of premiums to the reinsurer is sufficient. See, e.g., Epland v. Meade Ins. Agency Assocs., Inc., 564 N.W.2d 203, 207 (Minn. 1997) (<HOLDING>); State Dept. of Public Welfare v. Central Options: A. holding that an immaterial breach does not deprive the insurer of the benefit of the bargain and thus cannot relieve the insurer of the contractual coverage obligation B. holding that the insurer is allowed to continue its investigation beyond the time that payment is due under the policy if reasonably necessary C. holding as a matter of law that insureds consented to assumption agreement by payment of premiums to reinsurer thus releasing original insurer from its obligation under the policy D. holding that payment under settlement agreement between insurer and insureds concerning disputed premium claims was a compromise that did not violate antirebate statute E. holding insureds firstoccurring immaterial breach of them insurance policy did not excuse insurer from its obligation to perform under the contract

assistant: The best answer is C. holding as a matter of law that insureds consented to assumption agreement by payment of premiums to reinsurer thus releasing original insurer from its obligation under the policy
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and any claims, controversy, dispute or cause of action (whether in contract or tort or otherwise) based upon, arising out of or relating to this Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York.

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: goods in storage bay as instructed with person falsely identifying himself as representative of consignee despite observation of representative loading U-Haul truck discharged contractual obligation and was not negligent). Because Transus did this, and PolyGram has not shown that the goods were in diminished condition at the time of said delivery, the allocation of risk of loss shifted to PolyGram. Moreover, liability extinguished under both the Carmack Act and the Federal Bills of Lading Act. Even were summary judgment inappropriate on the issue of liability under these Acts, however, the court also finds that attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 13-6-11 are not recoverable under the Carmack Amendment. See Rini v. United Van Lines, Inc., 104 F.3d 502, 506 (1st Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>), petition for cert. filed, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. Options: A. holding no liability under false claims act unless certification prerequisite to payment B. holding the state law claims were not preempted C. holding that carmark act preempted state law claims including those for liability for payment of claims D. holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law E. holding state law fraud and deceit claims to be preempted

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that carmark act preempted state law claims including those for liability for payment of claims
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: is limited to current owners, there are some respectable arguments that suggest the opposite conclusion. First, the preceding arguments have important limitations. In Larkin’s Body Shop, for instance, the Indiana Court of Appeals did not hold that acquisition is synonymous with ownership for all purposes. Larkin’s Body Shop, 673 N.E.2d at 849. Indeed, the court noted that its holding was specific to the circumstances of the case. Id. In addition, although certificates of salvage title operate as “proof of ownership,” so too do certificates of title. Yet, it is clear that an entity can assign its ownership interest in a vehicle without immediately providing a certificate of title. See Ind.Code § 9-17-3-3; Madrid v. Bloomington Auto Co., Inc., 782 N.E.2d 386, 395 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (<HOLDING>). Thus, dealers can and, accordingly to Options: A. holding that under indiana law ownership can be transferred consistent with the ucc irrespective of whether the certificate of title has been delivered B. holding that article 2 of the ucc preempts common law claims C. recognizing that the fact that a defendant has liability insurance can be established at trial where the issue of ownership is in dispute D. holding that delivery of possession of vehicle without delivery of certificate of title did not transfer ownership even though full payment had been received E. holding the concept of reliance has been purposefully abandoned for express warranty claims under the ucc

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that under indiana law ownership can be transferred consistent with the ucc irrespective of whether the certificate of title has been delivered
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 use Craig Ball as “the independent forensic examiner” as ordered by the trial court. It was not an agreement that a special master be appointed. And it was both executed and filed after Ogden had withdrawn as Harris’s counsel. Arthur also argues that delay alone is a valid ground for denying Harris’s request for mandamus relief and that Harris fatally delayed in asserting his objections to the appointment of a special master. See In re Xeller, 6 S.W.3d 618, 624 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding) (“[JJudicial economy would have been better served if relators’ [sic] had sought mandamus relief immediately after the appointment of the master.”); Owens-Coming Fiberglas Corp. v. Caldwell, 830 S.W.2d 622, 625 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, orig. proceeding) (<HOLDING>). The record, however, shows that Harris Options: A. holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised for the first time before this court B. holding that an issue was not properly before the court on appeal because the trial court did not have the opportunity to make any findings of fact regarding it C. holding that because the appellant did not present a question before a hearing examiner or district council the question was not properly before this court D. holding that party may object to appointment of master either before participating in any proceeding before the master or before parties master and trial court have acted in reliance on appointment E. holding that arguments not raised before the trial court are waived

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that party may object to appointment of master either before participating in any proceeding before the master or before parties master and trial court have acted in reliance on appointment
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: ground that Plaintiff could not show a genuine issue of material fact with respect to causation. Plaintiff timely appeals. We have held, relying on Supreme Court guidance in the realm of qualified immunity, that a district court may permit successive motions for summary judgment on qualified immunity. Knox v. Sw. Airlines, 124 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir.1997). We have also assumed the propriety of successive motions for summary judgment outside the context of qualified immunity. See Cable & Computer Tech. Inc. v. Lockheed Sanders, Inc., 214 F.3d 1030, 1038 (9th Cir.2000) (analyzing grant of summary judgment on promissory estoppel claim after district court granted earlier summary judgment motion on contract claim); Preaseau v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 591 F.2d 74, 79-80 (9th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). Many of our sister circuits have held that Options: A. holding that a district court may not grant summary judgment without giving plaintiff an opportunity to submit materials admissible in a summary judgment proceeding or allowing a hearing on defendants motion B. holding that trial court may not grant summary judgment by default when the movants summary judgment proof is legally insufficient C. holding that a grant of summary judgment in favor of one party creates a final judgment allowing appellate review of denial of opposing partys summary judgment motion D. holding that after removal of diversity case to federal court the federal court may grant summary judgment notwithstanding earlier denial of summary judgment motion by state court E. holding that the trial court may not grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the motion

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that after removal of diversity case to federal court the federal court may grant summary judgment notwithstanding earlier denial of summary judgment motion by state court
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: All disputes between or among any Persons arising out of or in any way connected with the Plan, this Agreement, the Restricted Shares shall be solely and finally settled by the Committee, acting in good faith, the determination of which shall be final. Any matters not covered by the preceding sentence shall be solely and finally settled in accordance with the Plan, and the Participant and the Company consent to the personal jurisdiction of the United States Federal and state courts sitting in Wilmington, Delaware as the exclusive jurisdiction with respect to matters arising out of or related to the enforcement of the Committee’s determinations and resolution of matters, if any, related to the Plan or this Agreement not required to be resolved by the Committee. Each such Person hereby irrevocably consents to the service of process of any of the aforementioned courts in any such suit, action or proceeding by the mailing of copies thereof by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, to the last known address of such Person, such service to become effective ten (10) days after such mailing.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Upon the expiration or termination of this Agreement, all rights and obligations of the Parties under this Agreement shall terminate except as expressly provided in Sections 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3 above and those rights and obligations of the Parties under the following Articles and Sections: [ * ] .

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

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 30 L.Ed.2d 721 92 S.Ct. 731 404 U.S. 548 UNITED STATES, petitioner,v.CHAS. PFIZER & CO., Inc., et al. No. 70-72. Supreme Court of the United States January 24, 1972 Daniel M. Friedman, Washington D. C., for petitioner. John E. F. Wood, New York City, for respondents. On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court. 2 Mr. Justice STEWART, Mr. Justice WHITE, and Mr. Justice MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

assistant: 8