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: or state law or regulation” under § 40:2175.6(H). See Abbott Labs., 387 U.S. at 153, 87 S.Ct. 1507; see also Texas, 497 F.3d at 499 (“If [plaintiff] cannot challenge the [procedures [at issue] in this lawsuit, [it] is forced to choose one of two undesirable options: participate in an allegedly invalid process that eliminates a [previously available] procedural safeguard ..., or eschew the process with the hope of invalidating it in the future[] ____”). Pre-enforcement facial challenges seeking declaratory and injunctive relief have long proceeded as an accepted means for abortion providers and their patients to challenge the constitutionality of regulations touching on the abortion right. See, e.g., Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600, 609— 10, 124 S.Ct. 1941, 158 L.Ed.2d 891 (2004) (<HOLDING>). Pre-enforcement review prevents potentially Options: A. holding that apprendi v new jersey 530 us 466 120 sct 2348 147 led2d 435 2000 was not violated where the sentence did not exceed the applicable statutory maximum B. holding that 851 factfinding falls within the prior conviction exception set out in apprendi v new jersey 530 us 466 490 120 sct 2348 147 led2d 435 2000 C. holding that apprendi v new jersey 530 us 466 120 sct 2348 147 led2d 435 2000 did not overrule almendareztorres v united states 523 us 224 118 sct 1219 140 led2d 350 1998 D. holding that almendareztorres remains binding despite apprendi v new jersey 530 us 466 120 sct 2348 147 led2d 435 2000 E. recognizing the validity of preenforcement facial attacks in only a few settings including abortion based on the strength of specific reasons weighty enough to overcome the supreme courts wellfounded reticence to entertain such attacks generally citing stenberg v carhart 530 us 914 938946 120 sct 2597 147 led2d 743 2000

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing the validity of preenforcement facial attacks in only a few settings including abortion based on the strength of specific reasons weighty enough to overcome the supreme courts wellfounded reticence to entertain such attacks generally citing stenberg v carhart 530 us 914 938946 120 sct 2597 147 led2d 743 2000
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: was “drowsy” and “in a lot of distress” on the day the statement was made. Furthermore, a nurse in the room heard her say “Donna” rather than “Daddy.” Because this was an out-of-court statement and Quattura was deemed incompetent to testify, cross-examination was impossible. Given the age and mental state of Quattura and the conflicting versions of what she said, we find unwarranted the state’s rebanee on this statement, and virtually this statement alone, to support the petitioner’s conviction. While such evidence could certainly be used to add to the prosecution’s case, a statement made under circumstances such as those in this case by an “incompetent” declarant simply does not constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Cf. United States v. Orrico, 599 F.2d 113 (6th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). There was circumstantial evidence that Options: A. holding past recollection recorded and prior inconsistent statement insufficient standing alone to establish central element of alleged offense B. holding that a police officers notes were relevant as prior and possibly inconsistent statements made and recorded by the witness C. holding audiotape recordings were inadmissible as past recollection recorded where witnesses did not testify that the recordings accurately reflected their memories of events when made D. holding that where witness was unable or unwilling to attest to the accuracy of the taped conversation the state could not introduce the same as a past recollection recorded E. holding that threats standing alone generally do not constitute past persecution

assistant: The best answer is A. holding past recollection recorded and prior inconsistent statement insufficient standing alone to establish central element of alleged offense
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 property damage claim[s] due to defective workmanship or materials may be shifted by the contractor purchasing a comprehensive general liability insurance policy. ... However, in addition to and apart from those risks, the contractor likewise has a contractual business risk that he may be liable to the owner resulting from failure to properly complete the building project itself in a manner so as to not cause damage to it. This risk is one the general contractor effectively controls and one which the insurer does not assume because it has no effective control over those risks and cannot establish predictable and affordable insurance rates. Id. at 81-82 (quoting Knutson Constr. Co. v. St. Paul Fire a onstr. Inc. v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th. Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). D. Other Issues The insurers also claim that Options: A. holding that j5 exclusion did not bar coverage for claim against insured by third party arising out of insureds damage to third partys property B. holding that a similar exclusion denies coverage for property damage to the particular part of the real property that is the subject of the insureds work at the time of the damage if the damage arises out of those operations C. holding that your work exclusion is triggered only where the damage at issue is to work performed by you and is caused by work performed by you and does not apply to damage caused to original construction of a house during later repair work D. holding that j5 exclusion did not bar coverage for damage to subcontractors work because damage did not arise from insureds performing operations on subcontractors work E. holding that the unambiguous terms of the your work exclusion do not eliminate coverage for harm done to a subcontractors work

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that j5 exclusion did not bar coverage for damage to subcontractors work because damage did not arise from insureds performing operations on subcontractors work
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: the E & O policy, Great American did not assert any basis for concluding as a matter of law that if Primo’s claim was ts motion for summary judgment, filed two days before the summary judgment hearing, does contend that "there should be no question that Travelers, as the assignee/subrogee, sue- ceeded to the interest of Briar Green’s rights against Primo.” Yet neither its original motion for summary judgment nor its first supplement to its motion for summary judgment invoked Travelers’ alleged subrogee status. We therefore do not consider whether Travelers pled sufficient facts to establish itself as Briar Green's subrogee or whether a subro-gee would qualify as a successor to Briar Green’s interest for purposes of the exclusion. Cf. Merchants Fast Motor Lines, Inc., 939 S.W.2d at 141 (<HOLDING>). 10 . See Evanston Ins. Co., 256 S.W.3d at Options: A. holding that under eight corners rule focus is on underlying petitions factual allegations rather than legal theories B. holding that allegations of tampering went to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility C. holding that in limine hearings are encouraged when courts are concerned with the factual rather than legal dimensions of the evidence D. holding rule 1 ls factual inquiry requirement violated only when no factual basis for allegations E. holding that a complaint need not clearly articulate the precise legal theories to provide fair notice

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that under eight corners rule focus is on underlying petitions factual allegations rather than legal theories
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: To the extent that any court action is permitted consistent with or to enforce Section 9 of this Agreement, the parties hereby consent to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the State of California and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Accordingly, with respect to any such court action, the Executive (a) submits to the personal jurisdiction of such courts; (b) consents to service of process; and (c) waives any other requirement (whether imposed by statute, rule of court, or otherwise) with respect to personal jurisdiction or service of process.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any notice required or permitted to be given under this Guaranty shall be sent (and deemed received) in the manner and to the addresses set forth in Section 8.02 of the Credit Agreement. Any notice delivered to the Borrower shall be deemed to have been delivered to all of the Guarantors.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: allowing an opportunity to amend her pleadings. A plaintiff deserves “a reasonable opportunity to amend” unless the pleadings affirmatively negate the existence of jurisdiction. Texas A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 839 (Tex.2007); Harris County v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635, 639 (Tex.2004); TRST Corpus, Inc. v. Fin. Ctr. Inc., 9 S.W.3d 316, 320 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. denied). Nevertheless, based on the reasoning above, we conclude that Russell’s pleadings have affirmatively negated any possible theory upon which jurisdiction could be based. Russell’s grounds that are barred by governmental immunity cannot be re-pleaded to avoid immunity because there is no prospective relief available to Russell other than a judgment that would lay the 2d 709, 712 (1945) (<HOLDING>). But in all the cases Russell relies upon for Options: A. holding a declaratoryjudgment action was proper to construe compulsory school attendance law and did not implicate governmental immunity B. holding governmental immunity is no defense to contractual liability C. holding governmental immunity not implicated and a declaratoryjudgment action proper to seek determination of whether plaintiffs were motor carriers for purposes of tax statute D. holding section 1010215 does not waive governmental immunity merely because a governmental action falls within the listed governmental functions thus further inquiry under the act is necessary E. holding governmental immunity was not implicated in a declaratoryjudgment action seeking an interpretation of a competitive bidding statute as applied to the highway commissions policy of requiring all materials furnished under contracts be manufactured in the united states

assistant: The best answer is C. holding governmental immunity not implicated and a declaratoryjudgment action proper to seek determination of whether plaintiffs were motor carriers for purposes of tax 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any failure by Mortgagee to insist upon the strict performance by Mortgagor of any of the terms and provisions of this Mortgage shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any of the terms and provisions hereof, and Mortgagee, notwithstanding any such failure, shall have the right thereafter to insist upon the strict performance by Mortgagor of any and all of the terms and provisions of this Mortgage to be performed by Mortgagor. Mortgagee may release, regardless of consideration and without the necessity for any notice to or consent by the beneficiary of any subordinate mortgage or the holder of any subordinate lien on the Mortgaged Property, any part of the security held for the obligations secured by this Mortgage without, as to the remainder of the security, in any way impairing or affecting the lien of this Mortgage or the priority of this Mortgage over any subordinate lien or deed of trust.

assistant: No Waivers
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: be aware that headspace has no control over user material once it leaves the products , and it is possible that others may duplicate material found on the products , including , but not limited to , on other sites on the internet .

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 511, 784 P.2d 715 (“That some other such properties may have received variances is immaterial else each grant of a variance would effect a city-wide zoning change.”). ¶ 26 Additionally, the statute and the Zoning Ordinance require that the special circumstances cannot be created by the owner or applicant, but rather must relate to the property, the land, building or use, as opposed to any personal hardship suffered by the owner or applicant. See AR.S. § 9-462.06 H 2; Phx., Ariz., Zoning Ordinances §§ 303.B.2.b, 307.A9.b, 10.b; see also Arkules, 151 Ariz. at 441, 728 P.2d 657 (stating that the board has “no authority to grant a variance to allow [applicant’s] personal preference for a color which would enhance the design he chose for his house”); Burns, 156 Ariz. at 505, 753 P.2d 193 (<HOLDING>); Rivera v. City of Phoenix, 186 Ariz. 600, Options: A. holding that an ordinance exempting certain signs from a general sign ban was an unconstitutional contentbased restriction on speech B. holding that variance applicants decision to be a threecar dealership necessitating sign large enough to meaningfully display three manufacturers logos in excess of sign size permitted by city ordinance was a special circumstance or hardship that was selfinflicted C. holding city ordinance preempted by state law because ordinance prohibited act specifically allowed under state law D. holding that a plaintiff did not have a redressable injury where its sign permit applications were denied on the basis of one provision in a countys sign ordinance but could have been denied on the basis of some alternate but unchallenged regulation E. holding that the plaintiffs due process challenge to a city ordinance was barred because it was inextricably intertwined with a statecourt ruling that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the ordinance

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that variance applicants decision to be a threecar dealership necessitating sign large enough to meaningfully display three manufacturers logos in excess of sign size permitted by city ordinance was a special circumstance or hardship that was selfinflicted
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 shall be terminated, as to the Purchaser hereunder only and without any effect whatsoever on the obligations between the Company and any other Purchaser, if the Closing has not been consummated within ten business days; provided, however, that such termination will not affect the right of any party to sue for any breach by any other party (or parties).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Guy name and logo in the operation of the business.” (Doc. No. 60-A3.) This sentence does not support a construction that the term “exclusive” places an affirmative duty on the Defendants to protect the Plaintiffs from third-party infringement. Moreover, aside from the term “exclusive,” the agreements are entirely devoid of any indication that the Defendants assumed the affirmative duty to protect the Plaintiffs from third-party infringement. In the alternative, the Plaintiffs argue that the term “exclusive” is ambiguous, and the Court should therefore consider parol evidence to clarify its meaning. However, a term is not ambiguous where the ambiguity arises only after a court considers potential inconsistencies between contract terms and extrinsic evidence. Lambert, 680 So.2d at 590 (<HOLDING>). “The court must give full force to the plain Options: A. holding public bodies may not be bound by contracts without evidence of the contract terms in the minutes B. holding that the court was not bound by the parties agreement that contracts were unambiguous and holding that contracts were ambiguous C. holding that the district court properly declined to consider extrinsic evidence where the plea agreement was unambiguous D. holding that the trial court impermissibly created ambiguity by comparing the contracts to extrinsic evidence E. holding that at will contracts of employment are subject to tortious interference with contracts claims

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the trial court impermissibly created ambiguity by comparing the contracts to extrinsic evidence
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 RSU Award Agreement shall be governed by, interpreted under, and construed and enforced in accordance with the internal laws, and not the laws pertaining to conflicts or choices of laws, of the State of Delaware applicable to agreements made and to be performed wholly within the State of Delaware.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if you are a player outside of the united states , and you have to give us notice of something according to the terms , feature terms or the zynga privacy policy , the notice must be in writing and addressed to : zynga game ireland limited located at 25-28 north wall quay , dublin 1 , ireland , unless we have provided a more specific method way of notifying us .

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: No Party shall assign any of its interests or rights under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other Parties (such consent not to be unreasonably withheld), and no assignment of the interests or rights of any Party shall be binding upon the Escrow Agent unless and until written notice of such assignment shall be filed with and consented to by the Escrow Agent (such consent not to be unreasonably withheld). To comply with United States federal law including USA Patriot Act requirements, assignees shall provide to the Escrow Agent the appropriate IRS Form W-9 or W-8 (as applicable) and such other forms and documentation that the Escrow Agent may request to verify identification and authorization to act. Any transfer or assignment of the rights, interests or obligations hereunder in violation of the terms hereof shall be void and of no force or effect.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Note shall be given effect and construed by application of the laws of the State of Florida (without regard to the principles thereof governing conflicts of laws), and any action or proceeding arising hereunder, and each of Lender and Borrower submits (and waives all rights to object) to non-exclusive personal jurisdiction in the State of Florida, for the enforcement of any and all obligations under the Loan Documents except that if any such action or proceeding arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States of America, or if there is a diversity of citizenship between the parties thereto, so that it is to be brought in a United States District Court, it shall be brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida or any successor federal court having original jurisdiction.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: in all cases , spotify reserves the right to remove or disable access to any user content for any or no reason , including but not limited to , user content that , in spotify 's sole discretion , violates the agreements .

assistant: Content removal
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: we will not incur any liability or responsibility if we choose to remove , disable or delete such access or ability to use any or all portion ( s ) of the services .

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: upload , post , email , transmit , or otherwise make available any content that you do not have a right to make available under any law or under contractual or fiduciary relationships ( such as inside information , proprietary and confidential information learned or disclosed as part of employment relationships or under nondisclosure agreements ) ;

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you are solely responsible any consequences , losses , or damages that we may directly or indirectly incur or suffer due to any unauthorized activities conducted by you , as explained above , and may incur criminal or civil liability .

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: During the Term (as defined below), the Company shall employ Executive, and Executive shall be employed, as Chief Legal Officer. During Executive’s employment with the Company, Executive shall do and perform all services and acts necessary or advisable to fulfill the duties and responsibilities as are commensurate and consistent with Executive’s position and shall render such services on the terms set forth herein. During Executive’s employment with the Company, Executive shall report directly to the Chief Executive Officer of the Company (hereinafter referred to as the “Reporting Officer”). Executive shall have such powers and duties with respect to the Company as may reasonably be assigned to Executive by the Reporting Officer, to the extent consistent with Executive’s position. Executive agrees to devote all of Executive’s working time, attention and efforts to the Company and to perform the duties of Executive’s position in accordance with the Company’s policies as in effect from time to time. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary above, Executive may participate in civic and charitable activities, and may serve as member of the board of directors of such entities as may be approved from time to time in advance by the Reporting Officer, so long as such activities do not conflict with or interfere with Executive’s performance of her duties hereunder or compete with or present an actual or apparent conflict of interest for the Company, which shall be determined by the Reporting Officer and/or the General Counsel of IAC/InterActiveCorp in his/her good faith judgment.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Landlord shall notify Tenant of the Entitlement Conditions applicable to the Zoning Permits (including, without limitation, any Entitlement Base Building Plan Changes and any Layout Changes), within three (3) business days following the determination thereof (“ Landlord's Entitlement Condition Notice ”).

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Alleged Negligence Regarding Chock Straps and Lighting Plaintiff also contends that his workplace was unsafe because (a) the Nissan vehicle that allegedly injured him was “over-restrained,” such that it inched forward when plaintiff removed the chock straps securing it, Appellant’s Br. at 28, and (b) it was too dark for him to see the license plate holder. The district court noted that these claims “need not be considered” because plaintiff raised them for the first time in opposition to summary judgment. Hr’g Tr. at 16. We agree with the district court. See Greenidge v. Allstate Ins. Co., 446 F.3d 356, 361 (2d Cir.2006) (declining to reach merits of argument raised for first time in opposition to summary judgment); Syracuse Broad. Corp. v. Newhouse, 236 F.2d 522, 525 (2d Cir.1956) (<HOLDING>); see also 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Options: A. holding argument not raised in opening brief but raised for the first time in reply brief was waived B. holding that an argument raised for the first time in response to defendants motion to dismiss instead of in an amended complaint was not properly raised before the district court and would not be considered on appeal C. holding that claims raised for the first time in an opposition to a motion for summary judgment are not properly before a court D. holding that arguments not raised in opposition to a motion for summary judgment are waived E. holding that district court was justified in brushfing aside further argument not alleged in complaint but raised for first time in opposition to summary judgment

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that district court was justified in brushfing aside further argument not alleged in complaint but raised for first time in opposition to summary judgment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: and Urban Dev., 124 F.3d 1439, 1442 (Fed.Cir.1997) (deciding employer materially breached settlement agreement thereby excusing employee from adhering to terms of agreement); Tretchick v. Dep’t of Transp., 109 F.3d 749, 753 (Fed.Cir.1997) (finding employer’s breach of settlement agreement did not amount to material breach that would excuse employee’s performance under agreement); Stone Forest Indus. v. United States, 973 F.2d 1548, 1551-52 (Fed.Cir.1992) (acknowledging Government’s prior material breach excused contractor’s subsequent breach of contract); Malone v. United States, 849 F.2d 1441, 1445-46 (Fed.Cir.1988) (not obligating contractor to proceed with performance after Government’s material breach); Sun Studs, Inc. v. ATA Equip. Leasing Inc., 872 F.2d 978, 992-93 (Fed.Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); Joseph Morton Co., Inc. v. United States, 757 Options: A. holding only a material breach discharges contractors duty to perform B. recognizing that where a plaintiff failed to perform because of the defendants breach the plaintiff could recover damages caused by the defendants breach C. holding that after jury findings of dual breach unchallenged finding that defendants breach was not excused based on prior material breach of plaintiff constituted implicit finding that there was no material breach by plaintiff D. holding plaintiff not required to perform its residual contract obligations after defendants material breach E. holding that trial court erred by dismissing breach of contract claim because appellee made promises to perform specific acts in contract the breach of which would give rise to a breach of contract action

assistant: The best answer is D. holding plaintiff not required to perform its residual contract obligations after defendants material breach
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: capacity. The proposal thus could not be deemed to be made by Rebeca Ipox in her capacity as co-personal representative, much less made on behalf of the other co-personal representative. But even if the proposal had been made by Rebeca Ipox in her capacity as a personal representative, it would have been ineffective. Section 733.615(1) provides that “the concurrence of all joint personal representatives appointed ... is required on all acts connected with the administration and distribution of the estate.” Section 733.615 provides that “multiple representatives must act in concert, and have no authority to act independently, regardless of the circumstances.” Messina v. Scionti, 406 So.2d 529, 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). See also Costello v. Davis, 890 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (<HOLDING>); Pearce v. Foster, 454 So.2d 721 (Fla. 4th DCA Options: A. holding that plaintiffs personal injury action against other driver in auto accident was not precluded by arbitration award between insurance carriers regarding damage to plaintiffs car because plaintiff did not participate in or control arbitration was not a party to arbitration agreement did not adopt agreement or attempt to benefit from agreement B. holding that the defendant companys action in sending a representative to ohio to negotiate a resolution of a prior dispute did not confer personal jurisdiction C. holding that one copersonal representative did not bind the other copersonal representative to a contingent fee agreement with counsel because the other copersonal representative did not join in the agreement D. holding that parties to an arbitration agreement need not equally bind each other with respect to an arbitration agreement if they have provided each other with consideration beyond the promise to arbitrate E. holding that personal representative may amend personal injury suit to state wrongful death claim following plaintiffs death

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that one copersonal representative did not bind the other copersonal representative to a contingent fee agreement with counsel because the other copersonal representative did not join in the 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as set forth in Section 3.10 of the Company Disclosure Schedule, as of the date hereof there is no litigation, suit, claim, action, proceeding, arbitration or investigation (an “ Action ”) pending or, to the Knowledge of the Company, threatened against the Company or any of the Transferred Subsidiaries, or any property or asset of the Company or any of the Transferred Subsidiaries. There is no Governmental Order binding on the Company or the Transferred Subsidiaries that would reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect or a material adverse effect on the ability of the Company to perform any material obligation under this Agreement or to consummate the Merger without material delay or impairment.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement is binding on the parties and their respective successors, permitted assigns, heirs and legal representatives. Without limiting the foregoing, the terms of this Agreement shall be binding on the Insured’s estate, administrators, personal representatives and heirs. This Agreement may be assigned or transferred by the Bank to any party to which the Bank assigns or transfers the Policy. The Bank agrees to maintain an executed counterpart of this Agreement as an official record of the Bank.

assistant: Binding Effects
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 covenants and restrictions in this Agreement are separate and divisible, and to the extent any clause, portion or section of this Agreement is determined to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, Company and Executive acknowledge and agree that such unenforceability or invalidity shall not affect the enforceability or validity of the remainder of the Agreement. If any particular covenant, provision or clause of this Agreement is determined to be unreasonable or unenforceable for any reason, including, without limitation, temporal duration, scope of prohibited activity, and/or scope of geographic area, Company and Executive acknowledge and agree that such covenant, provision or clause shall automatically be deemed reformed to have the closest effect permitted by applicable law to the original form and shall be given effect and enforced as so reformed to whatever extent would be reasonable and enforceable under applicable law. The parties agree that any court interpreting the provisions of this Agreement shall have the authority, if necessary, to reform any such provision to make it enforceable under applicable law.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: for child support from May 16, 1986, to March 18, 1989. That portion of the trial court’s judgment which awards attorney fees to Lisa which were properly allocable to her attorney’s representation of Gary is REVERSED, and we REMAND this cause to the trial court for a determination of the proper amount of attorney fees. In all other respects, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. SMITH, J., concurs and dissents with opinion. 3 . We note that the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution has been held to be co-extensive with article 1, section 3 of the Texas Constitution. See Twiford v. Nueces County Appraisal Dist., 725 S.W.2d 325, 328 n. 5 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.); see also Burroughs v. Lyles, 142 Tex. 704, 711, 181 S.W.2d 570, 574 (1944) (<HOLDING>). We base our interpretation of section 13.42 Options: A. holding that white persons may state a claim under section 1981 and noting the racial character of the rights being protected B. recognizing that rights under article i section 11 are subject to reasonable limitations C. holding states are not persons for the purposes of section 1983 D. holding that states are persons but conceding that this change was not envisioned as broadening the class of persons who could be held liable under the act E. holding that this section article 1 section 3 guaranteeing all persons equality of rights was designed to prevent any person or class of persons from being singled out as a special subject for discrimination

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that this section article 1 section 3 guaranteeing all persons equality of rights was designed to prevent any person or class of persons from being singled out as a special subject for discrimination
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: THIS SECOND AMENDMENT AND THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES UNDER THIS SECOND AMENDMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED AND INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO ITS PRINCIPLES OR RULES OF CONFLICT OF LAWS TO THE EXTENT SUCH PRINCIPLES OR RULES ARE NOT MANDATORILY APPLICABLE BY STATUTE AND WOULD REQUIRE OR PERMIT THE APPLICATION OF THE LAWS OF ANOTHER JURISDICTION.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EACH PARTY HERETO HEREBY IRREVOCABLY WAIVES, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, ANY RIGHT IT MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY LEGAL PROCEEDING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT, ANY OTHER LOAN DOCUMENT OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED HEREBY (WHETHER BASED ON CONTRACT, TORT OR ANY OTHER THEORY). EACH PARTY HERETO (A) CERTIFIES THAT NO REPRESENTATIVE, AGENT OR ATTORNEY OF ANY OTHER PARTY HAS REPRESENTED, EXPRESSLY OR OTHERWISE, THAT SUCH OTHER PARTY WOULD NOT, IN THE EVENT OF LITIGATION, SEEK TO ENFORCE THE FOREGOING WAIVER AND (B) ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT AND THE OTHER PARTIES HERETO HAVE BEEN INDUCED TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT BY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE MUTUAL WAIVERS AND CERTIFICATIONS IN THIS SECTION.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Excluding any matters covered by Section 3.08 , no authorization, consent, approval, waiver, license, qualification or written exemption from, nor any filing, declaration, qualification or registration with, any Governmental Authority or any other Person is required in connection with the execution, delivery or performance by the Partnership of any of the Transaction Documents or the Partnership’s issuance and sale of the Securities, except (a) in connection with the Partnership’s obligations under the Registration Rights Agreement, (b) as may be required under the state securities or “Blue Sky” Laws, or (c) where the failure to receive such authorization, consent, approval, waiver, license, qualification or written exemption or to make such filing, declaration, qualification or registration would not, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Approvals
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: (“Had the plaintiffs filed [] a complaint [in the United States Court of Federal Claims for a tax refund], and had the plaintiffs been awarded a refund of the money levied from the bank accounts, as a result of this court’s proceedings, this court would have jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ complaint for reasonable administrative and litigation costs.” (citing 26 U.S.C. § 7430(e)(4)(C)(ii))). The Tucker Act authorizes the United States Court of Federal Claims to adjudicate tax refund claims if a taxpayer has paid the full assessed federal tax liability and timely filed a refund claim with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) stating the grounds for the claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a); see also 26 U.S.C. §§ 6511(a), 7422(a); Shore v. United States, 9 F.3d 1524, 1526 (Fed.Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). If the claim is denied by the IRS and the Options: A. holding that a tax refund claim must be dismissed if the principal tax deficiency has not been paid in full B. holding that even in a pro se tax suit a timely claim for refund must be filed to invoke the courts jurisdiction C. holding that full payment of the assessment is also required for tax refund suits brought in the united states court of federal claims D. holding that a refund may include additional taxes paid after the filing of a refund claim so long as the total does not exceed the portion of tax paid prior to the administrative claim E. holding refund of discriminatory tax required because predeprivation remedy not clearly available for tax years at issue

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a tax refund claim must be dismissed if the principal tax deficiency has not been paid in full
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 Subordinated Creditor unconditionally and irrevocably waives, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law: (a) notice of any of the matters referred to in this Agreement; (b) all notices which may be required by statute, rule of law or otherwise to preserve any rights against the Subordinated Creditor hereunder, including, without limitation, notice of the acceptance of this Agreement, or the creation, renewal, extension, modification or accrual of the Senior Obligations or notice of any other matters relating thereto, any presentment, demand, notice of dishonor, protest, nonpayment of any damages or other amounts payable under any Senior Credit Document or notice of the sale or foreclosure of any collateral; (c) any requirement for the enforcement, assertion or exercise of any right, remedy, power or privilege under or in respect of any Senior Credit Document, including, without limitation, diligence in collection or protection of or realization upon the Senior Obligations or any part thereof or any collateral therefor; (d) any requirement of diligence; (e) any requirement to mitigate the damages resulting from a default by any Obligor under any Senior Credit Document or any Subordinated Credit Document; (f) the occurrence of every other condition precedent to which the Subordinated Creditor or any Obligor may otherwise be entitled; (g) the right to require the Senior Creditor to proceed against any Obligor or any other person liable on the Senior Obligations, to proceed against or exhaust any security held by any Obligor or any other person, or to pursue any other remedy in the Senior Creditor’s power whatsoever; (h) the right to have the property of any Obligor first applied to the discharge of the Senior Obligations; and (i) until such time that all Senior Obligations have been indefeasibly Paid in Full, any and all rights it may now or hereafter have under any agreement or at law or in equity (including, without limitation, any law subrogating any Obligor to the rights of the Senior Creditor) to assert any claim against or seek contribution, indemnification or any other form of reimbursement from any Obligor or any other party liable for payment of any or all of the Senior Obligations for any payment made by any Obligor under or in connection with the Senior Credit Documents or otherwise. All of the Senior Obligations shall be deemed to have been made or incurred in reliance upon this Agreement.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: in the most general terms and does not inform us of where in the record we might find any evidence of them. This lack of developed appellate argumentation constitutes an independently sufficient basis for deeming the argument abandoned. See United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir.1990) ("It is not enough merely to mention a possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to do counsel's work, create the ossature for the argument, and put flesh on its bones.”). 5 . Although we assume arguendo the correctness of the Secretary's assessment of what transpired in 1998, we note that the district court made a series of contemporaneous written findings, which may well have satisfied the narrowness-need-intrusiveness requirements. See Morales II, 13 F.Supp.2d at 212 (<HOLDING>). 6 . We reject out of hand the Secretary's Options: A. holding that 1983 does not provide a remedy if there is no violation of federal law B. holding that a class plaintiff who seeks to assert statutory rights to protect a class of which he is a member is not asserting rights antagonistic to any members of that class C. recognizing a narrow class of cases in which the termination of the class representatives claim for relief does not moot the claims of the class members D. holding that entry of settlement decree without notice to putative class members violated the due process rights of the class members E. holding that privatization is necessary to protect the members of the plaintiff class from cruel and unusual punishment through constitutionally unacceptable health care services that the remedy extends no further than is necessary to correct the violation of the federal rights of members of the plaintiff class that such relief is narrowly drawn and that there is no less intrusive means to correct the violation of plaintiffs federal rights

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that privatization is necessary to protect the members of the plaintiff class from cruel and unusual punishment through constitutionally unacceptable health care services that the remedy extends no further than is necessary to correct the violation of the federal rights of members of the plaintiff class that such relief is narrowly drawn and that there is no less intrusive means to correct the violation of plaintiffs federal 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 Holder will cooperate with the Company, as reasonably requested by the Company, in connection with the preparation and filing of any Registration Statement hereunder, unless such Holder has notified the Company in writing of such Holder's irrevocable election to exclude all of such Holder's Registrable Securities from such Registration Statement.

assistant: Further Assurances