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: deciding the defendants’ motions to dismiss, they do not dispute that the Agreement expired in 2004. This fact is fatal to their claim because the Agreement is no longer in effect and no party has any continuing obligations under it. Granting declaratory relief would therefore have no effect on the Workers’ current legal interests. Furthermore, the Workers have not alleged any facts to show that they might be subject to a similar tax-abatement agreement between the same parties in the future. The issue of whether the Agreement is unconstitutional is, accordingly, no longer a “live” controversy, and there is no reasonable expectation that the Agreement will be revived to harm the Workers’ legal interests. See McPherson v. Mich. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 119 F.3d 453, 458 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Ford v. Wilder, 469 F.3d 500, 504 (6th Options: A. holding that a request for a preliminary injunction ordering the plaintiff to be allowed to compete in the 1995 highschool basketball season was moot in 1997 because the plaintiff had already graduated the season was over and there were no more games to be played B. holding that where a noncompetition clause in a contract had expired by its own terms the plaintiffs appeal from the district courts denial of the plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction enforcing the clause was moot C. holding appeal moot where tests that had been ordered under the preliminary injunction had already been car ried out D. holding that there was no prejudice to a plaintiff and thus no basis for sanctions when evidence believed to be lost was found and promptly turned over to the plaintiff E. holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a request for a preliminary injunction ordering the plaintiff to be allowed to compete in the 1995 highschool basketball season was moot in 1997 because the plaintiff had already graduated the season was over and there were no more games to be played
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: Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 9, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983). 27 . See Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 6, 123 S.Ct. 2058, 156 L.Ed.2d 1 (2003). Two exceptions to the well-pleaded complaint rule permit removal of state law actions: when the claims are completed preempted by federal law and when Congress “expressly so provides" for removal of those claims. Id. at 8, 123 S.Ct. 2058. Neither of these exceptions is relevant here. 28 . Id. 29 . Marcus v. AT & T Corp., 138 F.3d 46, 53 (2d Cir.1998) (quoting Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987)). Accord City of Rome v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 362 F.3d 168, 174 (2d Cir.2004). 30 . Whitaker v. American Telecasting, Inc., 261 F.3d 196, 206 (2d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>) (quotation marks omitted). 31 . Id. 32 . Options: A. holding that pleading which provided incomplete address information did not allow the defendant to intelligently ascertain removability the defendant was not required to research the missing address of another named defendant to discover removability B. holding that this court must remand to the bia to allow it to address in the first instance an issue that it has not yet considered C. holding that to preserve an issue a party must object with sufficient specificity to allow the trial court to address it D. holding that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel even though the exchange between the magistrate and the defendant was inadequate standing alone to inform the defendant of the dangers and disadvantages of selfrepresentation E. holding the trial court erred when it instructed the jury that it may find the defendant guilty of conspiracy if the jury found the defendant agreed with at least one other person where the indictment charged the defendant with conspiring with a single named individual and the evidence tended to show the defendant may have conspired with a number of persons not just the named coconspirator to commit an unlawful act

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that pleading which provided incomplete address information did not allow the defendant to intelligently ascertain removability the defendant was not required to research the missing address of another named defendant to discover removability
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 shall devote substantially all of Executive’s business time and attention to the performance of Executive’s duties hereunder and will not engage in any other business, profession or occupation for compensation or otherwise which would conflict or materially interfere with the performance of such services either directly or indirectly without the prior written consent of the Chief Executive Officer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Executive will be permitted to (a) with the prior written consent of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) (not to be unreasonably withheld) act or serve as a director, trustee, committee member or principal of any type of business, civic or charitable organization as long as such activities are disclosed in writing to the Board in accordance with Company’s conflict of interest policy, and (b) purchase or own less than two percent (2%) of the publicly traded securities of any entity; provided, that such ownership represents a passive investment and that Executive is not a controlling person of, or a member of a group that controls, such entity; and provided further, that the activities described in clauses (a) and (b) of this Section 2.2 , in each case and in the aggregate, do not materially interfere with the performance of Executive’s material duties and responsibilities to Company as provided hereunder, including, but not limited to, the obligations set forth in this Section 2 . Executive has no such business, civic and charitable organizations for which he serves as a director, trustee, committee member or principal as of the date of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: record at trial, and have been raised on appeal. As for the remainder of the unrecorded bench conferences, the defendant has not demonstrated any specific prejudice which he suffered as a result of those conferences not being transcribed; nor does anything in the record suggest that the conferences had a discernible impact on the proceedings. See Hoffman, 768 So.2d at 587 (finding that where defendant could point to no specific prejudice, the failure to record bench conferences did not constitute reversible error); Castleberry, [98-1388 (La.4/13/99), 758 So.2d 749] 758 So.2d at 772-73 (stating that absence from the record of four unrecorded bench conferences did not deny defendant effective appellate review); State v. Brumfield, 96-2667, pp. 14-16 (La.10/28/98), 737 So.2d 660, 669-670 (<HOLDING>) (footnote omitted). 98-0541 at p. 15, 802 Options: A. holding that the trial courts failure to have each bench conference and ruling properly transcribed was not reversible error when the defendant failed to show that he was prevented from presenting any relevant evidence and failed to establish that any prejudice resulted from the absence in the record B. 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 C. holding that the defendant failed to show any prejudice resulting from bench conferences not being transcribed and therefore there was no reversible error D. holding that failure to review the evidence presented to the magistrate and failure even to have a transcript filed with the district court was reversible error E. holding the denial of a bill of particulars was not reversible error because it failed to cause the defendant any prejudice

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the trial courts failure to have each bench conference and ruling properly transcribed was not reversible error when the defendant failed to show that he was prevented from presenting any relevant evidence and failed to establish that any prejudice resulted from the absence in the record
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: on facial grounds, a generally applicable policy re garding the assessment of duties on entries which were not covered by the results of an administrative review under 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a). Plaintiffs do not seek to challenge the factual conclusion that they are unaffiliated resellers, nor do they seek to challenge the legal conclusion that, as unaffiliated resellers, the terms of the Reseller Policy apply to them. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ entries were excluded from the Final Results. Thus, the nature of Plaintiffs’ complaint is, by definition, divorced from any final determination regarding entries that were within the scope of the Final Results. Commerce’s reference to the mere existence of the Reseller Policy does not render the Final Results a final legal d .2d 710, 715 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). A claim raising procedural objections accrues Options: A. holding that the alc may not rule upon a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a regulation or statute but may rule upon an asapplied challenge B. holding that secretarys decision not to challenge the sufficiency of the appellees exhaustion was in effect a determination that the agency had rendered a final decision within the meaning of 405g C. holding that a challenge to the ijs procedures and decision to deport the petitioner constituted a challenge to a final order of deportation stripping the district court of jurisdiction to review the habeas petition D. holding that a plaintiffs reference to himself and all similarly situated future petitioners did not change the essence of his action from a particularized challenge of the state courts decision against him to a general challenge of a statute E. holding that if a person wishes to challenge a mere procedural violation in the adoption of a regulation or other agency action the challenge must be brought within six years of the decision and that similarly if the person wishes to bring a policybased facial challenge to the governments decision that too must be brought within six years of the decision

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that if a person wishes to challenge a mere procedural violation in the adoption of a regulation or other agency action the challenge must be brought within six years of the decision and that similarly if the person wishes to bring a policybased facial challenge to the governments decision that too must be brought within six years of the decision
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: other equipment. 45 U.S.C. § 51. “FELA is liberally construed, and its language regarding causation is as broad as could be framed.” Pitter v. Metro-N. Commuter R.R., 826 F.Supp.2d 612, 615 (S.D.N.Y.2011) (citing CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2630, 2636,180 L.Ed.2d 637 (2011); Consol. Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532, 543, 114 S.Ct. 2396, 129 L.Ed.2d 427 (1994)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, “the United States Supreme Court has interpreted FELA as prescribing a relaxed standard of causation that departs from the ordinary proximate cause requirement of common law negligence.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Corsale v. Delaware & Hudson Ry. Co., 1:08-CV-572 GLS/RFT, 2010 WL 3907827, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2010) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Marchica v. Long Island R.R. Co., 31 Options: A. recognizing that the federal pleading standard is a less stringent standard than the delaware pleading standard B. recognizing that in an fela case the traditional concept of proximate cause is supplanted by the less stringent standard that there be some causal relation no matter how slight between the injury and the railroads breach of duty C. holding that a physicians negligence need only be a proximate cause not the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury D. holding proximate cause required for claim of breach of special duty E. holding that negligence must be the proximate cause of injury

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that in an fela case the traditional concept of proximate cause is supplanted by the less stringent standard that there be some causal relation no matter how slight between the injury and the railroads breach of 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 following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 519 U.S. 233117 S. Ct. 759136 L. Ed. 2d 674 TOM GRIMMETT, TRUSTEE FOR THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE OF VINCENT SIRAGUSA, AND JOANNE SIRAGUSA, PETITIONERS v.PATRICIA L. BROWN ET AL. No. 95-1723. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES January 14, 1997 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, Reported Certiorari dismissed. Reported below: 75 F.3d 506. PER CURIAM. 1 The writ of certiorari in this case is dismissed as improvidently granted.

assistant: 9
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company hereby represents and warrants to the Warrantholder that there have been no adjustments to the number of shares issuable upon exercise of the Warrant or the Exercise Price of such shares required pursuant to the provisions of the Agreement through the date hereof (without giving effect to this Amendment).

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: by these stipulations because she was not a party to the proceedings where these stipulations were made. Loma Linda Univ. Med. Ctr. v. Leavitt, 492 F.3d 1065, 1074 (9th Cir.2007). We look to the entire administrative record, most particularly the terms of the Washington State Medical Plan itself. 4 . That these individuals would otherwise be state-funded is confirmed by the fact that if a GAU or MI patient is treated by a hospital that does not qualify for Medicaid DSH reim bursement, the State reimburses the Hospital out of its own coffers. 5 . We reject the Secretary's determination that the Board lacked jurisdiction over the Hospitals' claims for several of the cost-reporting periods at issue in this case. See French Hasp. Med. Ctr. v. Shalala, 89 F.3d 1411, 1420-22 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Because the Board had jurisdiction over these Options: A. holding that the victim and witness protection act limits the amount of restitution to the loss caused by the specific conduct forming the basis of the offense of conviction B. holding that a defendant may be convicted of theft twice on the basis of intentional possession at one time of stolen property if the property forming the basis of the one conviction was stolen at different times and places from different owners than the property forming the basis of the second conviction C. holding that where the conduct forming the basis of the plaintiffs breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing claim is the same conduct forming the basis for the breach of contract claim the claims merge and there is no separate cause of action for breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing D. holding that the board has jurisdiction over issues forming the basis for a request for a reopening of a providers cost report E. holding that a nonfrivolous allegation of board jurisdiction is one which if true would establish a prima facie case that the board has jurisdiction over the matter at issue

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the board has jurisdiction over issues forming the basis for a request for a reopening of a providers cost report
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: found and produced at the trial.... ” In this case, the Petitioner did not present any evidence as to why the new psychological report to be introduced could not, with reasonable diligence, have been presented before the Court at Petitioner’s first hearing. The Court can make no finding that there is any new evidence and must, therefore, according to M.S.A. § 590.03(3) summarily deny the Petitioner’s second petition for post conviction relief under the Minnesota Guidelines. This appeal followed. In his brief petitioner’s attorney argues that the second petition was not based on newly discovered evidence but on evidence of petitioner’s present psychological condition, which is steadily improving. Specifically, he s 69), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 875, 90 S.Ct. 151, 24 L.Ed.2d 134 (1969) (<HOLDING>). Applying the principles underlying Minn. Options: A. holding that one of the essential elements of an abuse of process claim is the existence of an ulterior motive B. recognizing that a claim is an assertion of a right and if there is no assertion of a right there is no claim to deduct C. holding that to establish a claim for abuse of process a claimant must demonstrate an act in the use of the process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceedings D. holding that an assertion by a petitioner of the same claims a second time around is an abuse of process and that in such a situation summary disposition is proper E. holding that an assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that an assertion by a petitioner of the same claims a second time around is an abuse of process and that in such a situation summary disposition is proper
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 Mortgagor will keep proper books of record and account in which full, true and correct entries are made of all dealings and transactions in relation to its business and activities. The Mortgagor will permit any representatives designated by the Mortgagee, upon reasonable prior notice, to visit and inspect its properties, to examine and make extracts from its books and records, and to discuss its affairs, finances and condition with its officers and independent accountants, all at such reasonable times and as often as reasonably requested; provided, that so long as no Event of Default has occurred and is continuing, the Mortgagor shall only be required to reimburse the costs and expenses associated with such examination and inspection on one occasion in any fiscal quarter of the Mortgagor.

assistant: Records
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: Section 271(f). Id. at 1372-74. Our opinion on that issue did not elaborate further. We more fully addressed Section 271(f) in Eolas Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 399 F.3d 1325 (Fed.Cir.2005). In that case, we held that Microsoft could not avoid Section 271(f) liability by exporting golden master disks containing software code that were subsequently copied onto computer hard drives and sold outside of the United States. Id. at 1331, 1341. Eolas involved both a product and a method claim. In holding that Microsoft was liable under Section 271(f), we held that the software code included on Microsoft’s master disks was a “component” of a patented invention under Section 271(f), id. at 1339, and that the relevant “component” referred to a part of the product claim. See id. at 1339 (<HOLDING>). We rejected Microsoft’s argument that the Options: A. holding that the one challenging the patent must in part show that the subject matter of the sale or offer to sell fully anticipated the claimed invention or would have rendered it obvious by its addition to the prior art B. holding in an ordinary patent infringement suit the claim both arises out of and relates to the defendants alleged manufacturing using or selling of the claimed invention C. recognizing that courts must be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of references to reach the claimed invention without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention D. holding that the proponent must offer proof that the sales were a direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention E. holding that the computer readable code claimed in claim 6 the product claim was a part or component of that invention

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the computer readable code claimed in claim 6 the product claim was a part or component of that invention
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: After you sign this Agreement, you will have seven (7) days to revoke it if you change your mind. If you want to revoke the Agreement, you should deliver or email a written revocation to Vice President, Human Resources, Ulta Inc., 1000 Remington Blvd., Suite 120, Bolingbrook, IL 60440 or [ADD APPLICABLE EMAIL] within 7 days after you signed it. If you do not revoke this Agreement, you will receive the separation benefits pursuant to Section 2.2 of the CIC Plan.

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: Each of the representations and warranties of the Company, the Withdrawing Member and each Remaining Member set forth in this Section 3 shall expire if a claim has not been commenced against the applicable party with respect to a breach of a representation or warranty within one (1) year from the Effective Date.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Amendment may be executed by the parties hereto in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which shall constitute together but one and the same agreement. Delivery of an executed signature page of this Amendment by facsimile transmission or electronic transmission shall be as effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart hereof.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: proceeding subsequent to its informal adjudication. The Supreme Court has held that a “relevant consideration[ ] in determining finality [is] whether the process of administrative decisionmaking has reached a stage where judicial review will not disrupt the orderly process of adjudication.” Port of Boston Marine Terminal Association v. Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlantic, 400 U.S. 62, 71, 91 S.Ct. 203, 209, 27 L.Ed.2d 203 (1970). Similarly, Judge Leventhal writing for the D.C. Circuit has stated that “[t]he ultimate question is whether the problems generated by pre-enforcement review are of such a nature that, taken together, they outweigh the hardship and interest of plaintiffs members and establish that judicial review of [an agency’s] interpreta . Shultz, 443 F.2d 689 (D.C.Cir.1971) (<HOLDING>). The language of the APA also suggests that Options: A. holding that legislative history cannot supply a clear statement B. holding that the history of enforcement of a statute is relevant to standing and ripe ness inquiry C. holding ripe for review letter written by administrative agency construing legislative history of statute D. holding that even where there are contrary indications in the statutes legislative history we do not resort to legislative history to cloud a statutory text that is clear E. holding that a draft of a proposed letter from an area director of a government agency to a municipal administrative agency was properly excluded because it did not represent an agency finding

assistant: The best answer is C. holding ripe for review letter written by administrative agency construing legislative history of statute
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: ” Scottsdale Indent. Co., 673 F.3d at 719 (discussing and construing Illinois law). To be sure, that a pollutant escapes into the environment should not automatically trigger a total pollution clause’s applicability. See Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Potter, 105 Fed.Appx. 484, 497 (4th Cir.2004); cf. Scottsdale Indent. Co., 673 F.3d at 717 (providing hypothetical case of vehicle that skids on wet surface as a result of tanker truck that spills contaminant). Under Molina, however, a pollutant’s containment— even when it migrates to outside and surrounding areas — appears to be enough to deem the total pollution exclusion inapplicable. See 166 P.R. Dec. 260 at 276 (certified translation, p. 11); accord Stoney Run Co. v. Prudential-LMI Commercial Ins. Co., 47 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Meridian Mut. Ins. Co., 197 F.3d at 1184 Options: A. holding lead paint poisoning covered by the pollution exclusion B. holding that removal of insulation that released asbestos a thermal irritant into an apartment was covered by the pollution exclusion C. holding that pollution exclusion did not apply to claim arising from ingestion of lead paint because exclusion reasonably may be limited to environmental claims D. holding that a discharge into the environment is necessary for the total pollution clause to be applicable E. holding that the release of carbon monoxide into an apartment is not the type of environmental pollution contemplated by the pollution exclusion clause

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the release of carbon monoxide into an apartment is not the type of environmental pollution contemplated by the pollution exclusion clause
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Without granting any right or license, the Disclosing Party agrees that the foregoing clauses (i), (ii), (iii) and (v) shall not apply with respect to all obligations after five (5) years following the disclosure thereof or any information that the Receiving Party can document (iii) was rightfully disclosed to it, an affiliate or a consultant by a third party without restriction, or

assistant: No
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's employment under this Agreement shall continue from the Effective Date through February 28, 2020, unless terminated earlier pursuant to § 5 below (the “Initial Term”). Thereafter, this Agreement shall automatically renew for additional one (1) year terms (each, a “Renewal Term”) unless, not less than one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of the Intitial or Renewal Term, as the case may be, either party notifies the other in writing of their intention not to renew this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: When a reference is made in this Agreement to Sections, such reference shall be to a Section of this Agreement unless otherwise indicated. The headings contained in this Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not affect in any way the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. The words “include,” “includes” and “including” when used herein shall be deemed in each case to be followed by the words “without limitation.” The phrases “the date of this Agreement”, “the date hereof”, and terms of similar import, unless the context otherwise requires, shall be deemed to refer to the date first above written. Unless the context of this Agreement otherwise requires: (i) words of any gender include each other gender; (ii) words using the singular or plural number also include the plural or singular number, respectively; and (iii) the terms “hereof,” “herein,” “hereunder” and derivative or similar words refer to this entire Agreement.

assistant: Interpretations
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: Form or acquire any Subsidiary after the Closing Date, except in accordance with Sections 10.1.9 , 10.2.5 or 10.2.9 ; or permit any existing Subsidiary to issue any additional Equity Interests except director’s qualifying shares.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except with respect to the material terms and conditions of the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Documents, the Company confirms that neither it nor any other Person acting on its behalf has provided any of the Purchasers or their agents or counsel with any information that it believes constitutes or might constitute material, non-public information. The Company understands and confirms that the Purchasers will rely on the foregoing representation in effecting transactions in securities of the Company. All of the disclosure furnished by or on behalf of the Company to the Purchasers regarding the Company and its Subsidiaries, their respective businesses and the transactions contemplated hereby, including the Disclosure Schedules to this Agreement, is true and correct and does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. The press releases disseminated by the Company during the twelve months preceding the date of this Agreement taken as a whole, and in light of disclosures in the SEC Reports, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary in order to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made and when made, not misleading. The Company acknowledges and agrees that no Purchaser makes or has made any representations or warranties with respect to the transactions contemplated hereby other than those specifically set forth in Section 3.2 hereof.

assistant: Disclosures
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 with respect to the material terms and conditions of the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Documents, the Company confirms that neither it nor any other Person acting on its behalf has provided any of the Purchasers or their agents or counsel with any information that it believes constitutes material, non-public information which is not otherwise disclosed in the Prospectus Supplement, including the documents incorporated by reference therein. The Company understands and confirms that the Purchasers will rely on the foregoing representation in effecting transactions in securities of the Company. All of the disclosure furnished by or on behalf of the Company to the Purchasers in the Transaction Documents regarding the Company and its Subsidiaries, their respective businesses and the transactions contemplated hereby, is true and correct and does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary in order to make the statements made therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. The press releases disseminated by the Company during the twelve months preceding the date of this Agreement taken as a whole do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or mit to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary in order to make the statements therein, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made and when made, not misleading. The Company acknowledges and agrees that no Purchaser makes or has made any representations or warranties with respect to the transactions contemplated hereby other than those specifically set forth in Section 3.2 hereof.

assistant: Disclosures
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: their new policy to the Court, within a time frame acceptable to the district court, for review. B. Establishment of Religion Plaintiff has claimed the Defendants created an impermissible establishment of religion by allowing only the “Holy Bible” when he was on his morning lockout from approximately 5:00 a.m. until 7:00 a.m. The Defendants stated that during this time, the inmates were allowed one religious text. Plaintiff and other inmates testified at hearing that only the “Holy Bible” was allowed. Many cases have found that prohibiting “most other” reading materials, while establishing an exception for “Bibles” or the like, constitutes a governmental encouragement or establishment of a particular religious doctrine. See, e.g., Parnell v. Waldrep, 511 F.Supp. 764 (D.C.N.C.1981) (<HOLDING>). The establishment clause clearly applies to Options: A. holding no violation of federal establishment clause B. holding that the endorsing requirement does not violate the establishment clause C. holding that establishment of christmas day as legal public holiday did not violate establishment clause D. holding the refusal to allow inmates paperback books magazines and newspapers is unconstitutional and the jail can not prohibit the receipt of these reading materials while allowing an exception for bi bles and little christian tracts without violating the establishment clause E. recognizing that the court had to first consider whether the object in question can be defined as religious for establishment clause purposes

assistant: The best answer is D. holding the refusal to allow inmates paperback books magazines and newspapers is unconstitutional and the jail can not prohibit the receipt of these reading materials while allowing an exception for bi bles and little christian tracts without violating the establishment clause
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 wish to delete any of your user content from the service , then you may be able to do so using the permitted functionalities of the apps , but the removal or deletion of such user content will not terminate this eula .

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: for an employee who was burned to death in a boiler after failing to wait the requisite twenty-four hours for cooling, observed that “[n]ot only does wil[l]ful connote intentional, purposeful violation of orders ... but also an element of perverseness.” In Gart, this Court observed that the “pertinent distinction[ ]” in instances where willful misconduct existed was that the “employee was motivated by self interest,” whereas there was no misconduct when the employee “eommittfed] an error of judgment, in what he regarded as the ... interest of his employer.” Id. at 141-42. A Panel opinion has equated perverseness with being “obstinate or petulant.” Neely v. Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Corp., No. 03S01-9410-CH-00099, 1995 WL 595598, at *4 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp. Panel Aug. 21, 1995) (<HOLDING>). The Larson’s treatise has criticized the Options: A. holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service B. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his petition for reinstatement where membership in good standing in the state bar was required before attorney could be admitted to the federal bar and applicant had not been readmitted to state bar C. holding that the rule does not apply to bar tort claims against service providers D. holding decision on a motion to restore the case to the active docket is not immediately appealable E. holding that a rule requiring linemen to give consideration to lines which are energized did not bar recovery for a lineman injured when he hurriedly climbed a pole with a downed line to ascertain the problem and restore service

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a rule requiring linemen to give consideration to lines which are energized did not bar recovery for a lineman injured when he hurriedly climbed a pole with a downed line to ascertain the problem and restore service
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: legal positions prevented the Estate from bringing any claims, the pres ent action falls well within any statute of limitations that might apply. Significantly, the Estate’s action in the Orphans’ court to recover the transferred assets was equitable in nature. See Fulton, supra (defining as action in equity, estate’s action to set aside conveyances made by decedent’s agent under POA, and to impose constructive trust). Thus, a statute of limitations does not control whether the Estate’s claims are time barred. See United Nat. Ins. Co., supra; Fulton, supra; Lipschutz, supra. Nevertheless, Appellants failed to raise the defense of laches in response to the Estate’s pleadings. Therefore, Appellants waived any defense or argument based on laches. See In re Estate of Scharlach, supra (<HOLDING>). Moreover, most of the time between the Options: A. holding that the defendant waived an argument by failing to raise it in his appellants brief B. holding that appellant waived issue by failing to raise it in opening brief C. holding appellee waived laches for failure to raise it in any pleading before orphans court D. holding an argument waived on appeal for failure to raise the issue in objection to the magistrates recommendation E. holding argument waived for failure to raise it in opening brief

assistant: The best answer is C. holding appellee waived laches for failure to raise it in any pleading before orphans 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: whose testimony was inaccurate, self-serving, and nonsensical in light of other evidence. Defense counsel even went so far as to implore jurors that, “if you don’t believe [Levatte and Harris’s] testimony, then you can’t find the defendant guilty.” On the facts of this case, there is no logical or evidentiary connection between Thomas’s false exculpatory statement and the believability of Levatte and Harris. Thomas’s statement suggested only that she was not being truthful in the holding cell, but that fact, even if proven, has no bearing on Levatte and Harris’s credibility. Thomas has pointed to no aspect of defense counsel’s trial strategy or eviden-tiary presentation that would have been different absent the admission of her statement from the holding cell. Cf. Hart, 323 F.3d at 895 (<HOLDING>). As a result, Thomas cannot show defense Options: A. holding miranda error prejudicial in part because the defense presented testimony it otherwise would not have due to the improperly admitted statements B. holding that plain error review was not available for alleged improperly admitted testimony C. holding that overwhelming evidence of element of crime rendered miranda error harmless when improperly admitted statement went to same element D. holding that erroneous admission of improper and prejudicial evidence did not require reversal because the jury would have returned a verdict of guilty against the defendant even without the prejudicial testimony E. holding improperly admitted testimony was cumulative to the other properly admitted evidence and was therefore harmless

assistant: The best answer is A. holding miranda error prejudicial in part because the defense presented testimony it otherwise would not have due to the improperly admitted statements
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: for accounts created per section 1 ( ii ) above , you represent and warrant that you are an authorized representative of the entity with the authority to bind the entity to this agreement , and that you agree to this agreement on the entity 's behalf .

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: at S10560 (daily ed. Sept. 29, 2006) (statement of Sen. Cornyn) (emphasis added). Thus, Congress sought to give full effect to the Contract, which was the product of significant and substantial work by the signatories, see id. at H8004 (daily ed. Sept. 29, 2006) (statement of Rep. Johnson) (noting that the WARA outlined a “compromise” that “require[d] give and take of all vested stakeholders”), H8006 (daily ed. Sept. 29, 2006) (statement of Rep. Barton) (stating that the “compromise was hammered out in a deliberative fashion” and that the legislation was “a balanced compromise that has the support of Dallas and Fort Worth”); see also id. at H8010 (daily ed. Sept. 29, 2006) (statement of Rep. Burgess) (characterizing the Contract as an “historic compromise”); S.Rep. No. 109-317, at 17 (<HOLDING>), and legislators, see 152 Cong. Rec. H8010 Options: A. holding a party breaches a plea agreement by acting in a manner not specifically prohibited by the agreement but still incompatible with explicit promises made in the agreement B. holding that where the parties fail to reach an agreement as to the character nature or type of release to be used an essential element of the agreement is not established C. recognizing the concessions made by the signatories to reach an agreement D. holding that a loi that is subject to the negotiation and execution of a definitive agreement was nothing more than an invitation to attempt to reach an agreement of sale and not an enforceable contract based on offer and acceptance E. recognizing that the opinions issued by inter alia the intermediate appellate and trial courts of sister signatories corroborated the supreme courts understanding of article 17 and were therefore entitled to some degree of consideration

assistant: The best answer is C. recognizing the concessions made by the signatories to reach an agreement
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: not terminated in April, despite her performance or this meeting. 53 . See 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(D). 54 . Smith v. Diffee Ford-Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 298 F.3d 955, 960 (10th Cir.2002). 55 . Id. 56 . Metzler v. Fed. Home Loan Bank of Topeka, 464 F.3d 1164, 1180 (10th Cir.2006). 57 . See Gunnell v. Utah Valley State Coll., 152 F.3d 1253, 1262 (10th Cir.1998). 58 . See id. 59 . 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(b). 60 . Mardis v. Cent. Nat'l Bank & Trust of Enid, 173 F.3d 864, 1999 WL 218903, at *2 (10th Cir. Apr. 15, 1999). 61 . See, e.g., id. at *2 (finding interference when an employer informed an employee that she would be irrevocably deprived of all accrued sick leave and annual leave as a condition of taking FMLA leave); Mondaine v. Am. Drug Stores, Inc., 408 F.Supp.2d 1169, 1203 (D.Kan.2006) (<HOLDING>); Goodwin-Haulmark v. Menninger Clinic, Inc., Options: A. holding that employee who exceeded fmla leave was subject to immediate discharge on the very first workday that he was both absent from work and no longer protected by the fmla B. holding that an employee who did not present evidence that she could have returned to work prior to the expiration of her fmla leave allowance was not entitled to additional leave merely because her employer had not properly provided her with notice that the leave was designated as fmla leave C. holding that an employers motives are irrelevant to a fmla interference claim D. holding that 825220c is a reasonable interpretation of the statutes prohibition on interference with and restraint of employees rights under the fmla 2615a1 and that the labor departments conclusion that employer use of the taking of fmla leave as a negative factor in employment actions violates the act is a reasonable one E. holding that employers oral denial of plaintiffs request for fmla leave showed interference

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that employers oral denial of plaintiffs request for fmla leave showed interference