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: v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., 477 F.3d 502, 507 (7th Cir.2007); Slaney v. The Int’l. Amateur Athletic Fed’n, 244 F.3d 580, 597 (7th Cir.2001). The question before the Court, however, is whether responses to affirmative defenses which allege fraudulent concealment must also be pleaded with the particularity required by Rule 9(b). The Seventh Circuit has yet to hold that such specificity in this context is required. What the Seventh Circuit has clearly held is that “a plaintiff is not required to negate an affirmative defense, such as the statute of limitations, in his complaint.” Clark v. City of Braidwood, 318 F.3d 764, 767 (7th Cir.2003) (vacating and remanding lower court’s dismissal of a complaint); U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Indiana Gas Co., Inc., 350 F.3d 623, 626 (7th Cir. 2003) (<HOLDING>). Thus, in this case, Plaintiffs need not plead Options: A. holding that the defendant could not raise affirmative defenses initially in its dispositive motion but remanding the case to the trial court to determine if leave to amend answer to incorporate affirmative defenses was appropriate so that the defendant could then properly raise those defenses in its dispositive motion B. holding that a complaints failure to overcome affirmative defenses does not warrant dismissal C. recognizing that the statute of limitations provision of the aedpa is an affirmative defenses rather than jurisdictional D. recognizing the existence of antagonistic defenses does not require severance unless defenses are actually irreconcilable E. holding that affirmative defenses are waived if not pled

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a complaints failure to overcome affirmative defenses does not warrant dismissal
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except, in each case, as could not reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect, each of each Parent Guarantor, the Borrower and each of the Restricted Subsidiaries has filed all federal income tax returns and all other tax returns, domestic and foreign, required to be filed by it and has paid all Taxes payable by it that have become due, other than those (a) not yet delinquent or (b) being contested in good faith as to which adequate reserves have been provided in accordance with GAAP.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: You voluntarily resigned from your employment with the Company effective July 1, 2016 (“Termination Date”) and will be paid your regular salary through the Termination Date. You will no longer be allowed on Company premises or at Company functions and you shall not interfere with Company business.

assistant: Employment
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 hold those for either — they’re on file, he can bring them, if you choose to do that.” On December 13, 2001, defendant filed a pro se notice of appeal. The State Appellate Defender was appointed to represent defendant on appeal. II. ANALYSIS A. Posttrial Motions Defendant first contends that this cause must be remanded for further proceedings because the trial court failed to rule on his post-trial motion for recusal or his motion for a new trial. At the outset, we question whether defendant’s pro se posttrial motions were properly before the trial court. The motions were filed at a time during which he was represented by counsel. It is well established that a defendant may not simultaneously proceed pro se and by counsel. See People v. Handy, 278 Ill. App. 3d 829, 836-37 (1996) (<HOLDING>); People v. Taggart, 233 Ill. App. 3d 530, 557 Options: A. holding that a defendant proceeding pro se is bound by same rules as party represented by counsel and a court cannot allow pro se litigant lower standard of performance B. holding that a defendant has a right to proceed pro se at trial C. holding that pro se pleadings from defendants who are represented by counsel in the pending criminal proceedings are unauthorized D. holding that trial court erred in considering pro se motion for new trial filed when defendant was represented by counsel E. holding defendants pro se motion to reduce sentence was not properly before the trial court when defendant was represented by counsel since defendant may not proceed both by counsel and pro se

assistant: The best answer is E. holding defendants pro se motion to reduce sentence was not properly before the trial court when defendant was represented by counsel since defendant may not proceed both by counsel and pro se
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that he attached to his January 2014 application to correct his military records, which states that: During my EifS physical the physician diagnosed me with depression. He also noted that I was never referred for further evaluations for my epilepsy and shoulder as I should have been. He documented that I “could not” do push ups (but I was never given a profile (P3)) and I cannot do overhead work. AR at 210 (emphasis existing); see also AR at 462 (same document included with plaintiffs January 27, 2014, application for correction of military record). But, neither of these documents demonstrates that plaintiff raised his shoulder injury as a ground for unfitness. And so, plaintiff has waived any claim related to his shoulder injury. See Parks v. United States, 127 Fed.Cl. 677, 680 (2016) (<HOLDING>). The aforementioned documents similarly fail Options: A. holding that plaintiff waived claims that he failed to raise in petition before the relevant military correction board B. holding that plaintiffs failure to raise his constitutional claims in the military court system bars him from raising them in federal court C. holding that by fading to timely raise the issue before the trial court the defendant had waived the right to raise the issue on appeal that the trial court failed to consider less severe sanctions D. holding that plaintiff waived his argument of ineffective counsel in front of the united states court of federal claims because he failed to raise the issue in the first instance with the air force board for the correction of military records E. 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

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that plaintiff waived claims that he failed to raise in petition before the relevant military correction board
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: After discussing these and other findings by Dr. Scardigli, the ALJ sweepingly concluded: In reviewing the record in its entirely, we find that the opinion of Dr. Scardigli that Mr. Schonewolf was unable to work is inconsistent with her narrative and clinical findings. (R. 16.) This is hardly an explanation as to why Dr. Scardigli’s opinion is unreliable, as the ALJ never even attempts to explain why Dr. Scardigli’s conclusions are inconsistent with her own findings. The ALJ has no basis for concluding that his interpretation of Dr. Scardigli’s findings is valid while her own conclusions are unreliable; or if he has such a basis, he never discusses it in his opinion. The ALJ, therefore, invalidly substitutes his medical conclusions for those of the physician. Kent, 710 F.2d at 115 (<HOLDING>). The ALJ’s dismissal of Dr. Scardigli’s Options: A. holding that the corroborating evidence need not be medical evidence if the appellant explains why medical evidence is not available B. holding that an aljs own medical analysis which is contrary to medical evidence is invalid C. holding that review of medical history during an examination assisted doctors medical conclusions D. recognizing that prison officials should defer to medical professionals on medical matters E. holding that plaintiffs claim that medical providers did not comply with baker act was not subject to medical malpractice statutes ajlthough a medical diagnosis is necessary in order to involuntarily commit a patient the process of complying with the statute does not require medical skill or judgment

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an aljs own medical analysis which is contrary to medical evidence is invalid
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 sign up for a dropbox account with an email address provisioned by your organization , your organization may be able to block your use of dropbox until you transition to an account on a dropbox team ( e.g. , dropbox business plans or dropbox education ) or you associate your dropbox account with a personal email address .

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: Am.), Inc. v. VDO N. Am., LLC, 375 F.3d 1126, 1135 (Fed.Cir.2004) (means-plus-function presumption overcome where claim limitation for “pumping means” recited its structure, “a nozzle and a venturi tube in alignment with the nozzle,” location, “being located within the reservoir in the region of the opening,” and method of operation); Searfoss v. Pioneer Consol. Corp., 374 F.3d 1142, 1149 (Fed.Cir.2004) (means-plus-function presumption overcome where claim limitation specifically set forth the structure that performs the claimed function, by reciting “said actuation means including first and second pivot connections respectively between said first and second tension bail legs and a midpoint on said respective first and second extension bail legs”), with Omega Eng’g, 334 F.3d at 1321 (<HOLDING>). The Court finds that limitation (d) of Claim Options: A. holding that claim was in meansplusfunction format where it recited means for causing said at least one laser beam to strike the periphery of the energy zone for visibly outlining said entire energy zone B. holding that rule 58 allows inclusion of at least one citation to legal authority and at least a onesentence explanation of the courts reasoning C. holding a coinventor of at least one claim is entitled to a pro rata undivided interest in the entire patent D. holding that a legislature need not strike out all evils at one the same time E. holding that the determination of whether sufficient structure is disclosed in the specification to support a meansplusfunction limitation is based on the understanding of one skilled in the art

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that claim was in meansplusfunction format where it recited means for causing said at least one laser beam to strike the periphery of the energy zone for visibly outlining said entire energy zone
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that Appellant had devoted significant time to criticizing the reliability and methodology of the Commonwealth’s hair comparison evidence, based on Sur-ma’s testimony and that of the state trooper who had collected the hair. See N.T. Trial, 9/6/02, at 54-56, 75-78. The court then observed that the prosecutor’s use of the word “match” in his closing remarks “occurred within the qualifying context of his repeated use of the term ‘similar.’” PCRA Court Opinion at 76. The court determined that the single use of the word “match,” being one fleeting reference within an entire closing argument, did not cause the jury to form a fixed hostility toward Appellant nor prevent the jury from rendering a fair verdict. Id.; see also Commonwealth v. Steele, 599 Pa. 341, 961 A.2d 786, 832 (2008) (<HOLDING>). In accord with the long-standing principle Options: A. recognizing that a lawyers comments during closing argument may explain away the alleged prejudicial effect of the opposing parties closing argument comments B. holding that a defendant bears the burden of objecting to an allegedly improper closing argument at the time the improper argument is made C. holding that a fleeting reference within the context of an entire closing argument is not prejudicial citing numerous sources of authority D. holding that to obtain the proper context of a challenged statement made during closing arguments the court must recount in its entirety the portion of the closing argument wherein those statements appear E. holding that contract providing commission was to be paid within 72 hours of closing did not condition the payment of commission on the closing

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a fleeting reference within the context of an entire closing argument is not prejudicial citing numerous sources of authority
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to characterize the agency relationships on which it focuses. The acts the dissent goes on to describe — discriminatory "hiring or firing decision[s],’’ Dissent at 974 — are “company acts” that do not involve an unusual degree of attenuation between employer/defendant and employee/wrongdoer. These are precisely the sorts of cases in which employers' claims to have misunderstood the extent of their legal obligations are least plausible. 7 . We need not address the scope of employer liability for "noncompany acts” such as sexual harassment. 8 . As with § 1981, the position of the Seventh Circuit on this question is not simple to characterize. The Emmel decision comports with the approach we take today, as do Tincher v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 118 F.3d 1125, 1132 (7th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>), and Ortiz v. John O. Butler Co., 94 F.3d Options: A. holding discrimination based on pregnancy was not sex discrimination B. holding that discrimination is unlawful even if only one of several motives for adverse employment action C. holding that in a discrimination case plaintiff must prove that firing was a result of intentional discrimination D. holding that evidence of egregiousness is required for punitive damages since otherwise every employment discrimination claim could include a punitive damage award because every employment discrimination plaintiff must demonstrate an intentional unlawful discrimination E. holding that a claim for discrimination in private employment is not preempted by title vii

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that evidence of egregiousness is required for punitive damages since otherwise every employment discrimination claim could include a punitive damage award because every employment discrimination plaintiff must demonstrate an intentional unlawful discrimination
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: future dangerousness is placed at issue during the penalty phase of a capital trial, and state law prohibits the defendant from being released on parole, “due process requires that the sentencing jury be informed that the defendant is parole ineligible.” Id. at 156, 114 S.Ct. 2187. A majority of the High Court reiterated this principle in Shafer v. South Carolina, 532 U.S. 36, 121 S.Ct. 1263, 149 L.Ed.2d 178 (2001), stating that when a capital defendant’s future dangerousness is at issue and state law precludes the defendant from being paroled, the jury must be advised of the defendant’s parole ineligibility through a jury instruction or closing arguments of counsel. Id. at 39, 121 S.Ct. 1263. See also Kelly v. South Carolina, 534 U.S. 246, 248, 122 S.Ct. 726, 151 L.Ed.2d 670 (2002) (<HOLDING>). In the ease at bar, the prosecutor placed Options: A. holding district court erred in relying on authority other than that of the supreme court of the united states in its analysis under 2254d B. recognizing that the supreme court has indicated that affirmative misconduct is a prerequisite to a finding of estoppel against the united states C. recognizing that where a state prisoner declines to pursue certiorari in the united states supreme court that petitioners conviction is not final until after the time for filing a petition for certiorari with the supreme court has passed D. recognizing that the united states supreme court reiterated the simmons holding in shafer E. recognizing federal constitutional claim against the united states

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing that the united states supreme court reiterated the simmons holding in shafer
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 next sentence of this Section 9 , the obligations and liabilities of Indemnitor under this Agreement shall survive the payment in full of the Indebtedness. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, if, (a) at any time after the fourth (4 th ) anniversary of repayment in full of the Indebtedness, whether at maturity, as a result of acceleration, in connection with prepayment or otherwise, (b) with respect to any Property that is released from the lien of the applicable Mortgage in accordance with the terms of the Loan Agreement, at any time after the fourth (4 th ) anniversary of the effective date of the release of such Property, or (c) in the event Sponsor is replaced in accordance with the terms of the Loan Agreement, upon the delivery to Indemnitee of a replacement environmental indemnity substantially in the form hereof and otherwise reasonably acceptable to Indemnitee by such Person acceptable to Indemnitee in its reasonable discretion, at any time after the fourth (4 th ) anniversary of the effective date of such replacement environmental indemnity, Indemnitee is provided with an updated Environmental Report of the related Property indicating to Indemnitee’s reasonable satisfaction that there are no Hazardous Substances located on, in, above or under such Property in violation of any applicable Environmental Laws or constituting a recognized environmental condition (except for Hazardous Substances to the extent specifically identified in the executive summary or conclusions section of the Environmental Report delivered to Lender on the Closing Date), then the obligations and liabilities of Indemnitor under this Agreement shall cease and terminate with respect to such Property. In addition and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, Indemnitor shall have no liability under this Agreement for (i) any act, event or condition first arising on or after (and not prior to) the earliest to occur of the date: (a) of the transfer of title to one hundred percent (100%) of the Properties to Lender (or any of its affiliates or designees or a purchaser at foreclosure) pursuant to a foreclosure, deed in lieu of foreclosure, exercise of power of sale or otherwise of Lender’s lien under the Loan Documents or (b) of the transfer of title to one hundred percent (100%) of the Mezzanine Loan Collateral to Mezzanine Lender (or any of its affiliates or designees or a purchaser at foreclosure) pursuant to a foreclosure, assignment in lieu of foreclosure, exercise of power of sale or otherwise of Mezzanine Lender’s lien under the Mezzanine Loan Documents, and (ii) where such act, event or condition referred to in clause (i) was not caused by actions or omissions of Indemnitor, Master Tenant, or any of their respective Affiliates.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: as well. As noted, Plaintiff cannot sue Defendant Wallenstein for a Title VII violation. See Lissau, 159 F.3d at 181. To the extent Plaintiff sues Wallenstein in his official capacity, Plaintiffs section 1983 claims and duplicative state law claims fail in light of Graham. Thus, all but Plaintiffs individual capacity claims against Wallenstein fail as a matter of law. And, as discussed, Plaintiffs residual individual capacity claims against Wallenstein present no triable issues. See supra Part III.A-J. Plaintiffs claims against the Department, per se, fail as a matter of law. The Department is not a legal entity subject to suit. See Rhodes v. Montgomery Cnty. Dep’t of Corrs. & Rehab., Civil Action No. 12-CV-03172-AW, 2013 WL 791208, at *6 (D.Md. Mar. 1, 2013) (citations omitted) (<HOLDING>); cf. Revene v. Charles Cnty. Comm’rs, 882 F.2d Options: A. holding that county and district attorneys are officers within the judicial department B. holding that probation department employees are not county employees C. holding county clerk sued in official capacity was entitled to the immunity the county enjoyed D. holding that a sole proprietorship was not a separate legal entity capable of being sued under ohio law E. recognizing that the montgomery county department of correction and rehabilitation is not a legal entity capable of being sued

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that the montgomery county department of correction and rehabilitation is not a legal entity capable of being sued
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 issue of “the full extent of when knowledge possessed by an arm of the State will be imputed to the prosecution.” Id. As the government admits, Pretrial Services has a statutory duty to report any violation of pretrial release conditions to both the court and the United States attorney. See 18 U.S.C. § 3154(5). Further, the Supreme Court has interpreted Brady broadly, in order to provide an incentive for the government to initiate “procedures and regulations” to carry the prosecutor’s “duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government’s behalf in the case, including the police.” Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437-38, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Brooks, 966 F.2d 1500, 1500-04 (D.C.Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted). In this Options: A. holding that an individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the governments behalf in the case including the police B. holding that prosecutions duty to learn of brady material extends to the files of the police departments homicide and internal affairs divisions observing the cases finding a duty to search have involved files maintained by branches of government closely aligned with the prosecution and in each case the court has found bureaucratic boundaries too weak to limit the duty C. holding the duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend D. holding that the duty of good faith and fair dealing is a contractual duty E. holding that the court has no duty to search for triable issues

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that prosecutions duty to learn of brady material extends to the files of the police departments homicide and internal affairs divisions observing the cases finding a duty to search have involved files maintained by branches of government closely aligned with the prosecution and in each case the court has found bureaucratic boundaries too weak to limit the duty
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: An occurrence “include[s] a single occurrence or a single accident, or a series of them arising out of one event or disaster.” This policy requires an occurrence during the policy, but it does not specify whether the resulting property damage or liability must take place during the policy period in order to trigger coverage. Dow contends that under Sixth Circuit case law, unless a policy specifies otherwise, both the causal event and the property damage can be the occurrence during the policy period on which coverage is based. See Michigan Chemical Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co., 728 F.2d 374, 381 (6th Cir.1984); see also Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Arkwright-Boston Mfg. Mut. Ins. Co., 53 F.3d 762 (6th Cir.1995), cert denied, 516 U.S. 1140, 116 S.Ct. 973, 133 L.Ed.2d 893 (1996)(<HOLDING>). Dow reasons that because Michigan law is Options: A. holding that when a term is not defined in a contract the presumption is that the term is to be given its ordinary meaning and significance B. holding that the term occurrence was defined to mean any happening or series of happenings arising out of or due to one event taking place during the term of this contract C. holding that there can be no implied contractual term at variance with an express term of a contract D. holding that when a term is defined in the statute it need not be further alleged in the indictment E. holding that an additional term did not materially alter the contract because the plaintiff cannot profess to be surprised by an additional term in an invoice when the price quotation contained the identical term

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the term occurrence was defined to mean any happening or series of happenings arising out of or due to one event taking place during the term of this contract
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as set forth in Section 3(c)(iii) or unless otherwise provided in a Participant Agreement in effect on the date hereof, upon a Termination for any reason the Participant shall forfeit to the Company, without compensation, other than repayment of any par value paid by the Participant for such Shares (if any), any and all Restricted Stock (but no vested Shares) and RS Property.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to grant summary judgment in favor of Smith. I am authorized to state that Judge Ray joins in this dissent and Judge McMillian concurs in the judgment only of this dissent. 3 Emphasis supplied. 4 Emphasis supplied. 5 U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Rome Concrete Pipe Co., Inc., 256 Ga. 661, 663 (353 SE2d 15) (1987); see also Young v. Williams, 274 Ga. 845, 847-48 (560 SE2d 690) (2002). 6 Martin v. Herrington Mill, Inc., 316 Ga. App. 696, 701 (730 SE2d 164) (2012) (punctuation omitted); accord Walker v. Brannan, 243 Ga. App. 2 2d 147) (1994). 14 Kaminer, 282 Ga. at 833 (1) (punctuation omitted); accord Beamon, 329 Ga. App. at 687 (1). 15 OCGA § 9-11-8 (a) (2) (A). 16 OCGA § 9-11-10 (b). 17 Id. (emphasis supplied). 18 Cf. Johnson v. Jones, 327 Ga. App. 371, 375-76 (2) (759 SE2d 252) (2014) (<HOLDING>). 19 See OCGA § 9-11-9.1 (a) (“In any action Options: A. holding the defendants claim that he was denied the right to testify was appropriate for direct review when the record was adequately developed to permit full consideration of the defendants claim the pertinent facts were undisputed a pcr hearing was not necessary to resolve a factual dispute and would not aid in the application of the law and the defendants claim was presented not as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim but rather as an error committed by the trial court in excluding the defendants testimony which was not an appropriate basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim B. holding that trial court properly found that claim was timebarred when the gravamen of claim for breach of fiduciary duties was an alleged failure to correctly read an ultrasound and reach proper diagnosis and accordingly the claim amounted to a claim of negligence that went to the propriety of the defendants medical skill and judgment C. holding that the plaintiffs breach of contract claim was properly a statutory claim under the personnel management act D. holding breach of fiduciary duty claim is essentially a negligence or professional malpractice claim E. holding that plaintiffs were entitled to a jury trial on claim of breach of fiduciary duty where underlying claim was a common law negligence action

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that trial court properly found that claim was timebarred when the gravamen of claim for breach of fiduciary duties was an alleged failure to correctly read an ultrasound and reach proper diagnosis and accordingly the claim amounted to a claim of negligence that went to the propriety of the defendants medical skill and judgment
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: while we try to offer reliable data , we can not promise that the catalogs or other content provided through the services will always be available , accurate , complete , and up-to-date .

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: EXECUTIVE AGREES TO WAIVE THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING BASED UPON, OR RELATED TO, ANY LOYALTY OBLIGATIONS. THIS WAIVER IS KNOWINGLY, INTENTIONALLY, AND VOLUNTARILY MADE BY EXECUTIVE, AND EXECUTIVE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT, EXCEPT FOR THE COMPANY’S AGREEMENT TO LIKEWISE WAIVE ITS RIGHTS TO A TRIAL BY JURY (WHICH THE COMPANY HEREBY MAKES), THE COMPANY HAS NOT MADE ANY REPRESENTATIONS OF FACTS TO INDUCE THIS WAIVER OF TRIAL BY JURY OR IN ANY WAY TO MODIFY OR NULLIFY ITS EFFECT. EXECUTIVE FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT EXECUTIVE HAS BEEN REPRESENTED (OR HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED) IN THE SIGNING OF THIS AGREEMENT AND IN THE MAKING OF THIS WAIVER BY INDEPENDENT LEGAL COUNSEL, SELECTED OF EXECUTIVE’S OWN FREE WILL, AND THAT EXECUTIVE HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THIS WAIVER WITH COUNSEL. EXECUTIVE FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT EXECUTIVE HAS READ AND UNDERSTANDS THE MEANING AND RAMIFICATIONS OF THIS WAIVER AND AS EVIDENCE OF THIS FACT SIGNS THIS AGREEMENT BELOW.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: (7th Cir.2005), is instructive. In Labojew-ski, the petitioner, a citizen of Poland, entered the United States on a visitor’s visa in 1987. He overstayed the visa and was deported in 1990. He illegally reentered the United States in 1992 or 1993 using a false passport and visa. In 1994, his mother, a lawful permanent resident, filed an 1-130 petition on his behalf, and in 2001, the petitioner applied for adjustment of status under § 245(i). ICE discovered that the petitioner had reentered the United States after being removed, and reinstated his removal orders under § 241(a)(5). The petitioner argued that because he had illegally reentered the United States before Congress passed § 241(a)(5), it should not apply retroactiv 2003); Padilla v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 921, 925 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Lino acknowledges these cases but does not Options: A. holding that the bias denial of a motion to reopen based on the merits of the underlying application for adjustment of status was a discretionary decision under the adjustment of status statute and this court therefore did not have jurisdiction over an appeal of the bias ruling B. holding that an alien who entered this country illegally from mexico could establish domicile C. holding ineligible for adjustment of status alien who was inadmissible due to reentry after prior removal D. holding that adjustment of status was permitted even if deportable alien had entered the country as a lawful permanent resident E. holding that an alien who illegally reenters this country is not eligible for adjustment of status because the reinstatement provision controls

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an alien who illegally reenters this country is not eligible for adjustment of status because the reinstatement provision controls
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Executive’s employment and the Term may be ended in any one of the ways set forth in sub-paragraphs 6(a)-6(e). Except as otherwise may be agreed between the applicable J.Jill Companies and Executive at the time such employment ends, upon Executive’s separation from employment with J.Jill and the Company she shall be deemed to have resigned from any and all offices and directorships she then holds relating to any J.Jill Company and, if requested by the Company, Executive shall deliver written instruments of resignation evidencing such resignations.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: strictly, seemed to encompass only contract claims. Mazzioni Farms, 761 So.2d a 68, 1372 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (accepting parties’ stipulation that New York law applied to their insurance contracts where there was no strong public policy against applying New York law); National Can Co. v. Vinylex Corp., 687 F. Supp. 375, 376-77 (N.D. Ill. 1988) (deeming parties to have stipulated that Illinois law governed their dispute where both sides maintained in their briefs that Illinois law governed); and Ackerman v. Foster, 974 P.2d 1, 9 (Col. App. 1998) (accepting parties’ stipulation that California law applied to insurance policy). Courts in other jurisdictions have enforced choice of law stipulations on issues of tort law. Twohy v. First Nat’l Bank of Chicago, 758 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (<HOLDING>); Von Hundertmark v. Boston Prof’l Hockey Options: A. holding that parties may stipulate to facts from which jurisdiction may be inferred B. holding that parties can stipulate that they were both parties to a contract and thus the real parties in interest even when one party did not sign the contract C. holding consent is irrelevant and estoppel does not apply when subject matter jurisdiction is in question D. holding that parties may stipulate which states substantive law governs their contract and tort claims if the chosen state bears a reasonable relationship to the alleged transaction and injury in question and the stipulation does not violate public policy nor call into question the courts subject matter jurisdiction E. holding that because a valid arbitration clause existed the parties had to arbitrate all disputes when the subject matter of the dispute has a reasonable relationship to the subject matter of the contract

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that parties may stipulate which states substantive law governs their contract and tort claims if the chosen state bears a reasonable relationship to the alleged transaction and injury in question and the stipulation does not violate public policy nor call into question the courts subject matter jurisdiction
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Executive hereby irrevocably consents, subject to a right of review and approval which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, to any and all uses and displays, by the Company and its agents, representatives and licensees, of the Executive’s name, voice, likeness, image, appearance and biographical information in, on or in connection with any pictures, photographs, audio and video recordings, digital images, websites, television programs and advertising, other advertising and publicity, sales and marketing brochures, books, magazines, other publications, CDs, DVDs, tapes and all other printed and electronic forms and media throughout the world, at any time during, or solely with respect to uses and displays in practice during her period of employment, after, the period of her employment by the Company, for all legitimate commercial and business purposes of the Company (“ Permitted Uses ”), without further consent from or royalty, payment or other compensation to the Executive. The Executive hereby forever waives and releases the Company and its directors, officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, damages, losses, costs, expenses and liability of any kind, arising under any legal or equitable theory whatsoever at any time during or after the period of her employment by the Company, arising directly or indirectly from the Company’s and its agents’, representatives’ and licensees’ exercise of their rights in connection with any Permitted Uses.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: factually distinguishable. Corea involved the State’s attempt to validate a warrantless search conducted with the consent of a third party whom the State alleged had apparent authority. Id. at 315. After police officers received a tip that the defendant possessed stolen property, the officers went to the defendant’s apartment and received written consent to search the apartment from the defendant’s brother-in-law, who was a resident of the apartment. The officers then conducted a search of the defendant’s bedroom and discovered a paper bag containing cocaine. The trial court found that the brother-in-law had apparent authority to consent to the search and denied the defendant’s motion to suppress. Id. at 314-15. In reversing the trial court’s jud -Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). Unlike Corea, appellant was never suspected Options: A. holding search not to violate fourth amendment where officers belief that apparent landlord had the power to consent and that he had not revoked that consent was reasonable emphasis added B. holding that babysitter living in home connected via ramp to defendants home had no authority to consent to search of defendants home C. holding that it was unreasonable to believe that womans boyfriend had authority to consent to the search of her purse even though he had authority to consent to the search of the car in which it was kept D. holding that child residents had no actual or apparent authority to consent to search of mothers home E. holding that child cannot consent to search of parents bedroom

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that child residents had no actual or apparent authority to consent to search of mothers home
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: spotify and/or the owners of any content may , from time to time , remove any such content without notice to the extent permitted by applicable law .

assistant: Content removal, Unilateral change
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: we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. 1 . Fields also appears to assert in a statement attached to his complaint that he was terminated in retaliation for indicating that he wished to pursue criminal assault charges against Squitiere. SEPTA did not address this assertion in its summary judgment motion. To the extent Fields asserts a First Amendment retaliation claim, such a claim fails as a matter of law because Fields did not engage in constitutionally protected conduct. Fields states that he asked his foreman for a written report of the incident and he was told that if he pursued the matter further he would be fired. Fields does not state that he in fact pursued criminal charges against Squitiere. See Ambrose v. Township of Robinson, 303 F.3d 488, 493 (3d Cir.2002) Options: A. holding that private possession of child pornography is not protected by the first amendment B. holding first amendment claim requires actual protected conduct C. holding that first amendment principles preclude recovery under state law for damages caused by speech or other protected conduct D. holding that dating is a type of association protected by the first amendment E. holding that possession of marijuana is not protected by the free exercise clause of the first amendment

assistant: The best answer is B. holding first amendment claim requires actual protected conduct
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: There are no actions, proceedings, or investigations pending, or to Purchaser’s Knowledge, any basis or threat thereof, which question the validity of this Agreement or any other action taken or to be taken in connection herewith.

assistant: Litigations
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: Kan. Stat. Ann. § 76-713. 4 . This decision, therefore, does not address or rule upon the applicability of the Ex parte Young exception to violations of 11 U.S.C. § 525, 11 U.S.C. § 362, or 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2); or violations of federal law or regulations not grounded in the Bankruptcy Code, e.g., 34 CFR 682.402(f)(2)(i) ("If the lender [of a loan governed by these regulations] is notified that a borrower has filed a petition for relief in bankruptcy, the lender must immediately suspend any collection efforts outside the bankruptcy proceeding against the borrower."). See, e.g., In re Carson, 150 B.R. 228, 231 (Bankr.E.D.Mo.1993) (discussing whether failure to release transcript violates automatic stay); Buford v. Higher Education Assistance Foundation, 85 B.R. 579, 582 (D.Kan.1988) (<HOLDING>); In the Matter of Heath, 3 B.R. 351 Options: A. holding that the debtor must pay the government interest at the rate the debtor would pay a commercial lender for a loan of equivalent amount and duration considering the risk of default and any security B. holding that an answer that asserts a counterclaim against a plaintiff who then becomes a bankruptcy debtor is an action or proceeding against the debtor within the meaning of 362a1 notwithstanding the fact that the debtor initiated the lawsuit C. holding that the bankruptcy court lacked the power under 105a to grant the partial discharge of student loan debt when the debtor did not show undue hardship as required by statute D. holding that it was not improper for a lender to halt the proposed settlement and discounted payment of plaintiffs loan when the lender believed the loan would otherwise be paid in full E. recognizing that a debtor may be able to obtain an injunction against a lender for attempting to collect a student loan after the filing of bankruptcy in violation of 34 cfr 682

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that a debtor may be able to obtain an injunction against a lender for attempting to collect a student loan after the filing of bankruptcy in violation of 34 cfr 682
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 any discretion contained in the Plan or this Agreement, the LTI Award granted to Grantees in Canada shall be paid in Shares only and does not provide any right for the Grantee to receive a cash payment.

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: to calculate loss the district court can consider the cost of replacing the property, U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, comment, (n. 3(C)(i)). After Sypien received Rossini’s lulling letter in October 1998, but before she filed suit, the cost of replacing the stock at market value had climbed above $70,000, even by Rossini’s calculations. We typically do not permit generalized expectations of profit or appreciation to enter into a guideline loss calculation. See United States v. Schaefer, 384 F.3d 326, 337 (7th Cir.2004). But where the defendant makes specific representations about a property’s value or promises the victim a particular return on an investment, the defendant’s own valuation can be used to calculate loss at sentencing. See United States v. Porter, 145 F.3d 897, 900-01 (7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Aptt, 354 F.3d Options: A. holding that a claim for interest on a money judgment did not accrue until the judgment was rendered which was the date on which the trial court issued its order B. holding that fraud loss includes interest that the defendant promised would accrue C. holding that rights accrue only when an employee vests D. holding that interest does not begin to accrue until the date of judgment not the date of verdict E. holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid the securities fraud exception by pleading mail fraud or wire fraud if the conduct giving rise to those offenses also amounts to securities fraud

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that fraud loss includes interest that the defendant promised would accrue