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: and Officers Jones and Smith may have been in a position to hear the announcements, it is likely they were paying attention to other matters. Specifically, Melvin Chappell and Jones were talking with each other on the porch. ROA 73, Jones dep. pp. 18-20. And Smith was occupied talking with Dorothy Chappell in the rear driveway. ROA 63-5, Smith dep. pp. 11-12. So, the fact that all three witnesses did not notice the detectives announcing themselves does not necessarily impugn the veracity of the detectives’ account. Second, even if a genuine fact dispute were deemed presented, it is not material, because the events before the shooting are not a factor in determining whether the detectives had probable cause to use deadly force once they entered the bedroom. Livermore, 476 F.3d at 406-07 (<HOLDING>); Claybrook v. Birchwell, 274 F.3d 1098, Options: A. holding officers did not have a realistic opportunity to intervene because they were not present at the time of the shooting B. holding that the assaultbattery exclusion applied to claims for negligence resulting in a shooting death C. holding that an officer did not employ excessive force in shooting a suspect who turned out to be unarmed because at the time of the shooting the officer had a reasonable belief that the suspect posed a threat and was armed D. holding the time frame is crucial and evaluating reasonableness of officers use of deadly force at the time of the seizure irrespective of their prior unreasonable conduct in creating the circumstances E. holding that evidence of recklessness by one officer in events leading up to shooting was immaterial in evaluating objective reasonableness of shooting officers decision to use deadly force in the situation he faced at time of shooting

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that evidence of recklessness by one officer in events leading up to shooting was immaterial in evaluating objective reasonableness of shooting officers decision to use deadly force in the situation he faced at time of shooting
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 and Tenant each warrant and represent to the other that other than CBRE and Colliers International (“ Brokers ”), it has not employed or dealt with any real estate broker or finder in connection with this Amendment, and that it knows of no real estate broker, agent or finder who is or might be entitled to a commission or fee in connection with this Amendment. Landlord and Tenant each agree to indemnify, defend and hold the other harmless from and against any and all claims demands, losses, liabilities, lawsuits, judgments, and costs and expenses (including without limitation reasonable attorneys’ fees) with respect to any leasing commission or equivalent compensation alleged to be owing on account of any dealings with any real estate broker or agent other than Brokers occurring by, through, or under the indemnifying party in connection with this Amendment.

assistant: Brokers
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 as expressly set forth in these terms , the exercise by either party of any of its remedies under these terms will be without prejudice to its other remedies under these terms or otherwise .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The rights to indemnification and advancement of expenses provided in this Section shall be in addition to any other rights a Partner or officer of the Partnership may have or hereafter acquire under any law, provision of the Certificate, any other or further provision of this Agreement, any agreement or otherwise. The Partnership shall have the right, but shall not be obligated, to indemnify or advance expenses to any employee or agent of the Partnership in accordance with and to the fullest extent permitted by law.

assistant: Remedies
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 would like to link to our services on your website or application , please follow these rules : ( i ) any link to the services must be a text only link clearly marked `` under armour '' ( without the use of any other trademark , logo copyright or any other intellectual property asset owned or controlled by under armour ) or in some other format directed by under armour , ( ii ) the appearance , position and other aspects of the link may not damage or dilute the goodwill associated with our marks , ( iii ) the link must `` point '' to the root domain name of the services and not to other pages within the services , ( iv ) the appearance , position and other attributes of the link may not create the false appearance that your organization or entity is sponsored by , affiliated with , or associated with under armour , ( v ) when selected , the link must display the service on full-screen and not within a `` frame '' on the linking website or service , and ( vi ) under armour reserves the right to revoke its consent to the link at any time and in its sole discretion , and upon our notification to you of such revocation of consent , you agree to promptly remove the relevant link from your website or application .

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: Shall mean any entity of which at least 5l% of the outstanding stock or ownership interest having ordinary voting power to elect a majority of the Board of Directors/management of such entity is at the time directly or indirectly owned by the Borrower.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (%2) Subject to the provisions of this Section 3, if the Participant is continuously employed by the Company or any Subsidiary from the Grant Date through and until the dates (the “ Vesting Date ”) set forth in the vesting schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “ Vesting Schedule ”), then the RSUs shall become vested as set forth in the Vesting Schedule on the applicable Vesting Date. Except as otherwise provided in this Section 3, there shall be no proportionate or partial vesting of the RSUs prior to the applicable Vesting Date.

assistant: Vesting
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: Progressive argues that reforming policies to provide UM/UIM coverage equal to the liability limits would undermine freedom of contract. We disagree. As this Court has explained, “although ... public policy generally supports freedom of contract, the necessity of meeting the statutory and regulatory requirements plainly conditions freedom of contract” in the context of UM/UIM insurance. Marckstadt, 2010-NMSC-001, ¶ 18, 147 N.M. 678, 228 P.3d 462 (citation omitted). We seek an approach to UM/UIM coverage that “best balances the interests in permitting private contractual relations between the parties, and honoring the broad intent of the [UM/UIM] statute.” Montano v. Allstate Indem. Co., 2004-NMSC-020, ¶¶ 18-19, 135 N.M. 681, 92 P.3d 1255 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (<HOLDING>). {24} In Montano, this Court struck that Options: A. holding that an insurance company should obtain written rejections of stacking in order to limit its liability based on an antistacking provision B. holding that a closing protection letter offering to indemnify a mortgage company was not an insurance contract where although issued by an insurance company there was no distribution of the risk C. holding that an insurance company may limit coverage only if the limitation does not contravene public policy D. holding that when an insurance policy contains an antistacking clause the insurance company must obtain a written rejection of um coverage for each additional vehicle covered by a policy in order to clarify the insureds expectations and to make certain that the insured gets only what he or she has paid for E. holding that notice and a hearing were required before the commissioner of insurance could require an insurance company to change its definition of at fault in order to secure approval of an increase in insurance rates

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that an insurance company should obtain written rejections of stacking in order to limit its liability based on an antistacking provision
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 allow the Yakimas to cross over or to camp on their land in order to fish at the site. The Yakimas had signed one of the Stevens Treaties in 1855. The United States brought suit against the Winanses on the Yakimas’ behalf. The Supreme Court held that the land owned by the Winanses, previously conveyed by patent from the government, was by virtue of the treaty subject to an easement allowing access to the Yakimas’ “usual and accustomed” fishing site. The Court held, further, that the State could not license the Winanses to “construct and use a device which gives them exclusive possession of the fishing places, as it is admitted a fish wheel does.” Winans, 198 U.S. at 382, 25 S.Ct. 662. See also Seufert Bros. Co. v. United States, 249 U.S. 194, 39 S.Ct. 203, 63 L.Ed. 555 (1919) (<HOLDING>). In 1915, Charles Buchanan, still the Indian Options: A. holding that the fourth amendment protects property as well as privacy B. holding that under the fourth amendment a party may challenge both the constitutionality of the act permitting warrantless searches as well as the conduct of the government officials in a particular case C. holding that the yakimas had rights under the treaty on the oregon as well as the washington side of the river D. holding that the state as well as the defendant has a right to rely on compliance with rule 16 E. holding that it is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy spacious as well as clean wellbalanced as well as carefully patrolled

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the yakimas had rights under the treaty on the oregon as well as the washington side of the river
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’s obligations under this Section 2.08 shall survive the resignation or replacement of the Agent or any assignment of rights by, or the replacement of, a Purchaser, the termination of the Note Purchase Commitment and the repayment, satisfaction or discharge of all obligations under any Note Document.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company agrees to provide Executive with the severance payments and benefits described in Section 4 of the Employment Agreement, payable at the times set forth in, and subject to the terms and conditions of, the Employment Agreement. In addition, to the extent not already paid, and subject to the terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement, the Company shall pay or provide to Executive all other payments or benefits described in Section 3(c) of the Employment Agreement, subject to and in accordance with the terms thereof.

assistant: Benefits
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 failure on the part of any Beneficiary to exercise any power, right, privilege or remedy under this Agreement, and no delay on the part of any Beneficiary in exercising any power, right, privilege or remedy under this Agreement, shall operate as a waiver of such power, right, privilege or remedy; and no single or partial exercise of any such power, right, privilege or remedy shall preclude any other or further exercise thereof or of any other power, right, privilege or remedy. No Beneficiary shall be deemed to have waived any claim of such Beneficiary arising out of this Agreement, or any power, right, privilege or remedy of such Beneficiary under this Agreement, unless the waiver of such claim, power, right, privilege or remedy is expressly set forth in a written instrument duly executed and delivered on behalf of such Beneficiary; and any such waiver shall not be applicable or have any effect except in the specific instance in which it is given.

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: Inc., 378 S.W.3d 597, 607 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2012, pet. denied). A defendant is not entitled to any reduction , for damages if he does not prove the, damages, that could have been avoided. Austin Hill Country Realty, Inc. v. Palisades Plaza, Inc., 948 S.W.2d 293, 299 (Tex.1997); Hoppenstein Props., Inc. v. Schober, 329 S.W.3d 846, 849 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2010, no pet.). To the extent Ordonez is arguing mitigation, we conclude the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on the- actual damages because Ordonez provided no evidence of the damages that could have been avoided if Solorio had properly mitigated. See Levertov v. Hold Properties, Ltd., No. 11-11-00284-CV, 2014 WL 887225, at *4-5 (Tex.App.—Eastland Feb. 27, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>); Cole Chem. & Distrib., Inc. v. Gowing, 228 Options: A. holding that failure to raise issue at district court forecloses party from raising same issue on appeal B. holding that the nonmovant failed to raise a fact issue on mitigation by not raising a fact issue as to the amount of damages that could have been avoided had the movantproperly mitigated his damages C. holding that burden shifts to nonmovant to raise issue of fact D. holding that by fading to timely raise the issue before the trial court the defendant had waived the right to raise the issue on appeal that the trial court failed to consider less severe sanctions E. holding that defendant failed to raise a constitutional issue at trial and thus failed to preserve the issue for appellate review

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the nonmovant failed to raise a fact issue on mitigation by not raising a fact issue as to the amount of damages that could have been avoided had the movantproperly mitigated his damages
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: a lien against her property,” 694 So.2d at 1358; and that the statute of limitations should have been tolled until the mother actually discovered that the hen had been filed. This court rejected the mother’s argument that the mother and daughter had a confidential relationship. Noting that the daughter and her husband “had appropriated [over $50,000] to themselves from [the mother’s] bank account, without [the mother’s] consent or permission,” 694 So.2d at 1358, the court held that “it could not be said that there existed such a ‘confidential relationship’ between the parties that [the daughter and son-in-law] occupied a role which inspired confidence that they were acting in good faith for [the mother’s] interest.” Id. Compare Jordan v. Mitchell, 705 So.2d 453, 461 (Ala.Civ.App.1997)(<HOLDING>). In Cannon v. Gilmer, 135 Ala. 302, 304-05, 33 Options: A. holding that no confidential relationship existed between unmarried cohabitants because the female cohabitant neither relied upon any promise nor depended upon any financial expertise of the male cohabitant B. holding that the consent to search given by the defendants wife and cohabitant was an effective consent because it was consistent with the rationale set forth in united states v matlock C. holding that superior business expertise among other factors supported a finding of a confidential relationship D. holding that no special relationship existed between the school and student E. holding that although cohabitation is not in itself the de facto equivalent of marriage that would warrant modification of spousal maintenance all evidence relating to the economic nature of the relationship between wife and cohabitant would be relevant and admissible to show that wifes support needs have changed

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that no confidential relationship existed between unmarried cohabitants because the female cohabitant neither relied upon any promise nor depended upon any financial expertise of the male cohabitant
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 execution and delivery of each of the Transaction Documents to which the Purchaser is party and the performance by the Purchaser of its obligations hereunder and thereunder have been duly authorized by the Purchaser. Each Transaction Document to which the Purchaser is party has been duly executed and delivered by the Purchaser and, when duly executed and delivered by all of the parties thereto, such Transaction Document shall constitute the legal, valid and binding obligation of the Purchaser, enforceable against the Purchaser in accordance with its respective terms, subject to applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium or similar laws affecting creditors’ rights generally, general equitable principles and principles of public policy.

assistant: Authorizations
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: Judgment affirmed. Ray and Branch, JJ., concur in judgment only. 1 After the trial court granted summary judgment to Cornerstone, Kovacs filed a motion for reconsideration and attached an affidavit stating that he did not have health insurance at the time of the accident. The trial court denied Kovacs’s motion for reconsideration, and Kovacs did not enumerate that ruling as error. Since Kovacs’s affidavit was filed after the order granting summary judgment was entered, it was not considered by the trial court in reviewing Cornerstone’s motion for summary judgment, and issues raised therein will not now be considered by this Court. See Glenn v. Maddux, 149 Ga.App. 158, 159(2) (253 SE2d 835) (1979); see also Strickland v.DeKalb Hosp.Auth., 197 Ga.App. 63, 64(1) (397 SE2d 576) (1990) (<HOLDING>) (citations and punctuation omitted); Mazdak Options: A. holding that the court may disregard an affidavit submitted solely for the purpose of opposing a motion for summary judgment when that affidavit is directly contradicted by deposition testimony and the nonmovant does not explain the discrepancies B. holding that an affidavit in opposition to a motion for summary judgment that is not served at least one day before the hearing is barred by the civil practice act from consideration as evidence unless the record discloses the trial court in the exercise of its discretion has allowed the affidavit to be served and considered C. holding that hearsay in affidavit which would be inadmissible in evidence at trial could not be considered on motion for summary judgment D. holding that the party moving for summary judgment waived its argument that the opposing partys affidavit should not be considered because the moving party never objected to the timeliness of the affidavit to the trial court E. holding that claims raised for the first time in an opposition to a motion for summary judgment are not properly before a court

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that an affidavit in opposition to a motion for summary judgment that is not served at least one day before the hearing is barred by the civil practice act from consideration as evidence unless the record discloses the trial court in the exercise of its discretion has allowed the affidavit to be served and considered
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: throughout the course of the interview and that the “totality of the circumstances” makes clear that Nguyen’s statements were voluntary. See Photogrammetric Data Services, Inc., 259 F.3d at 241; Braxton, 112 F.3d at 781. In sum, because the May 15, 2001 interview was non-custodial and because Nguyen’s statements during the interview were voluntary, it follows that Miranda and its progeny do not bar the admissibility of the statements Nguyen made in the course of this interview. b. December 15, 2003 Interview The parties do not dispute that Nguyen was in custody at the December 15, 2003 interview as he was then incarcerated in the Arlington County Detention Center on unrelated state charges. See Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1, 4-5, 88 S.Ct. 1503, 20 L.Ed.2d 381 (1968) (<HOLDING>). Thus, Detectives Lancaster and Grims were Options: A. holding that the the statement of the purpose of the law in question in the committee report is not conclusive and reiterating that the question is whether the law is reasonably calculated to achieve a legitimate police power purpose B. holding that even when there is a legitimate government purpose the discrimination must bear at least some rational relationship to that purpose C. holding miranda inapplicable because defendant not in custody D. holding that a defendant is in custody and miranda applies even when the purpose of defendants detention is unrelated to the purpose of the interrogation E. holding that rule 11 sanctions are not appropriate when a motion is filed in part for a legitimate purpose even when the motion includes certain evidence which is assertedly presented for an improper purpose

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a defendant is in custody and miranda applies even when the purpose of defendants detention is unrelated to the purpose of the interrogation
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In the event that any provision of the Plan shall be declared or adjudicated illegal, invalid or unenforceable for any reason whatsoever, then the illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision shall be deemed excised herefrom and the remaining parts of the Plan shall continue and remain in full force and effect and the Plan shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision had not been included herein.

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: that is, if the District were seeking to apply'the cap to hours worked before the effective date of the statute, we might find the omission more compelling. But the District advances no such argument, and we join the Eighth Circuit in holding that retroactivity concerns are not implicated when the statute is applied to work performed after April 26, 1996, the date of passage of the PLRA. See Williams v. Brimeyer, 122 F.3d 1093, 1094 (8th Cir.1997). When it is applied to work performed after the effective date of the Act, the PLRA raises none of the retroactivity concerns that require the analysis used by the district court because the statute creates present and future effects on present and future conduct, and has no effect on past conduct. Compare Jensen, 94 F.3d at 1203 (<HOLDING>) with Williams, 122 F.3d at 1094 (holding that Options: A. holding that 42 usc 1997e does not apply to claims pending at the time of passage of the plra B. holding that work securing a settlement agreement that sets forth specific responses to constitutional violations that were acknowledged in the previous consent decree is compensable under the plra as work incurred in enforcing the decree C. holding that congress intended the courts to apply the civil rights act of 1991 to cases pending at the time of its enactment and to preact conduct still open to challenge after that time D. holding that the plra only applies to plaintiffs who are incarcerated at the time an action is commenced E. holding that the plra did not apply to preact work

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the plra did not apply to preact 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) The Borrower will, from time to time on being required to do so by the Facility Agent or the Hermes Agent, do or procure the doing of all such acts and/or execute or procure the execution of all such documents in a form reasonably satisfactory to the Facility Agent or the Hermes Agent (as the case may be) as the Facility Agent or the Hermes Agent may reasonably consider necessary for giving full effect to any of the Credit Documents or securing to the Agents and/or the Lenders or any of them the full benefit of the rights, powers and remedies conferred upon the Agents and/or the Lenders or any of them in any such Credit Document.

assistant: Further Assurances
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: its discretion by modifying the timesharing agreement without evidence that the welfare of the minor child would be promoted by returning him to his former school in Lake County and changing the timesharing arrangement to have the father assume the primary timesharing responsibilities. See § 61.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2014); Holland v. Holland, 140 So.3d 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Dobbins v. Dobbins, 584 So.2d 1113, 1116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new hearing. On remand, the court shall take evidence and use the best interests of the child standard to determine if modification is in the child’s best interests in light of the parties’ inability to agree which school the minor child will attend. See, e.g., Watt v. Watt, 966 So.2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>). Once that determination is made, the trial Options: A. holding that change of circumstances is not prerequisite to additional 3583e2 modification B. holding that a hearing is required when a modification of parenting time would change the established custodial environment C. holding that a showing of a change in circumstances that is or is likely to be beneficial to the child may also warrant a change in custody D. holding that a custodial parents move to a foreign state without more is not a substantial change of circumstances that would support a modification of custody E. holding that parties inability to agree on which private high school child would attend constituted substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of parenting plan

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that parties inability to agree on which private high school child would attend constituted substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of parenting 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: All necessary consents, approvals and authorizations of all governmental authorities and other Third Parties required to be obtained by it in connection with the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement have been obtained by it. For the avoidance of doubt, Purchaser shall be solely responsible for obtaining any product and/or distribution license from the applicable Governmental Authority so as to be able to sell and market the Product in a particular jurisdiction.

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: All notices, requests and demands hereunder shall be in writing and deemed to have been given or made: if delivered in person, immediately upon delivery; if by email, telex, telegram or facsimile transmission, immediately upon sending and upon confirmation of receipt; if by nationally recognized overnight courier service with instructions to deliver the next business day, one (1) business day after sending; and if by certified mail, return receipt requested, five (5) business days after mailing. All notices, requests and demands upon the Parties are to be given to the following addresses (or to such other address as any party may designate by notice in accordance with this Section 51.

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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall pay the Executive a base salary (the “Base Salary”) at the annual rate of $72,000 (U.S.), payable at such times as the Company customarily pays its other senior level executives (but in any event no less often than monthly). The Base Salary shall be subject to all state, federal and local payroll tax withholding and any other withholdings required by law. The Executive’s Base Salary may be increased by the Board or any party delegated by the Board. Once increased, such increased amount shall constitute the Executive’s Base Salary.

assistant: Base Salary
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: court and the court of appeals agreed that equitable subrogation is inapplicable because the equities between Medica and Atlantic were equal. After reviewing the record, we conclude that equitable subro-gation is not appropriate under the facts and circumstances in the instant case. Affirmed in part, reversed in part. 1 . “Medica” refers to'Medica, Inc., the appellant in this case, while " 64-65, 321 N.W.2d 199, 203-04 (1982) (interpreting "person responsible for such injury or death” in a crime victims statute as referring to the person who caused an injury when the statute was entitled "Recovery from offender” and the statute as a whole referred to awards to victims of crimes). 4 . See, e.g., Michigan Mut. Liab. Co. v. Karsten, 13 Mich.App. 46, 49-50, 163 N.W.2d 670, 671-72 (1968) (<HOLDING>); Ballavance v. Safeco Ins. Co., 432 N.W.2d Options: A. holding that a person who cut and removed timber pursuant to the direction of the person in possession of the property but without the written consent of the company holding legal title to the land could be held liable under the gtccs B. holding that a municipality may be held liable as a person under 1983 C. holding that a person is seized when a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave D. holding with no analysis that any person or organization who may be legally liable therefor applies to a person legally liable for injuries caused by an accident 4 when under the facts of the case the only person to whom the clause could have applied was a tortfeasor E. holding that under the applicable statutory provisions a person need not be impoverished or devoid of all assets to qualify as an indigent sick person but only that the person be unable to pay for necessary medical care

assistant: The best answer is D. holding with no analysis that any person or organization who may be legally liable therefor applies to a person legally liable for injuries caused by an accident 4 when under the facts of the case the only person to whom the clause could have applied was a tortfeasor
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: October 1. 6 . On appeal, appellee questions whether the district court had jurisdiction to hear this case because Congress has not provided for judicial review of the denial of Medicare Part B claims. See Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, -n. 4, 104 S.Ct. 2013, 2018 n. 4, 80 L.Ed.2d 622, 632 n. 4 (1984); United States v. Erika, 456 U.S. 201, 102 S.Ct. 1650, 72 L.Ed.2d 12 (1982). As appel-lee concedes, however, the broad jurisdictional bar recognized in Ringer does not preclude a party from raisi n. 11 (E.D.Tex.1985) ("[Cjonstitutional challenges are cognizable if they are aimed at the Medicare Act itself. Such claims arise solely under the Constitution, and therefore escape section 405(h)’s grasp.”). Cf. Johnson v. Robi-son, 415 U.S. 361, 367, 94 S.Ct. 1160, 1165, 39 L.Ed.2d 389 (1974) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis in original). Because appellants Options: A. holding that veterans suit is not barred by 38 usc 211a because ajppellees constitutional challenge is not to any such decision of the administrator but rather to a decison of congress to create a statutory class entitled to benefits that does not include 10 conscientious objectors who performed alternative civilian service B. holding that where the board did not mail decision in accordance with the provisions of 38 usc 7104e the period within which to appeal to the court of appeals for veterans claims did not commence to run C. 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 D. holding that person who is not party to contract does not have standing to challenge contract E. holding that a claim that is constitutional in name only does not create jurisdiction over an appeal from the veterans court

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that veterans suit is not barred by 38 usc 211a because ajppellees constitutional challenge is not to any such decision of the administrator but rather to a decison of congress to create a statutory class entitled to benefits that does not include 10 conscientious objectors who performed alternative civilian service
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall pay, and hold each Buyer harmless against, any liability, loss or expense (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and out-of-pocket expenses) arising in connection with any claim relating to any such payment, including, but not limited to, expenses in Section 3(s). Except as otherwise set forth in the Transaction Documents, each party to this Agreement shall bear its own expenses in connection with the sale of the Securities to the Buyers.

assistant: Fees
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 Recommendation, ahead of the deadline for filing objections,, and enter an order consistent with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. As officers of the Court, J.A. Besteman Company’s counsel indicated in their filings that, as of July 7, 2006, Carter’s Inc. is no longer in operation. Further-, J.A. Besteman Company states, “[i]t is unclear what action Carter’s Inc. is tak ing or will take, including bankruptcy, or as to what will happen to its assets impressed with Besteman’s PACA trust.” PL’s Br. at 2 (Docket # 14). Clearly, time is of the essence in this matter. Given the precarious situation presented in this case, the Court has conducted an expedited, yet careful, review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. See McGill v. Goff, 17 F.3d 729 (5th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds Kansa Reins. Corp. Options: A. holding that failure to object to magistrate judges recommendation waived issue on appeal B. holding that district courts adoption of the magistrate judges report and recommendation one day after issuance did not constitute reversible error where district court conducted a meaningful review of the report and recommendation C. holding that a partys failure to raise objections to the report and recommendation waives the partys right to review in the district court D. holding that the court will review the report and recommendation for clear error E. holding that by blindly adopting the magistrate judges findings apparently without ever having received a report and recommendation the district court violated 636b1

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that district courts adoption of the magistrate judges report and recommendation one day after issuance did not constitute reversible error where district court conducted a meaningful review of the report and recommendation
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: it will hold harmless and indemnify google and its affiliates , officers , agents , and employees from any claim , suit or action arising from or related to the use of the services or violation of these terms , including any liability or expense arising from claims , losses , damages , suits , judgments , litigation costs and attorneys ' fees .

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: This Refinancing Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement. Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page of this Refinancing Amendment by facsimile or electronic transmission shall be as effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart hereof.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Except as may otherwise be provided by the Administrator either in the Award Certificate or, subject to Section 18 below, in writing after the Award is issued, a grantee’s rights in all Dividend Equivalent Rights or interest equivalents granted as a component of an award of Restricted Stock Units or Restricted Stock Award that has not vested shall automatically terminate upon the grantee’s termination of employment (or cessation of service relationship) with the Company and its Subsidiaries for any reason.

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 following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: any use of the service in violation of these license limitations is strictly prohibited , can result in the immediate revocation of your limited license and may subject you to liability for violations of law .

assistant: Unilateral termination
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: prejudice the defendant. “Darden ignores all this. He contends' that under Nixon defense counsel’s failure to consult with defendant before strategically conceding guilt automatically triggers Cronic’s presumption-of-prejudice standard, even if defense counsel’s strategy to concede guilt was a reasonable, even excellent one. If we accept Darden’s contention we must also accept that Cronic can apply even in cases where defense counsel subjected the! government’s case to meaningful adversarial testing. Without further direction from the Su arding concession of guilt at trial, courts have found a constructive denial of counsel only in those instances where a defendant’s attorney concedes the only factual issues in dispute. See United States v. Swanson, 943 F.2d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). In contrast, those courts that have Options: A. holding that a factual dispute is material only if it might affect the outcome of the suit and genuine only if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find for the nonmoving party B. holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required if there are no factual issues in dispute C. recognizing that in those cases where the jurisdictional facts are intertwined with the facts central to the merits of the dispute it is the better view that the entire factual dispute is appropriately resolved only by a proceeding on the merits citations omitted D. holding that a lawyer who informs the jury that it is his view of the evidence that there is no reasonable doubt regarding the only factual issues that are in dispute has utterly failed to subject the prosecutions case to meaningful adversarial testing E. holding issues of fact in dispute are solely for the jury

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a lawyer who informs the jury that it is his view of the evidence that there is no reasonable doubt regarding the only factual issues that are in dispute has utterly failed to subject the prosecutions case to meaningful adversarial testing
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: Incur, create, assume or suffer to exist any Lien on any of its property or assets, whether now owned or hereinafter acquired except for (a) Liens for taxes not yet due or which are being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings and (b) non-consensual Liens arising by operation of law, arising in the ordinary course of business, and for amounts which are not overdue for a period of more than 60 days or that are being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings.

assistant: Liens
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: 219 U.S. 346, 31 S.Ct. 250, 55 L.Ed. 246 (1911). The requirement of standing is “rooted in the traditional understanding of a case or controversy.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1547, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016). To bring suit,. Plaintiffs must have “alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues” before the court. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962). The “irreducible constitutional minimum” of standing is that for each claim, each plaintiff must allege an actual or imminent injury that is traceable- to the defendant and redressable by the court. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-62, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (<HOLDING>); see Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Options: A. holding wildlifeconservation organizations lacked standing to seek injunctive relief against the secretary of the interiors interpretation of the endangered species act where organization members harm was the endangering of wild animals in sri lanka but where the members had no current plans to go to sri lanka to observe the animals B. holding an organization had standing because some of its individual members did C. holding that an organization whose members are injured may represent those members even where the organization itself cannot show injury D. holding that an organization whose members were potential targets of future prosecutions had standing to seek injunctive relief E. holding that members of congress lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the line item veto act

assistant: The best answer is A. holding wildlifeconservation organizations lacked standing to seek injunctive relief against the secretary of the interiors interpretation of the endangered species act where organization members harm was the endangering of wild animals in sri lanka but where the members had no current plans to go to sri lanka to observe the animals