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: inadmissible under the residual hearsay rule to show what Zyrtec representatives were literally saying on three independent grounds: (i) the surveys had insufficient circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness; (ii) they were not more probative to show what was said in the detailings than any other evidence that Schering could procure through reasonable efforts; and (iii) the general purposes of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the interests of justice would not be best served by admitting the surveys. Schering argues that in reaching each of these conclusions, the district court abused its discretion by relying on an erroneous per se rule against the use of out-of-court memory statements to prove the facts remembered. See generally Pullman-Standard, 456 U.S. at 287, 102 S.Ct. 1781 (<HOLDING>); Charette, 159 F.3d at 755 (holding that clear Options: A. holding that the lower court is the factfinding body and that its findings of fact will not be set aside on appellate review unless they are clearly erroneous B. holding that this court will only set aside district courts factual findings when they are clearly erroneous C. holding that the trial court was without authority to set aside entry of default on motion to set aside default judgment D. holding that a factual finding may be set aside if it rests on an erroneous view of the law E. holding that judgments restfing on an erroneous view of the law may be set aside on that basis

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that judgments restfing on an erroneous view of the law may be set aside on that basis
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: bears the burden of establishing the relevance, reliability, and admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence. National Bank of Commerce v. Dow Chemical Co., D. Ark., 965 F.Supp. 1490, 1497 (1996), aff'd, 8th Cir., 133 F.3d 1132 (1998); Schmaltz v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co., D. Ill., 878 F.Supp. 1119, 1120 (1995); see also Harvey Brown, Procedural Issues Under Daubert, 36 Houst. L.Rev. 1133, 1136 (1999) (citing cases). Another source of confusion is the appropriate procedure. In Daubert, the Court opined that “[fjaced with a proffer of expert scientific testimony, then, the Trial Judge must determine at the outset, pursuant to Rule 104(a), whether the expert is proposing to testify to: (1) scientific knowledge that (2) will assist the trier of f 714 So.2d 67, 71 (1998) (<HOLDING>). The requirement of mandatory Daubert hearings Options: A. holding that there are no grounds under daubert or fedrevid 702 to doubt the reliability of schilenss testimony B. holding that under daubert and state law principles the trial court is mandated to order a pretrial or status conference to discuss and simplify any daubert issues or if those issues are still not resolved to hold a pretrial daubert hearing C. holding after remand that where the opposing party thus raises a material dispute as to the admissibility of expert scientific evidence the district court must hold an in limine hearing a socalled daubert hearing to consider the conflicting evidence D. holding that because rule 403 and daubert act independently reviewing court need not consider trial courts application of daubert if evidence was properly excluded under rule 403 E. holding that the district court need not conduct a separate evidentiary hearing to adjudicate a socalled daubert motion

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that under daubert and state law principles the trial court is mandated to order a pretrial or status conference to discuss and simplify any daubert issues or if those issues are still not resolved to hold a pretrial daubert hearing
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: shut off and a car door opening without necessarily seeing where the car parked. Furthermore, at the Franks hearing, both Hanson and Humboldt County Deputy Mark Peterson confirmed the accuracy of the statement in Hanson’s affidavit. Oct. 14, 2004 at 48, 102, 114. Accordingly, in the absence of any persuasive evidence to the contrary, the court finds Hanson’s testimo th Cir.1995) (200 feet is outside of the curtilage); United States v. Brady, 993 F.2d 177, 178 (9th Cir.1993) (45 feet is outside of the curtilage); United States v. Traynor, 990 F.2d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir.1993) (70 to 75 feet is outside of the curti-lage); United States v. Calabrese, 825 F.2d 1342, 1350 (9th Cir.1987) (50 feet is outside of the curtilage). But cf. United States v. Furrow, 229 F.3d 805, 817 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Depew, 8 F.3d at 1427 (distance of 50 to 60 Options: A. holding that trial court did not err B. holding that a trial court did not clearly err in finding that an attorney fees clause materially altered a contract C. holding that the district court to not clearly err in finding that a distance of 100 feet is within the curtilage D. holding that superior court did not clearly err in finding that the parent had not remedied the problematic conduct E. holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the district court to not clearly err in finding that a distance of 100 feet is within the curtilage
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 Parties do not intend to violate any public policy or statutory common law. However, if any sentence, paragraph, clause or combination of this Agreement is in violation of any law or is found to be otherwise unenforceable, such sentence, paragraph, clause or combination of the same shall be deleted and the remainder of this Agreement shall remain binding, provided that such deletion does not alter the basic purpose and structure of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event that the Executive breaches or threatens to breach any provisions of Section 5 or this Section 6, then the Company will suffer irreparable harm and monetary damages would be inadequate to compensate the Company. Accordingly, in addition to any other rights which the Company may have, the Company shall (i) be entitled, without the posting of bond or other security, to seek injunctive relief to enforce the restrictions contained in such Sections and (ii) have the right to require the Executive to account for and pay over to the Company all compensation, profits, monies, accruals, increments and other benefits (collectively “ Benefits ”) derived or received by the Executive as a result of any transaction constituting a breach of any of the provisions of Sections 5 or 6, to the maximum extent permitted by law.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement is the joint and several obligation of the Bank and Valley. The terms of this Agreement shall be governed by, and interpreted and construed in accordance with the provisions of, the laws of New Jersey. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements and understandings with respect to the matters covered hereby, including expressly the Change in Control Agreement dated June 19, 2015. The amendment or termination of this Agreement may be made only in a writing executed by the Company and the Executive, and no amendment or termination of this Agreement shall be effective unless and until made in such a writing. This Agreement shall be binding upon any successor (whether direct or indirect, by purchase, merge, consolidation, liquidation or otherwise) to all or substantially all of the assets of the Company. This Agreement is personal to the Executive and the Executive may not assign any of the Executive’s rights or duties hereunder but this Agreement shall be enforceable by the Executive’s legal representatives, executors or administrators. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and it shall not be necessary in making proof of this Agreement to produce or account for more than one such counterpart.

assistant: Miscellaneous
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: confusion; (5) marketing channels used; (6) likely degree of purchaser care; (7) defendant’s intent in selecting the mark; and (8) likelihood of expansion of the product lines. Wendt, 125 F.3d at 812 (applying AMF, Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir.1979)). This list of factors is not exhaustive and is not intended to be applied as a “mechanistic formula.” Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394, 1404 (citations and internal marks omitted), cert, dismissed, Penguin Books USA, Inc. v. Dr. Seuss Enterprises, — U.S. -, 1 be resolved as a matter of law on summary judgment where “the court is satisfied that the products or marks are so dissimilar that no question of fact is presented.” Pirone v. Mac-Millan, Inc., 894 F.2d 579, 584 (2d Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted); see also, Carson v. Options: A. holding that the defendants reference to the plaintiffs trademark in the metatags of the defendants web page was a violation of trademark law B. recognizing protection against appropriation for the defendants advantage of the plaintiffs name or likeness C. holding commercial use of photographs of babe ruth did not indicate origin or make representation of sponsorship and grantingsummary judgment for defendants where plaintiff devisees essentially asserted trademark in babe ruths image and likeness D. holding that the continued use of licensed trademark after termination of franchise agreement constituted trademark infringement and breach of contract E. holding that a consent judgment is essentially a contract

assistant: The best answer is C. holding commercial use of photographs of babe ruth did not indicate origin or make representation of sponsorship and grantingsummary judgment for defendants where plaintiff devisees essentially asserted trademark in babe ruths image and likeness
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in counterparts (and by different parties hereto on different counterparts), each of which shall constitute an original, but all of which when taken together shall constitute a single contract. Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page of this Agreement by telecopy or electronic transmission shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this Agreement.

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: Waggoner received was to compensate him for traveling from Texarkana to Shreveport, It reasoned that $10 of the $50 per diem was intended to pay for his “actual travel expense” and the remaining $40 was to “compensate the employees for their travel time.” The Commission also noted that “the per diem was intended to bear a rational relationship to the actual cost of the employee’s transportation costs from Texarkana to the company’s various work sites,” The “compensated travel” concept has not been fully developed or discussed in the case law. As a general rule, however, this exception applies when an employee’s compensation covers' the time going back and forth from work or an allowance is made for the cost of transportation. Chicot Mem’l Hasp., 9 Ark. App. at 20, 652 S.W.2d at 632 (<HOLDING>). The compensated-travel exception has also Options: A. holding where the employer supplies less than the actual expense of travel exception would apply only if the reimbursement bore a reasonable relation to the actual expense of travel or was for a substantial part of it B. holding the defendant responsible for the greater of the actual or intended loss C. holding a plaintiff failed to show an actual injury to challenge an epa rule when the plaintiff alleged he would not have purchased a piece of property or would have paid less because the plaintiffs allegations showed only that the property was worth less to him not that the property was in fact worth less D. holding that apprendi does not apply where the defendant was sentenced to less than the statutory maximum E. holding that because the hospital had no actual or constructive notice that the parties were separated at the time services were rendered the separation exception did not apply

assistant: The best answer is A. holding where the employer supplies less than the actual expense of travel exception would apply only if the reimbursement bore a reasonable relation to the actual expense of travel or was for a substantial part of it
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: No Party may assign, delegate or otherwise transfer, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, any of its rights or obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the relevant other Parties, except that (a) the Investor shall be entitled to assign its rights under this Agreement to any of its affiliates, and (b) so long as such transfer or assignment would not violate any agreement to which ARCH or any of its subsidiaries is a party (or otherwise require the consent of ARCH or its subsidiaries under any such other agreement), the Advisor Parties shall be entitled to (x) assign their rights to any cash consideration payable hereunder to any of their respective affiliates (provided that no such assignment by the Advisor Parties shall relieve the Advisor Parties of their duties and obligations hereunder), or (y) transfer the equity interests thereof to any of their respective affiliates (excluding any real estate investment trust (or any of such real estate investment trust’s subsidiaries) that is an affiliate of any of the Advisor Parties). Any attempted assignment, delegation or transfer in violation of this Section 20 shall be void.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: except for section 15 ( arbitration and class action waiver ) these terms are solely for your and our benefit ; they are n't for the benefit of any other person , except for microsoft 's successors and assigns .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The outstanding principal balance of this Note shall bear interest (computed on the basis of a 360-day year, actual days elapsed, unless such calculation would result in a usurious rate, in which case interest shall be computed on the basis of a 365/366-day year, as the case may be, actual days elapsed) at the lesser of (a) a fluctuating rate per annum determined by Bank to be two percent (2.0%) above Daily One Month LIBOR in effect from time to time, or (b) the Maximum Rate. Bank is hereby authorized to note the date and interest rate applicable to this Note and any payments made thereon on Bank’s books and records (either manually or by electronic entry) and/or on any schedule attached to this Note, which notations shall be prima facie evidence of the accuracy of the information noted.

assistant: Interests
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: reference to any products , services , processes or other information , by trade name , trademark , manufacturer , supplier or otherwise does not constitute or imply endorsement , sponsorship or recommendation thereof by tripadvisor .

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: cause existed. Id. at 238-39, 103 S.Ct. 2317. The totality of the circumstances, as set forth in Deputy Beuer’s affidavit, supported a finding of probable cause. Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948); see also United States v. Mayer, 560 F.3d 948, 958 (9th Cir.2009) (affirming probable cause finding based in part on buzzing noise and odor of growing marijuana); United States v. Kerr, 876 F.2d 1440, 1444-45 (9th Cir.1989) (affirming denial of motion to suppress where officer smelled growing marijuana); United States v. Roberts, 747 F.2d 537, 544 (9th Cir.1984) (affirming probable cause finding in part due to frost-free garage roof and covered windows suggesting marijuana grow operation). The existence of the Compass r.3d 80, 146 P.3d 531 (Cal.2006) (<HOLDING>). The district court properly denied a hearing Options: A. holding that an affirmative defense is ordinarily lost if not timely raised B. holding that laches is an affirmative defense C. holding cua is an affirmative defense to be raised at trial D. holding mmpa is an affirmative defense to be raised at trial E. holding that fair use is an affirmative defense

assistant: The best answer is D. holding mmpa is an affirmative defense to be raised at trial
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: although we expressly do not decide, that the one-day-late rule is incorrect. We can do. this because, even under this assumption, Justice’s tax debts are nevertheless non-dis-chargeable for the following reasons. Thus, we assume arguendo that the applicable filing requirements Congress envisioned in the hanging paragraph do not include filing deadlines. Even if late-filed tax documents, can sometimes qualify as returns, the BAPCPA definition also demands that a return satisfy “the requirements of applicable nonbankruptcy law.” Both parties to this ease, and all courts to consider the issue, agree that the term “applicable nonb'ankruptcy law” incorporates the Beard test. See, e.g., In re Martin, 500 B.R. 1, 8 (D.Colo.2013) aff'd sub nom. In re Mallo, 774 F.3d 1313 (10th Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>); In re Rhodes, 498 B.R. 357, 367 Options: A. holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint B. holding that the beard test constituted the applicable nonbankruptcy law1 pursuant to the first sentence of the hanging paragraph provided by the bapcpa for purposes of determining whether a filing is a return under 523albi C. holding that the ordinary observer test should be the sole test for determining whether a design patent has been infringed D. holding that in determining whether there has been a substantial contribution pursuant to section 503b3d the applicable test is whether the efforts of the applicant resulted in an actual and demonstrable benefit to the debt ors estate and the creditors E. holding that the board as constituted on the date that the original complaint was filed is the board for purposes of evaluating whether demand is required or excused

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the beard test constituted the applicable nonbankruptcy law1 pursuant to the first sentence of the hanging paragraph provided by the bapcpa for purposes of determining whether a filing is a return under 523albi
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: are not criminal proceedings, and to prove a risk of bias that would give rise to a due process violation, a litigant must point to more than a simple combination of functions within the Board. Appellate courts in other jurisdictions have squarely rejected claims that the combination of investigatory, enforcement, and adjudicative functions in a single attorney disciplinary agency (or judicial disciplinary agency) violates due process principles. See, e.g., In re Hanson, 532 P.2d 303, 306 (Alaska 1975) (stating that the “combination of judicial and investigative functions in the Commission [on Judicial Qualifications] did not violate petitioner’s due process rights under eigher [sic] the federal constitution or Alaska’s constitution”); People v. Varallo, 913 P.2d 1, 4 (Colo.1996) (<HOLDING>); In re Zoarski, 227 Conn. 784, 632 A.2d 1114, Options: A. holding that the fact that the members of the grievance committee and the disciplinary counsel are appointed by the supreme court is not enough by itself to establish a per se violation of due process B. holding that the oklahoma supreme court under due process principles could not order the reinvestigation of an attorney disciplinary grievance but also noting that the board of governors of the state bar could review the matter C. holding that prison disciplinary hearing committee members are entitled to qualified immunity D. holding hearing in chambers was not per se a violation of due process E. holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the fact that the members of the grievance committee and the disciplinary counsel are appointed by the supreme court is not enough by itself to establish a per se violation of due process
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Upon termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 8.2 (but for clarity, not in the case of its Expiration), and upon the request of the disclosing Party, the receiving Party shall promptly return to the disclosing Party or destroy all copies of Confidential Information received from such Party, and shall return or destroy, and document the destruction of, all summaries, abstracts, extracts, or other documents which contain any Confidential Information of the other Party in any form, except that each Party shall be permitted to retain a copy (or copies, as necessary) of such Confidential Information for archival purposes or to enforce or verify compliance with this Agreement, or as required by any applicable law or regulation.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The unpaid principal amount of the Note, the unpaid interest accrued thereon, the interest rate or rates applicable to such unpaid principal amount, the duration of such applicability and the accrued and unpaid commitment fee shall at all times be ascertained from the records of Lender which shall be conclusive absent manifest error.

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: (1979). Accordingly, in the interest of justice, SMUD is granted 30 days to amend the June 9, 1998 Complaint to articulate the regulatory takings claim discussed in the December 16, 2002 Response at 15 and properly allege the threshold elements discussed above. The Government’s motion to dismiss as to Count IV is denied. 2. Count V — Taking Of Real Property Claim. The complaint also alleges that the Government’s breach has “forced SMUD to devote economically valuable real property to the storage of the SNF in the ISFSI. The government has taken this real property by denying SMUD its rights as owner of this property to put it to other valuable economic uses.” Compl. at ¶ 72; see also id. at ¶¶ 71-73. Real property is constitutionally protected. See Cienega Gardens, 331 F.3d at 1328-31 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, taking these allegations as true, Options: A. holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property B. recognizing that water rights constitute a real property interest C. holding that forfeiture of real property may be adjudicated before the seizure occurs because real property cannot abscond D. holding that inmates have a property interest in their money E. holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in vested contractual rights

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Colorado’s registration requirement parallels the requirements in place in at least 19 States and the District of Columbia that candidate petition circulators be electors, see post, at 232, and the requirement of many States that candidates certify that they are registered voters. Like these regulations, the registration requirement is a neutral qualification for participation in the petitioning process. When one views the registration requirement as a neutral qualification, it becomes apparent that the requirement only indirectly and incidentally burdens the communicative aspects of petition circulation. By its terms, the requirement does not directly prohibit otherwise qualified initiative petition circulators from circulating petitions. Cf. Rosario v. Rockefeller, supra, at 758 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, as The Chief Justice illustrates in Options: A. holding that a nocontact order did not violate the right to freedom of association B. holding that the trial court did not err in denying a plea in abatement on grounds that individuals owning the balance of the working interest were not necessary parties C. 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 D. holding that hearing officers noting the parties agreement did not constitute a change in the parties legal relationship E. holding that time limits on enrollment in political parties did not violate the right of association because individuals were not prohibited from enrolling in parties

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that time limits on enrollment in political parties did not violate the right of association because individuals were not prohibited from enrolling in parties
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: 144 L.Ed.2d 450 (1999) (requiring that a person be presently- — -not potentially or hypothetically- — substantially limited in order to demonstrate a disability). “Mere 249 F.3d 557, 562 (6th Cir.2001) (“A person is ‘disabled’ under the Act if his or her physical or mental impairment substantially limits one or more life activities, including breathing and self-care.”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 1203, 152 L.Ed.2d 141 (2002); Doyal v. Oklahoma Heart, Inc., 213 F.3d 492, 495-96 (10th Cir.2000) (“Major life activities include such functions as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, sleeping, sitting, standing, lifting, reaching, and working.”); Homeyer v. Stanley Tulchin Assoc., Inc., 91 F.3d 959, 961 (7th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Rather, the critical question before the Options: A. holding that plaintiffs evidence showing that defendant refused to allow her to work as flight attendant because of her weight failed to demonstrate that defendant perceived her as substantially limited in any major life activity B. holding that plaintiffs severe allergic reactions to peanutladen foods did not substantially limit major life activity of breathing because her ability to breath was otherwise generally unrestricted C. holding that plaintiffs claim that she was disabled because her major life activity of breathing was substantially limited by her respiratory condition would provide a basis for protection under the ada D. holding that plaintiffs hernia condition was not sufficient to render her disabled under the ada E. holding that breathing is a major life activity within the contemplation of the ada

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that plaintiffs claim that she was disabled because her major life activity of breathing was substantially limited by her respiratory condition would provide a basis for protection under the ada
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: case on May 21, 2003. Therefore, Defendants argue, the automatic stay arising in Mr. Heghmann’s bankruptcy case did not apply to any of the defendants’ acts complained of herein. A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction The plaintiff has the burden to establish and prove that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction to decide his claim. Aversa v. United States, 99 F.3d 1200, 1209 (1st Cir.1996). Defendants argue that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims arising under 11 U.S.C. § 362(h) for willful violation of the automatic stay because all such claims must be brought in the bankruptcy court. The weight of the authority supports the defendants’ argument. See Eastern Equip. & Servs. Corp. v. Factory Point Nat’l Bank, 236 F.3d 117, 121 (2d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Davis v. Courington (In re Davis), 177 B.R. Options: A. holding that the district court had bankruptcy jurisdiction over a professional malpractice action filed by a title 11 debtor against the law firm that represented him in his bankruptcy case under section 1334b because the malpractice claim arose in the bankruptcy case B. holding a bankruptcy court is empowered to reopen a bankruptcy case on its own motion under 11 usc 105a C. holding that claims under 11 usc 362h must be brought in the bankruptcy court rather than in the district court which only has appellate jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases D. holding that a bankruptcy court does not have exclusive jurisdiction over third party claims against nondebtor parties as such claims are not cases under title 11 E. holding that bankruptcy court has discretion to retain jurisdiction over related case after dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that claims under 11 usc 362h must be brought in the bankruptcy court rather than in the district court which only has appellate jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: is any genuine issue of material fact and if the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Id.; see also Aikens v. Whites, 8 So.3d 139, 140 (¶ 9) (Miss.2008); M.R.C.P. 56(c). In conducting this review, we give the nonmoving party — in this case the Bradleys — the benefit of any doubt about whether a fact issue exists. Simmons v. Thompson Mach. of Miss., Inc., 631 So.2d 798, 802 (Miss.1994) (citing Brown v. Credit Ctr., Inc., 444 So.2d 358, 362 (Miss.1983)). I. Genuine Issue of Material Fact ¶ 22. Looking at all record evidence before us, we find that, based on the recorded contract, Kelley Brothers and Gregory failed to meet their burden to show there is no genuine issue of material fact. See Roebuck v. McDade, 760 So.2d 12, 14 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.1999) (citations omitted) (<HOLDING>). A. Genuine Issue ¶ 23. We find the Options: A. holding that an adverse party must state specific facts showing there is a genuine issue of fact for trial B. holding that the moving party has tjhe burden of showing no genuine issue of material fact exists C. holding that the moving party for summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial D. holding that once motion for summary judgment is properly made and supported opposing party has burden of showing by means of affidavits or other verified evidence that there exists genuine dispute of material fact E. recognizing that the burden on summary judgment shifts to the nonmoving party once the moving party has met its initial responsibility of showing the absence of a triable issue of fact and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment if the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of the case

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the moving party has tjhe burden of showing no genuine issue of material fact exists
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 term “Disability” shall have the same meaning ascribed to such term in any employment, consulting or severance agreement then in effect between the Participant and the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, or, if no such agreement containing a definition of “Disability” is then in effect, or if such term is not defined therein, “Disability” shall exist at such time that, as determined by the Committee in good faith, the Participant becomes physically or mentally incapacitated and remains unable for a period of six (6) consecutive months or for an aggregate of nine (9) months in any twenty-four (24) consecutive month period to perform the Participant’s duties.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns permitted hereby, except that neither the Borrower nor any other Loan Party may assign or otherwise transfer any of its rights or obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the Administrative Agent and each Lender and no Lender may assign or otherwise transfer any of its rights or obligations hereunder except (i) to an assignee in accordance with the provisions of Section 11.06(b) , (ii) by way of participation in accordance with the provisions of Section 11.06(d) , or (iii) by way of pledge or assignment of a security interest subject to the restrictions of Section 11.06(f) , (and any other attempted assignment or transfer by any party hereto shall be null and void). Nothing in this Agreement, expressed or implied, shall be construed to confer upon any Person (other than the parties hereto, their respective successors and assigns permitted hereby, Participants to the extent provided in subsection (d) of this Section and, to the extent expressly contemplated hereby, the Related Parties of each of the Administrative Agent and the Lenders) any legal or equitable right, remedy or claim under or by reason of this Agreement.

assistant: Successors
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: “[t]he Arbitration Act establishes that, as a matter of federal law, any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration ... [and opining that] as with any other contract, the parties’ intentions control, but those intentions are generously construed as to issues of arbitrability”) (citations omitted). Neither of the FDIC’s other arguments undermines this conclusion. First, the court is unpersuaded by the FDIC’s claim that a broad interpretation of the arbitration clause would render the forum selection clause superfluous. As TACG points out, the forum selection clause could apply to suits to compel arbitration or enforce an arbitration award. See Kvaerner ASA v. Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Ltd., N.Y. Branch, 210 F.3d 262, 267 (4th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Thus, a broad construction of the arbitration Options: A. holding that a contracts clause violation may support a 1983 claim B. holding that the best way to harmonize a choice of law clause and an arbitration clause is to apply the substantive case law of the named state to the entire agreement including the arbitration clause C. holding that a contracts choiceoflaw provision did not determine the scope of an arbitration clause D. holding that there was no conflict between a contracts arbitration clause and its venue clause E. holding an entire arbitration clause is void and arbitration cannot be compelled where contract contained unconscionable clause and has a nonseverability clause

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that there was no conflict between a contracts arbitration clause and its venue 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: ability to prove his claim of malicious prosecution, and each offers different reasons as to why. We will address Howard’s claims against each deputy separately. A. Deputy Highsmith Deputy Highsmith contends that Howard can prove neither a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights nor that Deputy Highsmith was the legal cause of his prosecution. We disagree. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Howard, Deputy Highsmith violated Howard’s Fourth Amendments rights by filing a false incident report that led to Howard’s arrest and prosecution. See Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271, 1285 (11th Cir.1999) (“[T]he Constitution prohibits a police officer from knowingly making false statements in an arrest affidavit about the probable cause for an arrest....”); Riley, 104 F.3d at 1253 (<HOLDING>). Though Deputy Highsmith insists that Howard Options: A. holding the same for malicious prosecution B. holding that section 1983 claims alleging due process violations stemming from malicious prosecution are unavailable when a state malicious prosecution action exists C. holding that no 1983 malicious prosecution claims exist after albright D. holding that a 1983 due process claim that essentially contests the fairness of the plaintiffs prosecution is similar to his malicious prosecution claim and claims resembling malicious prosecution do not accrue until the prosecution has terminated in the plaintiffs favor E. holding in the context of a plaintiffs 1983 and state law malicious prosecution claims against police officers that fabricating incriminating evidence violates constitutional rights

assistant: The best answer is E. holding in the context of a plaintiffs 1983 and state law malicious prosecution claims against police officers that fabricating incriminating evidence violates constitutional rights
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Loan Party (i) is a corporation, limited liability company or limited partnership duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the state or jurisdiction of its organization or formation, (ii) has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business as now conducted and as presently contemplated and, in the case of the Borrowers, to make the borrowings hereunder, and to execute and deliver this Amendment, and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby and by the Financing Agreement, as amended hereby, and (iii) is duly qualified to do business and is in good standing in each jurisdiction in which the character of the properties owned or leased by it or in which the transaction of its business makes such qualification necessary, except (solely for the purposes of this subclause (iii)) where the failure to be so qualified and in good standing would not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Organizations
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 hereunder shall be effective as of July 11, 2016 (the “ Effective Date ”) and shall continue until July 11, 2017, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 5 of this Agreement. The period during which the Executive is employed by the Company hereunder including any renewal term is hereinafter referred to as the “ Employment Term .” The Company shall notify the Executive no later than April 11, 2017 if it wishes to extend the Employment Term for an additional two years. If the Company provides such notice, the Employment Term shall not expire until July 11, 2019. If so extended, the Company may further extend the Employment Term for additional one year terms on an annual basis thereafter by providing such notice no later than April 11 in the year in which the Term is to expire. If the Company does not provide such notice by April in the applicable year, the Employment Term shall expire on the June termination date. If the Employment Term is extended as provided herein, all of the provisions of this Agreement shall remain in effect during the period of such extension unless otherwise agreed in writing. If the Employment Term is not extended by the Company for two years following the initial term expiration date of July 11, 2017, Company shall pay to Executive a one time lump sum cash severance payment of $137,500; this shall be in addition to any payments due to Executive under Section 5.1(a) below.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: or Hollender’s participation in the litigation; and (5) the total fees to the client were reasonable. Due to Hollender’s untimely death and the trial court’s staying discovery of Eggen’s files, the limited record before us does not reveal whether Hollender or Eggen disclosed to the client orally or in correspondence the percentage of fees each attorney was to receive under the agreement. Therefore, a genuine fact issue exists as to whether the fee-sharing agreement complied with Minn.R.Prof. Conduct 1.5(e). Although the fee agreement may not have satisfied each provision of the fee-splitting rule, an attorney’s violation of the rules of professional conduct does not give rise to a civil cause of action. See L & H Airco, Inc. v. Rapistan Corp., 446 N.W.2d 372, 380 (Minn.1989) (<HOLDING>). Neither, we conclude, may such a violation Options: A. holding fraud claims do not provide a suitable basis for classwide relief B. recognizing professional rules do not augment substantive legal duties or extradisciplinary consequences C. holding that a violation of the rules of professional conduct may not be used as evidence and citing terry cove north for the proposition that the sole remedy for a violation of the rules of professional conduct was the imposition of disciplinary measures D. holding professional rules do not provide basis for civil liability E. holding that the basis of liability is negligence and not injury

assistant: The best answer is D. holding professional rules do not provide basis for civil liability
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as set forth in the SEC Filings, there is no action, suit, proceeding, inquiry or investigation before or by the Trading Market, any court, public board, other Governmental Entity, self-regulatory organization or body pending or, to the knowledge of the Company, threatened against or affecting the Company or any of its Subsidiaries, the Common Stock or any of the Company’s or its Subsidiaries’ officers or directors which is outside of the ordinary course of business or individually or in the aggregate material to the Company or any of its Subsidiaries. No director, officer or employee of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries has willfully violated 18 U.S.C. §1519 or engaged in spoliation in reasonable anticipation of litigation. Without limitation of the foregoing, there has not been, and to the knowledge of the Company, there is not pending or contemplated, any investigation by the Commission involving the Company, any of its Subsidiaries or any current or former director or officer of the Company or any of its Subsidiaries. The Commission has not issued any stop order or other order suspending the effectiveness of any registration statement filed by the Company under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act.

assistant: Litigations