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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The parties recognize and agree that if for any reason any of the provisions of this Agreement are not performed in accordance with their specific terms or are otherwise breached, immediate and irreparable harm or injury would be caused for which money damages would not be an adequate remedy. Accordingly, each party agrees that in addition to other remedies the other party shall be entitled to an injunction without posting a bond or other undertaking restraining any violation or threatened violation of the provisions of this Agreement. In the event that any action shall be brought in equity to enforce the provisions of the Agreement, no party shall allege, and each party hereby waives the defense, that there is an adequate remedy at law.

assistant: Specific Performance
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: be deemed ineffective for failing to pursue the claim further. We agree. The trial court’s instruction to the jury was correct as this Court expressly held in Saunders that a defendant’s willingness to submit to a polygraph is not generally admissible because lie detector tests are judicially unacceptable and a defendant’s willingness to take one is merely a self-serving act or declaration which could be made without any possible risk. Id. at 445-46. Elliott neither distinguishes Saunders, nor suggests that we reexamine its holding. While this Court has refined the law relating to lie detector references by explaining that every reference to a lie detector test may not be prejudicial and warrant the grant of a new trial, see Commonwealth v. Fortenbaugh, — Pa. —, 69 A.3d 191, 195 (2013) (<HOLDING>), the Saunders holding regarding the general Options: A. holding that evidence of a witnessess refusal to take a polygraph exam is inadmissible B. holding that in order to raise prejudicial comments of trial court on appeal defendant must object to comments when made and move for a mistrial C. holding that not every mention of a polygraph is prejudicial or worthy of a mistrial D. holding admissibility of polygraph evidence should be resolved under fedrevid 403 balancing test but reliability of polygraph test may be included to determine how probative particular polygraph test is E. holding that evidence that a polygraph test was offered to or refused by a defendant was not admissible

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that not every mention of a polygraph is prejudicial or worthy of a mistrial
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: notion that charter counties possess wide authority under Missouri Constitution Article VI, Section 18(c), to regulate municipal functions as they see fit — even in contravention of state statutes concerning the same powers. See, e.g., Casper v. Hetlage, 359 S.W.2d 781 (Mo.1962). So if section 260.247 in fact regulates a “municipal function,” serving in effect as a default regulation for political subdivisions which do not have home rule, the County is constitutionally free to exercise legislative power over that function; but if section 260.247 is “within the province of general legislation involving the public policy of the state as a whole,” then the County is bound by it regardless of its charter status. See State ex rel. St. Louis County v. Edwards, 589 S.W.2d 283, 286 (Mo.1979) (<HOLDING>). To resolve this question, the trial court Options: A. holding that juvenile adjudications may not be used for impeachment purposes because the disposition of a juvenile does not constitute a criminal conviction B. holding that although the juvenile restitution statute does not expressly require the juvenile court to determine whether the juvenile has the ability to pay the restitution ordered as a condition of probation the policies underlying the adult restitutions command that a trial court make such an inquiry applies with equal force to juvenile courts C. holding juveniles statement inadmissible when after being placed in custody police took juvenile to police station and held juvenile in area where adult suspects were held instead of taking juvenile to a juvenile processing office or any of the places listed as an alternative in section 5202 and placing juvenile in specifically designated office for juveniles D. holding that jeopardy attaches in juvenile adjudication that determines whether juvenile violated criminal law E. holding that the juvenile codes comprehensive control of juvenile facilities for the purpose of providing care protection and discipline of children in the juvenile facility could not be overridden by st louis countys exercise of control over juvenile facility personnel citing flower valley shopping center v st louis county 528 sw2d 749 754 mo banc 1975 state ex rel spink v kemp 365 mo 368 283 sw2d 502 514 1955

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the juvenile codes comprehensive control of juvenile facilities for the purpose of providing care protection and discipline of children in the juvenile facility could not be overridden by st louis countys exercise of control over juvenile facility personnel citing flower valley shopping center v st louis county 528 sw2d 749 754 mo banc 1975 state ex rel spink v kemp 365 mo 368 283 sw2d 502 514 1955
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: 2. Thus, the RLCWA has satisfied the pipes-in-the-ground test. The parties disagree, however, over whether the RLCWA has the legal right to serve Fox Run. Ohio law gives water districts plenary authority “[t]o supply water to users within and without the district.” Le-Ax, 346 F.3d at 707 (quoting O.R.C. § 6119.01(A)). Because the RLCWA is a regional water district in the State of Ohio, and because Fox Run is located within the RLCWA’s service district, the Court concludes that the RLCWA has the legal right to serve Fox Run. Id. While Grafton admits that “Fox Run was an area within the water district served by RLCWA and was included in the or exation of land within area served by water district did not act to remove that land from water district’s service area). Cf. Wayne, 36 F.3d 517 (<HOLDING>); Lexington-South Elkhom, 93 F.3d 230 (holding Options: A. holding that article x 2 of the california constitution dictates the basic principles defining water rights that no one can have a protectible interest in the unreasonable use of water and that holders of water rights must use water reasonably and beneficially B. holding substantial completion had occurred because water district took possession of all the lines filled them with water and began using them to serve the customers of the water district C. holding that 1926b prohibited munici pality from using its annexation of territory within rural water district as springboard for providing its own water service to residents D. holding that village could not condition provision of water services on annexation where prospective customer was within a rural water associations service area and the water association was federally indebted E. holding that clean water acts notice provision is a condition precedent to all claims

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that village could not condition provision of water services on annexation where prospective customer was within a rural water associations service area and the water association was federally indebted
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that equitable tolling is available under § 2000e-16(c), see 498 U.S. at 93-96, 111 S.Ct. 463, and the governing EEOC regulations now .embody that rule, see 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(c). The notion that the Bell court “might” have reached a different result with this predicate, however, does not provide sufficient basis for this Court to disregard otherwise binding circuit precedent. Rather, “[i]f a precedent of’ an appellate court “has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions,” the lower court “should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to [the appellate court] the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Exp., Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484, 109 S.Ct. 1917, 104 L.Ed.2d 526 (1989) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Torres, 115 F.3d Options: A. holding that the court of appeals erred in declining to apply supreme court precedent even though the reasoning of that precedent had been eroded by subsequent decisions B. holding that the sixth circuit erred by following its own precedent rather than that of the supreme court in determining what is clearly established federal law C. holding that the court of appeals lacks the authority to overrule decisions of the supreme court of north carolina and has a responsibility to follow those decisions until otherwise ordered by the supreme court D. holding that a condition was precedent to performance because the contract language did not explicitly state that it was precedent to formation E. holding that even though petition for allowance of appeal was pending before the pennsylvania supreme court decision remained binding precedent as long as the decision had not been overturned by our supreme court

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the court of appeals erred in declining to apply supreme court precedent even though the reasoning of that precedent had been eroded by subsequent decisions
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 where the failure to do so would not reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on the business, financial position or results of operations of the Borrower and its Subsidiaries taken as a whole, the Borrower will comply, and cause each of its Subsidiaries to comply, in all material respects with all applicable laws, rules, regulations and orders where material to the assets or operations of the Borrower or any such Subsidiary, such compliance to include, without limitation, paying before the same become delinquent all taxes, fees, assessments and other governmental charges imposed upon it or upon its property except to the extent any such taxes, fees, assessments or other governmental charges are being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings and adequate reserves in the judgment of the Borrower therefor have been established on the books of such Person in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: business need and the job related standard inquires whether there is a correlation between the criteria used and successful job performance. Plaintiffs do not question that Defendants discharged a large number of employees due to a business necessity. Instead, Plaintiffs challenge whether the selection process was job related. Here the fact that the mill formulated a rating system in which subjective decisions would be made does not mean that the practice is immune to challenge for illicit discrimination. Disparate impact theory arises in large part from the notion that facially neutral practices might be “the functional equivalent of a pretext for discriminatory treatment.” Watson, 487 U.S. at 998, 108 S.Ct. at 2791. See also Wards Cove, 490 U.S. at 660-61, 109 S.Ct. at 2126-27 (<HOLDING>). The question, therefore, is whether the Options: A. holding that a refusal to grant such a petition should nevertheless be accompanied by reasons therefore B. holding that a refusal to sign an implied consent form is not a refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test for purposes of section 1547 C. holding that a refusal to adopt equally effective alternative defeats disparate impact justification because such a refusal would belie a claim by the employers that their incumbent practices are being employed for nondiscriminatory reasons D. holding that an insurer is not liable for punitive damages by its refusal to pay a claim unless such refusal is accompanied by a malicious intent to injure or defraud E. holding refusal to sign hospital waiver of liability form is not a refusal under section 1547

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that a refusal to adopt equally effective alternative defeats disparate impact justification because such a refusal would belie a claim by the employers that their incumbent practices are being employed for nondiscriminatory reasons
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 consent, approval, authorization or order of, or qualification with, any court or Governmental Authority is required in connection with the execution, delivery or performance by Borrower of this Agreement or the other Loan Documents, except for any of the foregoing that have already been obtained and for the filings to perfect any security interest granted to Lender or its agents or representatives under the Loan Documents.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If Mortgagor shall request Mortgagee’s consent or approval pursuant to any of the provisions of this Mortgage or otherwise, and Mortgagee shall fail or refuse to give, or shall delay in giving, such consent or approval, Mortgagor shall in no event make, or be entitled to make, any claim for damages (nor shall Mortgagor assert, or be entitled to assert, any such claim by way of defense, set off, or counterclaim) based upon any claim or assertion by Mortgagor that Mortgagee unreasonably withheld or delayed its consent or approval, and Mortgagor hereby waives any and all rights that it may have from whatever source derived, to make or assert any such claim. Mortgagor’s sole remedy for any such failure, refusal, or delay shall be an action for a declaratory judgment, specific performance, or injunction, and such remedies shall be available only in those instances where Mortgagee has expressly agreed in writing not to unreasonably withhold or delay its consent or approval or where, as a matter of law, Mortgagee may not unreasonably withhold or delay the same.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If a Party becomes aware of any actual or potential claim alleging that the Research, Development, Manufacture or Commercialization of the Licensed Target, any Licensed Candidate, any Licensed Product or any Licensed Diagnostic Product, does (or would if carried out) infringe the intellectual property rights of any Third Party anywhere in the North America Territory or the ROW Territory, such Party shall [***]. In any such instance, the Parties shall [***].

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you are not a person who is barred from receiving the services under the laws of the united states , the united kingdom , or any other applicable jurisdiction -- meaning that you do not appear on the u.s. treasury department 's list of specially designated nationals or face any other similar prohibition .

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 modification, amendment, or waiver of any of the provisions contained in this Agreement, or any future representations, promise, or condition in connection with the subject matter of this Agreement, shall be binding upon any Party to this Agreement unless made in writing and signed by such Party or by a duly authorized officer or agent of such Party. In the case of the Company, any such writing shall bind the Company only if approved by the Board.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: ALL CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR ANY RELATED GOOGLE PRODUCTS OR SERVICES WILL BE GOVERNED BY CALIFORNIA LAW, EXCLUDING CALIFORNIA'S CONFLICT OF LAWS RULES, AND WILL BE LITIGATED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE FEDERAL OR STATE COURTS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, USA; THE PARTIES CONSENT TO PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN THOSE COURTS.

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: Employee shall receive four (4) weeks of paid vacation annually, administered in accordance with the Company’s existing vacation policy. Any existing accrued, unused vacation shall be paid to Employee at the time of employment termination, no matter the reason for such termination.

assistant: Vacations
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 Plan shall be effective upon adoption of the Plan by the Compensation Committee and shall supersede and replace the Company’s annual cash bonus program with respect to Awards granted to eligible employees for fiscal years beginning after the date of such adoption.

assistant: Effective Dates
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: to the extent permitted by applicable law , neither niantic nor tpc or tpci or any other party involved in creating , producing , or delivering the services or content will be liable to you for any indirect , incidental , special , punitive , exemplary , or consequential damages , including lost profits , loss of data , or goodwill , service interruption , computer damage , or system failure or the cost of substitute services , arising out of or in connection with these terms , or from the use of or inability to use the services or content , or from any communications , interactions , or meetings with other users of the services or persons with whom you communicate or interact as a result of your use of the services , whether based on warranty , contract , tort ( including negligence ) , product liability , or any other legal theory , and whether or not niantic , tpc , or tpci have been advised of the possibility of such damages , even if a limited remedy set forth herein is found to have failed of its essential purpose .

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: During the Term, and subject to Section 10 hereof, Executive shall be entitled to receive prompt reimbursement for all reasonable expenses incurred by Executive in the course of performing her duties and responsibilities under this Agreement, in accordance with the policies, practices and procedures of the Company to the extent available to other Peer Executives with respect to travel and other business expenses.

assistant: Expenses
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 Plan is intended to be an unfunded “top-hat” welfare plan, within the meaning of U.S. Department of Labor Regulation Section 2520.104-24, and shall be interpreted, administered, and enforced in accordance with ERISA. It is expressly intended that ERISA preempt the application of state laws to this Plan and each Letter Agreement (including, for the avoidance of doubt, the Restrictive Covenants) to the maximum extent permitted by Section 514 of ERISA. To the extent that state law is applicable, the statutes and common laws of the State of Maryland (excluding its choice of laws principles) shall apply.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to the expedited removal process, we are not persuaded. Shunaula introduced no evidence before the IJ, and makes no argument on appeal, regarding the general nature of the expedited removal system. He argues only that due process was violated in his particular expedited removal proceeding, a complaint that does not fall within § 1252(e)(3). Even if Shunaula’s complaint could be viewed as systemic, however, such a challenge can be brought only in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. See supra n. 4 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(3)(A)). This action did not originate there. In concluding that § 1252(a)(2)(A) bars our review of Shunaula’s claim, we join every other circuit to have considered this matter. See Khan v. Holder, 608 F.3d 325, 329-30 (7th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); Garcia de Rincon v. DHS, 539 F.3d 1133, Options: A. holding that 1252a2a barred review of petitioners claims including asapplied due process challenges to expedited removal order B. holding that court did not have jurisdiction under 8 usc 1252a2a to hear aliens collateral attack on his order of expedited removal where he alleged illegality in attorney generals particular decision to remove him and in specific way his removal was carried out C. holding that court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to review aliens habeas claims seeking review of expedited removal order including whether expedited removal statute was lawfully applied to alien and whether expedited removal procedures violated his right to due process because language of section 1252e5 clearly precludes review in habeas proceedings of whether alien is actually inadmissible or entitled to any relief from removal D. holding that 1252a2a presents jurisdictional bar to collateral attack on expedited removal order E. holding that under 1252a2a court lacks jurisdiction to inquire whether the expedited removal procedure to which the khans were subjected was properly invoked

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that under 1252a2a court lacks jurisdiction to inquire whether the expedited removal procedure to which the khans were subjected was properly invoked
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All communications, notices and consents provided for herein shall be in writing and be given in person or by means of facsimile (with request for assurance of receipt in a manner typical with respect to communications of that type and confirmation by mail), by overnight courier or by registered or certified mail, and shall become effective: (a) on delivery if given in person; (b) on the date of transmission if sent by facsimile; (c) one (1) Business Day after delivery to the overnight service; or (d) four (4) Business Days after being mailed, first-class registered or certified mail, prepaid.

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: number was the same number supplied by two separate anonymous tipsters who generated the visit by the deputies to Salyers’ residence. 8. A records check revealed that Sal-yers had a criminal history of cocaine and cannabis possession. The Sheriffs initial reason for visiting Salyers’ premises was the anonymous telephone calls supplying the address and cell telephone number relating to drug possession and illicit sales that were almost two months stale by the time of the visit. No further information had been gathered between the time of the telephone tips and the visit and we must conclude that at the time the deputies entered the residence, no reasonable suspicion existed that Salyers was then engaged in an illegal activity. See State v. D.D.D., 908 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (<HOLDING>). Salyers argues that the facts in Miller v. Options: A. holding that a tip may provide the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify an investigatory stop B. recognizing anonymous tips referring to activity that is occurring at the time the tip is made that provide only innocent details of identification are less reliable and require some corroboration to provide the foundation for reasonable suspicion C. holding that a mere anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun without any corroborating evidence does not provide a reasonable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing justifying the officers stop and frisk of that person D. holding that the fact the defendant matched an anonymous tips description was seen in a high crime area and walked away when police approached was insufficient to provide reasonable suspicion E. holding that an anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun without any corroborating evidence did not provide reasonable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing justifying the officers stop and frisk of that person

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing anonymous tips referring to activity that is occurring at the time the tip is made that provide only innocent details of identification are less reliable and require some corroboration to provide the foundation for reasonable suspicion
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 to the extent required by applicable law , we have no obligation to provide a re-download or replacement of any material , digital goods ( defined in section 14 ( k ) ) , or applications previously purchased .

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: (a) Actions, Suits and Proceedings. (i) There are no actions, suits or proceedings by or before any arbitrator or Governmental Authority now pending against or, to the knowledge of the Borrower, threatened against or affecting the Borrower or any of its Subsidiaries that, individually or in the aggregate, could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, except as disclosed in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Borrower for the fiscal year ended January 30, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission prior to the date hereof.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: under the circumstances. Toliver argues that, in light of the nature of her disputes, it was unreasonable for Experian to rely exclusively on information that it received via ACDVs from LVNV. In addressing a claim under § 1681i(a), “‘[t]he decisive inquiry’ is whether the defendant credit bureau could have uncovered the inaccuracy ‘if it had reasonably reinvestigated the matter.’” DeAndrade v. Trans Union LLC, 523 F.3d 61, 68 (1st Cir.2008) (quoting Cushman v. Trans Union Corp., 115 F.3d 220, 226 (3d Cir.1997)). “In a reinvestigation of the accuracy of credit reports, a credit bureau must bear some responsibility for evaluating the accuracy of information obtained from subscribers.” Stevenson v. TRW Inc., 987 F.2d 288, 293 (5th Cir.1993); see also Cushman, 115 F.3d at 225 (3d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). The Third and Seventh Circuits have held that Options: A. holding that where there is no evidence that during the period in which the credit reporting agency carried the inaccurate information that it provided plaintiffs credit report to any third party no rational trier of fact could infer that any potential creditor or other person in plaintiffs community learned of any helpful information from the defendant credit reporting agency B. holding in the context of a fcra violation that a jury could find that a consumers credit score was negatively influenced by the failure to list a debt as disputed because evidence was presented that when a credit reporting agency received notice of a dispute it records the dispute in the credit report and does not include the derogatory information in assessing the credit score C. recognizing statutory credit D. holding that the fcras provision that a lender may only use and obtain consumer credit information for the purpose of making a firm offer of credit requires that the lender offer something of value as an extension of credit alone E. holding that in order to fulfill its obligation under 1681ia a credit reporting agency may be required in certain circumstances to verify the accuracy of its initial source of information quoting henson v csc credit servs 29 f3d 280 287 7th cir1994

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that in order to fulfill its obligation under 1681ia a credit reporting agency may be required in certain circumstances to verify the accuracy of its initial source of information quoting henson v csc credit servs 29 f3d 280 287 7th cir1994
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 palpable, regardless of whether other women working in the same hostile environment would also have claims for relief. See Warth, 422 U.S. at 501, 95 S.Ct. 2197. The fact that the injury to Leibovitz from working in a hostile environment may have been an indirect result of the harassment of other women does not necessarily preclude Article III standing. See id. at 504-05, 95 S.Ct. 2197 (“When a governmental prohibition or restriction imposed on one party causes specific harm to a third party ... the indirectness of the injury does not necessarily deprive the person harmed of standing to vindicate his rights.”). Finally, this injury, if proved, is remediable through a damage award. See Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65-66, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis omitted). The district court was Options: A. holding that samcscx sexual harassment claims are actionable under title vii B. recognizing that a claim of hostile environment sex discrimination is actionable under title vii C. holding that noneconomic injury resulting from a hostile environment based on discriminatory sexual harassment is actionable under title vii D. holding that samesex sexual harassment claims are not actionable under title vii E. holding that title vii does not protect employees from harassment based on sexual orientation

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that noneconomic injury resulting from a hostile environment based on discriminatory sexual harassment is actionable under title vii
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: Because 4.05 announced a new rule, and no exceptions apply, it should not be applied on habeas to provide Garcia relief from his criminal conviction. B. Did Jeopardy Attach in the Civil Proceeding Before the Jury Was Empaneled in the Criminal Proceeding? Even if 405 could be retroactively applied to this case, it would not provide Garcia a basis for relief from his criminal conviction because je r.1995) (jeopardy attaches no earlier than date on which defendant filed answer to forfeiture complaint); see also United States v. Faber, 57 F.3d 873, 874-75 (9th Cir.1995) (conviction does not violate double jeopardy where defendant entered guilty plea before entering into settlement agreement in civil forfeiture proceeding); United States v. Wong, 62 F.3d 1212, 1214-15 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Sanchez-Cobarruvias, 65 F.3d Options: A. recognizing that federal habeas statutes require petitioner to be in custody when petition filed B. holding that jeopardy does not attach in the administrative process preliminary to formal forfeiture proceedings even when the petitioner has filed a petition for remission or mitigation C. holding that substantial attempts by surety may entitle it to remission of bond forfeiture D. holding in the administrative forfeiture context that jeopardy does not and cannot attach until one is made a party to a proceeding before a trier of fact having jurisdiction to try the question of guilt or innocence E. holding that because the petitioner failed in the petition to set forth facts known to petitioner or state that petitioner has no knowledge of facts regarding the name and address of any judicially appointed guardian or person or agency awarded custody of the child by a court and failed to attach the existing custody order to the petition it was facially defective and did not confer subject matter jurisdiction upon the trial court

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that jeopardy does not attach in the administrative process preliminary to formal forfeiture proceedings even when the petitioner has filed a petition for remission or mitigation
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: (including changing leadership and terminating some employees) and then merged with PA’s Information Technology Infrastructure group. (Moynihan Dep. at 78-79, 130-131.). At that point, the record shows that Mr. Moynihan put Patrick Kelly, the Head of the Information Technology Infrastructure practice, in charge of implementing the RIF, see Moynihan Dep. at 130-131, and Mr. Kelly testified that he decided to include Ms. Barnett in the RIF because her trade practice did not fit with the Transportation Group’s practice. (Kelly Dep. at 223-224.). The court finds that PA has produced sufficient evidence to indicate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Ms. Barnett. See Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 259-260, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981) (<HOLDING>). The burden is now on Ms. Barnett to produce Options: A. holding that an order was final for these identical reasons B. holding that in producing nondiscriminatory reasons for its challenged action the employer is not obligated to support these reasons with objective evidence sufficient to satisfy the preponderance of the evidence standard C. holding that the plaintiffs evidence of pretext was insufficient because the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the employer did not honestly believe its proffered reasons for its action D. holding that plaintiff need only point to sufficient evidence to support an inference that the employer did not act for its proffered nondiscriminatory reasons E. holding that the proper standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that in producing nondiscriminatory reasons for its challenged action the employer is not obligated to support these reasons with objective evidence sufficient to satisfy the preponderance of the evidence standard
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: not admissible ... [because it is] not subject to cross-examination by the prosecution. Therefore, such statements are appropriately [ jadmissible ... to prove only that the defendant earlier spoke consistently with his present testimony, the credibility of which is being challenged.” “A defendant may introduce his or her own prior consistent statements [in limited circumstances:] when the prosecution suggests that the defendant has a motive to falsify, alleges that the defendant’s testimony is a recent fabrication, or attempts to impeach the defendant with a prior inconsistent statement. [Where] the defendant [does] not testify at trial[,] ... none of these exceptions applie[s].” (citations omitted)); cf. also Bennett v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 448, 468, 374 S.E.2d 303, 316 (1988) (<HOLDING>). Numerous federal and state courts, applying Options: A. recognizing defendants state and federal constitutional rights to testify B. holding that admitting evidence of a defendants prior statement to an investigator proffered by the commonwealth did not violate the defendants fifth amendment rights by forcing him to testify to dispute it C. holding that the prosecutors comment regarding the defendants failure to call a potential witness did not shift the burden of proof because it did not implicate the defendants fifth amendment right not to testify D. holding district court did not violate sixth amendment by admitting defendants outofcourt statement E. recognizing that the fifth amendment forbids comment by the prosecution on a defendants failure to testify

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that admitting evidence of a defendants prior statement to an investigator proffered by the commonwealth did not violate the defendants fifth amendment rights by forcing him to testify to dispute 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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: which they must pay the salaries, fees and expenses of the court systems within that county. See id. § 3541; County of Allegheny v. Commonwealth, 517 Pa. 65, 534 A.2d 760 (1987). Dauphin County maintains that even though counties across Pennsylvania are required to pay the salaries of court personnel, the personnel are “employed” by the courts. To support this contention, the County relies on a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision, which held: Since the court has the inherent right to hire, discharge and supervise, an employer-employee relationship exists by definition between the judges and their appointees. The fact that those employees are paid by the county does not alter the court’s employer status. County of Lehigh v. Pennsylvania Labor Relati 929 F.2d 814, 820-21 (1st Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. NLRB, 879 Options: A. recognizing that an employer is liable for an employees action if the employer knew or should have known about an employees acts of harassment and fails to take appropriate remedial action B. recognizing that when an entity exercises sufficient control over employees it may be considered a joint employer C. holding that a section 8a3 violation is sufficient to find that the new employer would have employed a sufficient number of predecessor employees to be a successor employer had it acted lawfully D. recognizing that the compensation that an employer pays may exceed an employees recovery from third parties E. holding that agent part of title viis definition of employer includes someone who serves in a supervisory position and exercises significant control over hiring firing or conditions of employment

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that when an entity exercises sufficient control over employees it may be considered a joint employer
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: has little or no practical effect in Chapter 13 situations. In such a situation, the proper course of action for appellants was to file for relief from the stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d): When requested, such relief should be liberally granted in situations involving alimony, maintenance, or support in order to avoid entangling the federal court in family law matters best left to state court. See In re White, 851 F.2d 170, 173 (6th Cir.1988); In re MacDonald, 755 F.2d 715 (9th Cir.1985). Moreover, “it would result in great injustice to require children to await a bankruptcy court’s confirmation of a debtor’s Chapter 13 plan before permitting them to enforce their state court-determined right to collect past due support payments.” Caswell v. Lang, 757 F.2d 608, 610 (4th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Such considerations clearly constitute Options: A. holding that the conversion of a chapter 7 petition to a chapter 13 petition was not final until the plan itself was approved B. holding that child support arrearages may not be included in a chapter 13 plan C. holding the amount imposed to reduce child support arrearages must be reasonable D. recognizing that child support arrearages are imposable by law from the date of a childs birth E. holding that a chapter 13 debtor should be able to obtain a copy of his transcript in light of the broader discharge provision of chapter 13

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that child support arrearages may not be included in a chapter 13 plan
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EACH OF THE PARTIES HEREBY WAIVES TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW ANY RIGHT IT MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY WITH RESPECT TO ANY LITIGATION DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ARISING OUT OF, UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED BY THIS AGREEMENT. EACH OF THE PARTIES HEREBY (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 HAS BEEN INDUCED TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT AND THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED BY THIS AGREEMENT, AS APPLICABLE, BY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE MUTUAL WAIVERS AND CERTIFICATIONS IN THIS SECTION 11.16 .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 2. 36 . In fact, the majority’s contrary interpretation of § 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, i.e. that felon disenfranchisement is constitutionally protected and cannot be restricted, would result in a direct conflict between constitutional directives in that it is well-established that a felon disenfranchisement statute intended to discriminate against minorities are prohibited under § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222, 229, 105 S.Ct. 1916, 85 L.Ed.2d.222 (1985) (<HOLDING>). The only reading of § 2 that respects the Options: A. holding alabamas disenfranchisement for commission of petty crime or misdemeanor provision unconstitutional B. holding that absent a knowing and intelligent waiver no person may be imprisoned for any offense whether classified as petty misdemeanor or felony unless he was represented by counsel at his trial C. holding misdemeanor conviction for petty larceny triggered disenfranchisement D. holding that no person may be imprisoned for any offense whether classified as petty misdemeanor or felony unless he was represented by counsel at his trial E. holding alabamas petty crime and misdemeanor disenfranchisement provisions unconstitutional under equal protection clause based on evidence of discriminatory intent

assistant: The best answer is A. holding alabamas disenfranchisement for commission of petty crime or misdemeanor provision unconstitutional
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: holding that the petitioner had exhausted his administrative remedies successfully, because his original letter fully satisfied the filing requirements. Id. at 525, 92 S.Ct. 616. The Court stated that “requir[ing] a second ‘filing’ by the aggrieyed party ... would serve no purpose other than the creation of an additional procedural technicality ... particularly inappropriate in a statutory scheme in which laymen, unassisted by trained lawyers, initiate the process.” Id. at 526-27, 92 S.Ct. 616. As did the petitioner in Love, plaintiff detailed his complaints in wilting for the agency well before he was informed of his right to formally file complaints. Under Love, plaintiff was not required to take further action to maintain his claims. Id. at 526, 92 S.Ct. 616. Plaintiffs f ) (<HOLDING>); Garrett v. Lujan, 799 F.Supp. 198, 202 Options: A. holding that a three month interval between protected activity and adverse act is too long standing alone to establish an inference of retaliation B. holding causal link between alleged discriminatory remarks and adverse employment action insufficient C. holding that absent other evidence a thirteenmonth interval between an eeo charge and alleged retaliatory termination was too long to establish a causal link D. holding that a plaintiff must demonstrate a direct causal link between the municipal action and the deprivation of federal rights E. holding that an eight month interval between the two events is not strongly suggestive of a causal link

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that an eight month interval between the two events is not strongly suggestive of a causal link
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 Employment Period, the Participant shall receive an annual base salary at least equal to the Participant’s highest annual base salary as in effect with the Employer during the twelve (12)-month period immediately preceding the month in which the Change in Control occurs.

assistant: Base Salary