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: of judgment); Fed.R.CivJP. 62(a) (requiring prevailing parties to wait until ten days after the date on which a judgment is entered before they may execute on a judgment); Fed.R.App.P. 4 (requiring that a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the date on which a judgment is entered). The Advisory Committee Notes on Rule 58 bolster this conclusion. Those notes state that the rule is designed to eliminate uncertainties about precisely when a court rendered a judgment. Such uncertainties had arisen in contexts analogous to the one in the instant case, where courts wrote opinions or memoranda “con 2d 940, 942 (5th Cir.1987) (discussing the Advisory Committee’s concern with eliminating uncertainties); Duffer v. American Home Assurance Co., 512 F.2d 793, 799 (5th Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>). See generally 11 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Options: A. holding that a trial courts judgment must comply with the statutory requirement that the judgment contain written findings of fact and conclusions of law B. holding that the trial courts oral expression in open court of its future intention to render a judgment was not itself a judgment but rather the trial courts written findings of fact and conclusions of law were its judgment C. holding that although trial courts oral opinion may be used as a reference in the interpretation of its written findings of fact it is not a finding of fact D. holding that the trial courts oral pronouncement must conform to the written judgment E. holding that motion accepting judgment but requesting findings of fact and conclusions of law was not directed against the judgment

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the trial courts oral expression in open court of its future intention to render a judgment was not itself a judgment but rather the trial courts written findings of fact and conclusions of law were its judgment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Perkins did not involve a situation, as here, in which the Board terminated an interference that was mistakenly declared because it initially overlooked the applicability of § 135(b). Because the Board should terminate an interference once it determines that there is a § 135(b) bar, the Board acts in accordance with § 135 when it refuses to address other issues of priority or patentability raised in that interference. Furthermore, the issues presented in the remaining cases cited by Berman, Quinn, Wu, Schulze, and Gartside, did not concern whether the Board is compelled to decide certain issues of patentability, and did not involve a § 135(b) bar. Rather, those cases merely applied the holding of Perkins to facts not presented here. See Guinn, 96 F.3d at 1421-22, 40 USPQ2d at 1159 (<HOLDING>); Wu, 129 F.3d at 1242, 44 USPQ2d at 1645 Options: A. holding that a partys filing of a statutory disclaimer of all interfering claims does not divest the board of jurisdiction to enter judgment against that party B. holding that section 1429 does not divest district court of jurisdiction when deportation proceedings are pending C. holding that summary judgment on one claim that reduced amount in controversy below statutory minimum did not divest court of jurisdiction D. holding that notice of appeal did not divest the district court of jurisdiction at the time it was filed because a motion for reconsideration was pending E. holding that bankruptcy court possessed jurisdiction to enter money judgment in noncore proceeding against third party

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a partys filing of a statutory disclaimer of all interfering claims does not divest the board of jurisdiction to enter judgment against that party
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: well as the various cases (both pre- and post-Maw-ville) that reach the same result, far more persuasive than those courts that have concluded that a District Court has no jurisdiction under § 1498 to entertain a claim for damages against a private party (as opposed to the United States) relating to sales made to the Government. In a suit between private parties, § 1498 is available to defendants as an affirmative defense, but is not a jurisdictional bar. Having decided that § 1498 applies in this case and that it establishes an affirmative defense as to private defendants, there remains the question of whether this Court will allow IBM to amend its complaint to assert that affirmative defense, or whether this Court will grant TM’s in limine motion to pr 831 F.Supp. 480 (E.D.N.C.1993) (<HOLDING>); Auerbach v. Sverdrup Corp., 829 F.2d 1-75 Options: A. holding service requirements under fedrcivp 4 to be jurisdictional B. holding immunity from liability is not jurisdictional C. holding that exhaustion of issues is jurisdictional D. holding 1498 to be jurisdictional regardless of defendant type E. holding that a violation of the forum defendant rule is a jurisdictional defect

assistant: The best answer is D. holding 1498 to be jurisdictional regardless of defendant type
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: ex-spouse does not automatically terminate' spousal support; it shifts the burden to the support recipient to show extant extraordinary circumstances that justify continuing the support. In re Marriage of Shima, 360 N.W.2d 827, 828 (Iowa 1985). Melissa did not make any showing that would justify continued receipt of alimony. See In re Marriage of Johnson, 781 N.W.2d 553, 558 (Iowa 2010) (explaining the failure to show any extraordinary circumstances warrants termination of spousal support after remarriage). Accordingly, Melissa’s spousal support was appropriately terminated. Melissa’s remarriage and the consequent loss of spousal support alone may not be a substantial change in circumstances justifying modification of child support. See Mears v. Mears, 213 N.W.2d 511, 516 (Iowa 1973) (<HOLDING>). But they are clearly factors the court shall Options: A. holding that the statement of current monthly income was the presumptive amount of projected disposable income but presumption could be rebutted by the debt or upon a showing of substantial change of circumstances B. holding that in determining whether a substantial change of circumstances has occurred trial court must consider income available to parents new marital community C. holding that final order for alimony may be modified by trial court on showing of substantial change in circumstances of either party D. holding that a permanent change in income constitutes a substantial change in circumstances justifying a reduction of alimony E. holding remarriage of exspouse and loss of income not to be a substantial change in circumstances

assistant: The best answer is E. holding remarriage of exspouse and loss of income not to be a substantial change in circumstances
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: of fraud on the court. In this regard, the district court recognized that under binding Tenth Circuit precedent “[ijntent to defraud is an absolute prerequisite to a finding of fraud on the court.” Weese v. Schukman, 98 F.3d 542, 553 (10th Cir.1996). The district court then proceeded to set out at length its reasoning for concluding that McVeigh had not demonstrated a reasonable probability that given additional time he could present a viable claim of fraud on the court. Second, McVeigh is simply wrong in trying to compartmentalize the questions of fraud on the court and Brady materiality. If the evidence in question was not material, a fundamental requirement for fraud on the court would be absent. See United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38, 47, 118 S.Ct. 1862, 141 L.Ed.2d 32 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the fact that only non-material Options: A. holding that motion filed under fedrcivp 60b properly construed as successive 2255 motion B. holding that a motion to vacate a judgment under fedrcivp 60b is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court citations omitted C. holding that while a district court lacks jurisdiction to deny a 60b motion while an appeal is pending it can certify that it will grant a 60b motion if the court of appeals remands the case for that purpose D. holding without extended discussion that even if the district court should have construed the petitioners motion under 18 usc 3582c2 as a rule 60b motion the court would nonetheless have had to recharacterize the rule 60b motion as an sshp E. holding that fedrcivp 60b motion premised on fraud on the court is available only to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that fedrcivp 60b motion premised on fraud on the court is available only to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice
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 which the person or body authorized to exercise the delegated authority is directed to conform.” Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S, 361, 372, 109 S.Ct. 647, 102 L.Ed.2d 714 (1989) (upholding the United States Sentencing Guidelines). See id. at 390, 109 S.Ct. 647 (pointing out that the federal “sentencing function long has been a peculiarly shared responsibility” rather than “the exclusive constitutional province of any one Branch” and finding no unconstitutional delegation of legislative power). As the Fifth Circuit has pointed out, there are at least four limitations on a prosecutor’s discretion with respect to nonstatutory aggravating factors. See United States v. Jones, 132 F.3d 232, 239-40 (5th Cir.1998), aff'd, 527 U.S. 373, 119 S.Ct. 2090, 144 L.Ed.2d 895 (4th Cir.1996)(<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1253, 117 S.Ct. 2414 Options: A. holding there was no evidence to support the existence of any alleged fiduciary duty B. holding that any delegation of legislative authority was permissible without deciding whether there was in fact any delegation C. holding that compliance with an officers orders is a material fact when deciding whether the officers use of force was reasonable D. holding that it is improper to categorize certain factors as simply out of bounds in deciding whether there was reasonable suspicion for the stop E. recognizing that the necessary inquiry is not whether there was a warrant or whether there was time to get one but whether there was probable cause for the arrest

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that any delegation of legislative authority was permissible without deciding whether there was in fact any delegation
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: a below ) incorporated into any ugv created by another user to produce a ugv , including collaborative ugvs with other users , that combine and intersperse user content from ugvs generated by more than one user ( each , a `` collaborative ugv '' ) , and ( iii ) transmit and view such ugv and collaborative ugv through the apps1 ( `` broadcast content '' ) .

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: By accepting an Award under the Plan, each Participant waives any right to a trial by jury in any action, proceeding or counterclaim concerning any rights under the Plan and any Award, or under any amendment, waiver, consent, instrument, document or other agreement delivered or which in the future may be delivered in connection therewith, and agrees that any such action, proceedings or counterclaim shall be tried before a court and not before a jury. By accepting an Award under the Plan, each Participant certifies that no officer, representative, or attorney of the Company has represented, expressly or otherwise, that the Company would not, in the event of any action, proceeding or counterclaim, seek to enforce the foregoing waivers.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any provision or any part of any provision of this Release is for any reason held to be invalid, unenforceable or contrary to public policy, law, statute and/or ordinance, then the remainder of this Release shall not be affected thereby and shall remain valid and fully enforceable.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Note Purchase Agreement and the instruments referenced herein contain the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the matters covered herein and therein, and, except as specifically set forth herein or therein, neither the Company nor such Purchaser makes any representation, warranty, covenant or undertaking with respect to such matters. Each party expressly represents and warrants that it is not relying on any oral or written representations, warranties, covenants or agreements outside of the Note Purchase Agreement.

assistant: Entire Agreements
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: individual capacities. d. Farmer, Dunbar, Sarnecky, and Wattai — Official Capacities — All Claims Longoria’s remaining claims are against individual state officers acting in their official capacities. Because a suit against an officer in his or her official capacity is effectively a suit against the state itself, only prospective injunctive relief is available against such defendants, absent a waiver by the state of its sovereign immunity. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 664-68, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974) (citing Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908)). Relief may only be had when there is an ongoing violation of federal law extant at the outset of the suit. See B.H. Papasan v. Attain, 478 U.S. 265, 278, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986) (<HOLDING>); Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 289-90, 97 Options: A. recognizing the ex parte young exception is narrow it applies only to prospective relief and does not permit judgments against state officers declaring that they violated federal law in the past B. holding that minnesota law prohibiting ex parte interviews was not integral to its privilege law but was merely procedural rule and therefore not controlling in diversity action and the federal rules allow ex parte interviews as method of informal discovery C. holding that ex parte young permits jurisdiction over officials who have authority to control the assessments of railroad taxes that are in violation of federal law D. holding that the cwa does not include a remedial scheme sufficient to preclude an ex parte young action E. holding that ex parte young exception to states sovereign immunity applies only where violation of federal law is ongoing not where federal law was violated only in the past

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that ex parte young exception to states sovereign immunity applies only where violation of federal law is ongoing not where federal law was violated only in the past
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: § 32:3 (4th ed.) (“The plain, common or normal meaning of language will be given to the words of a contract unless the circumstances show that in a particular case a special meaning should be attached to them.”). Because the original 1984 dealer agreements were in force in 1998 when the Maryland Act’s good cause provision became law, the Act effected a change in law that impaired an existing contractual relationship — it limited a contractual right to terminate the dealer agreements. And, we conclude that this impairment was substantial. A provision granting the right to terminate a contract without cause is a material provision of that contract. See Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 423 F.2d 563, 568 (1st Cir.1970), rev’d on other grounds 400 U.S. 41, 91 S.Ct. 156, 27 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970) (<HOLDING>). The Maryland Act impairs the contractual Options: A. holding that a public employee who can be discharged only for cause is entitled to at least some informal due process before he can be terminated B. holding that a law converting a contractual relationship terminable by either party without cause into one which can be terminated only under certain conditions was a change of great magnitude that violated the contracts clause C. holding that the statute describes but one offense which can be committed by either or both of two methods D. holding that party was an agent under the plain terms of his contracts E. holding that independent contractors whose contracts were terminated following a change in administration were not protected by the first amendment

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a law converting a contractual relationship terminable by either party without cause into one which can be terminated only under certain conditions was a change of great magnitude that violated the contracts clause
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall indemnify, hold harmless and reimburse the Consultant and all of its affiliates, officers, directors, employees, agents and associates (the “ Indemnified Parties ”) to the fullest extent lawful against any and all claims, losses, damages, liabilities, expenses, costs, actions, joint or several, of any nature or type whatsoever, including, without limitation, fees and expenses of counsel (“ Indemnified Expenses ”), relating to or arising from this Agreement, the Consulting Services, any other matter whatsoever relating to or involving the Consultant’s engagement by the Company or any other matter whatsoever relating to or involving Consultant’s or Indemnified Parties’ prior role with the Company and/or transactions of the Company in which the Consultant or any Indemnified Party was involved, except to the extent (and only to the extent) that a court of competent jurisdiction (after any final appeal) determines that such Indemnified Expenses arose exclusively from the Consultant’s or the Indemnified Parties’ reckless or willful misconduct.. This section will survive any termination of this Agreement.

assistant: Indemnifications
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 Holder hereby consents to the Assignment of the Assignor ’ s obligations under the Note to Assignee, and to Assignee ’ s assumption of the rights and obligations under the Note. The parties agree and acknowledge that as a result of this Agreement, Assignors shall be relieved of all obligations due under the terms of the Note, including, without limitation, as an obligor under the terms of the Note for the payment of all amounts due under the terms thereof, including principal and accrued interest due thereon.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: McCulley, No. 01-14-00604-CV, 2015 WL 1544520, at *1~*2 (Tex.App.— Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 2, 2015, no pet.) (mem.op,). 2 . To enforce a settlement agreement where consent was withdrawn before judgment was entered, the complaining party must assert a breach of contract claim and obtain judgment through summary judgment or trial. Staley v. Herblin, 188 S.W.3d 334, 336 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2006, pet. denied). We do not need to resolve whether the same rule applies in this circumstance, however, because Palavan has not challenged Realty Boulevard’s failure to assert a breach of contract claim in its pleadings and has not argued that the motions to dismiss were substantively different than a motion for summary judgment. See Roark v. Stallworth Oil & Gas, Inc., 813- S.W.2d 492, 495 (Tex.1991) (<HOLDING>); In re Brookshire Grocery Co., 250 S.W.3d 66, Options: A. holding when an issue is tried by implied consent due process concerns are alleviated B. holding an issue not raised in the pleadings is tried by implied consent where the issue is presented considered and ruled upon by the trial court without objection C. holding unpleaded claims or defenses that are tried by express or implied consent of parties are treated as if they had been raised by pleadings even in summary judgment proceedings D. holding that an issue cannot be tried by the parties consent pursuant to rule 15b2 where one of the parties opposes trial by moving for summary judgment E. holding that parties are bound by admissions in pleadings

assistant: The best answer is C. holding unpleaded claims or defenses that are tried by express or implied consent of parties are treated as if they had been raised by pleadings even in summary judgment proceedings
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 representations and warranties of Lionsgate and Purchaser contained in Article 3 shall be true and correct in all material respects at and as of the Closing Date with the same effect as though made at and as of such time (except for representations that are as of a specific date which representations shall be true and correct in all material respects as of such date). Lionsgate and Purchaser shall have in all material respects duly performed and complied with all agreements, covenants and conditions required by this Agreement to be performed or complied with by Lionsgate and Purchaser at or prior to the Closing.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: employees, one exception applies to so-called “mixed cases,” which arise when "an employee complains of a, personnel action serious enough to appeal .to the [Merit Systems Protection Board] and alleges that the action was based on discrimination.” See Kloeckner v. Solis, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 596, 601; 184 L.Ed.2d 433 (201-2) . (citing 29 C.F.R, § 1614 302 (2012)). While Plaintiff has raised allegations of discrimination, the personnel action in question — Plaintiff's removal from his position as HOCALJ— was not serious enough to entitle him to appeal the decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Therefore, this case is not a “mixed case.” 16 . Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). 17 . See Hubbard, 809 F.2d at 11 n. 15 (<HOLDING>). 18 . Whether exhaustion is required before a Options: A. recognizing that the csra did not explicitly limit federal court jurisdiction to enjoin unconstitutional personnel actions by federal agencies B. holding that federal courts do not have jurisdiction over a suit to enjoin a tax lien C. holding that igras specific grant of federal jurisdiction for certain actions indicates congress intended to limit federal jurisdiction to those instances D. holding that plaintiffs were not released from the exclusive remedial framework of the csra when their claims arose from their federal employment even though the csra provided plaintiffs with no remedy E. holding that just because a claim implicates a federal issue or involves construction of federal law does not necessarily give rise to a federal question and confer removal jurisdiction on a federal court

assistant: The best answer is A. recognizing that the csra did not explicitly limit federal court jurisdiction to enjoin unconstitutional personnel actions by federal agencies
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: Subject to the limitation set forth in the last sentence of this Section 6.1(a) , Section 6.1(b) and Section 6.1(c) , the Board shall have sole discretion regarding the amounts and timing of Distributions to Members, including to decide to forego payment of Distributions in order to provide for the retention and establishment of reserves of, or payment to third parties of, such funds as it deems necessary with respect to the reasonable business needs of the Company (which needs may include the payment or the making of provision for the payment when due of the Company’s obligations, including, but not limited to, present and anticipated debts and obligations, capital needs and expenses, the payment of any management or administrative fees and expenses, and reasonable reserves for contingencies). Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in this Agreement, the Company shall not make any Distribution to Members if such Distribution would violate § 18-607 of the Delaware Act or other applicable law.

assistant: General
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: Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by imposing unnecessary security measures on him, rendering him incapable of participating meaningfully in his trial. Specifically, he claims that the Commonwealth treated him with an unusual and unnecessary combination of mood-altering drugs, including Depakote, Risperdal, Paxil, and Zoloft, at the same time, which made him appear “cold, expressionless, and remorseless during the trial.” Pet. at 32. He was also forced to wear a stun belt during the trial for security reasons. Powell does not allege that the jury saw the stun belt, but claims the owell allege that the drugs he received were involuntarily administered. Powell, 2005 WL 2980756, at * 13. Cf. Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127, 134, 112 S.Ct. 1810, 118 L.Ed.2d 479 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Powell cites no U.S. Supreme Court precedent Options: A. holding that a medical professional was not deliberately indifferent where the prisoner alleged that the professional performed some investigation and determined that the prisoner does not have the condition he thinks he has B. holding that charging fees for medical services did not violate the eighth amendment where prisoner did not allege denial of medical care C. holding that it was not clearly established in 2002 that forcing a prisoner to sleep without a mattress but with a bed and a blanket violated the eighth amendment D. holding that forcing antipsychotic drugs on a convicted prisoner is impermissible absent a finding of overriding justification and a determination of medical appropriateness E. recognizing that even when a prisoner files suit under section 1983 alleging medical malpractice against prison medical officials medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that forcing antipsychotic drugs on a convicted prisoner is impermissible absent a finding of overriding justification and a determination of medical appropriateness
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 Buyer hereby represents and warrants to Seller that such Buyer is in full compliance with its obligations under the terms of any confidentiality agreement that such Buyer executed and delivered to Seller or the Borrower.

assistant: Confidentiality
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: 2004 MT 326, ¶ 14, 324 Mont. 114, ¶ 14, 102 P.3d 16, ¶ 14 (citations omitted), Alvin argues that Steinbeisser, at ¶ 47, entitles the non-acquiring spouse to an equitable share of “only that portion of gifted property that appreciated in value because of his or her efforts. However, this Court has repeatedly emphasized that “[i]n determining the exact distribution of an asset acquired by gift or bequest during the marriage, no set formula can be established as to how the assets should be equitably distributed.” In re Marriage of Herrera, 2004 MT 40, ¶ 32, 320 Mont. 71, ¶ 32, 85 P.3d 781, ¶ 32 (citing Herron, 186 Mont. at 402, 608 P.2d at 100) (see also Morse v. Morse, 174 Mont. 541, 546, 571 P.2d 1147, 1150 (1977)); Biegalke v. Biegalke, 172 Mont. 311, 315, 564 P.2d 987, 989 (1977) (<HOLDING>). Each case has to be decided on its own Options: A. holding that to grant a writ of mandamus a court in the exercise of its discretion must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances B. holding a wife liable for necessary medical expenses incurred by her husband under the doctrine even though the wife did not sign as a guarantor and did not request that her husband be admitted nor anticipate that her husband would be admitted C. holding that property held by husband and wife in tenancy by entirety is exempt from attachment or execution for the sole debts of husband D. holding that a reservation clause gave a life estate to a spouse pursuant to a deed reserving use of the property to both husband and wife for life even though the husband had no interest in the property E. holding that the courts exercise of its discretion in adjusting property rights between husband and wife must be reasonable under the circumstances of the case and there is no fixed formula or ratio to be applied in each instance

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the courts exercise of its discretion in adjusting property rights between husband and wife must be reasonable under the circumstances of the case and there is no fixed formula or ratio to be applied in each instance
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement has been duly authorized, executed and delivered by such Party and constitutes a legal, valid and binding agreement of such Party, enforceable in accordance with its terms, except to the extent that enforcement hereof may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, fraudulent conveyance, reorganization, moratorium or other Laws affecting enforcement of creditors’ rights or by general equitable principles.

assistant: Authority
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: by `` data '' or `` user data '' or `` user 's data '' we mean any data , including a user 's content or information that you or third parties can retrieve from facebook or provide to facebook through platform .

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: these decisions and their reasoning. The sex discrimination provisions of Title VII and the ICRA were enacted to stop the perpetuation of sexist or chauvinistic attitudes in employment which significantly affect employment opportunities. Title VII and the ICRA were not meant to prohibit employers from instituting personal grooming codes which have a de minimis affect on employment. Applying these principles to Fareway’s unwritten personal grooming code, we conclude this grooming code did not constitute discrimination based on sex within the meaning of Title VII or the ICRA. This grooming code was never intended to be covered by Title VII’s or ICRA’s prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex. See Kleinsorge v. Eyeland Corp., 81 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1601 (E.D.Pa.2000) (<HOLDING>); Capaldo v. Pan Am. Fed. Credit Union, 43 Options: A. holding that relief granted under title vii is against the employer not individual employees whose actions constituted a violation of title vii emphasis in original B. holding that the doctrine of qualified immunity does not protect a government official who is sued in an official capacity under title vii because title vii does not impose personal liability C. holding that title vii prohibits discrimination based on any race including caucasian D. holding personal grooming code which allows females to wear earrings but prohibits men from wearing earrings does not constitute a violation of title vii E. holding that title vii does not include a continuing violation doctrine

assistant: The best answer is D. holding personal grooming code which allows females to wear earrings but prohibits men from wearing earrings does not constitute a violation of 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: SHO may assign its rights under this Agreement to any successor in interest, whether by merger, consolidation, sale of assets, or otherwise. This Agreement will be binding whether it is between SHO and Executive or between any successor or assignee of SHO and Executive.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Borrower shall keep and maintain all Intellectual Property relating to the use or operation of the Properties and all Intellectual Property shall be held by and (if applicable) registered in the name of such Borrower. Each Borrower shall not Transfer or let lapse any Intellectual Property necessary for the operation or marketing of the Property without Lender’s prior consent, not to be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company and the Subsidiaries are insured by insurers of recognized financial responsibility against such losses and risks and in such amounts as are prudent and customary in the businesses in which the Company and the Subsidiaries are engaged, including, but not limited to, directors and officers insurance coverage at least equal to ten million dollars.. Neither the Company nor any Subsidiary has any reason to believe that it will not be able to renew its existing insurance coverage as and when such coverage expires or to obtain similar coverage from similar insurers as may be necessary to continue its business without a significant increase in cost.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall terminate on the third anniversary of the effective date hereof unless either (1) a Change of Control occurs on or before such third anniversary or (2) the Committee or the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation determines to extend this Agreement for an additional three-year term or such shorter period as the Committee or the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation determines to be appropriate. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if at the time when this Agreement would otherwise terminate, a third party has taken steps reasonably calculated to effect a Change of Control or a Change of Control is otherwise under consideration, then this Agreement shall automatically continue in effect until (A) a Change of Control occurs, in which event this Agreement shall thereafter remain in effect in accordance with its terms, or (B) the Board makes a good faith determination that in its opinion, the efforts by the third party or the Corporation to effect a Change of Control have been abandoned, at which time the Agreement shall terminate unless it is extended pursuant to clause (2) of the preceding sentence.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: For the convenience of the parties hereto, this Agreement may be executed in any number of separate counterparts, each such counterpart being deemed to be an original instrument, and all such counterparts will together constitute the same agreement. Executed signature pages to this Agreement may be delivered by electronic transmission or facsimile and such electronic transmissions and facsimiles will be deemed as sufficient as if actual signature pages had been delivered.

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: This Agreement is intended by the parties as a final expression of their agreement and intended to be a complete and exclusive statement of the agreement and understanding of the parties hereto in respect of the subject matter contained herein. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements and understandings between the parties with respect to such subject matter. Notwithstanding the foregoing, each of the Existing Agreements remains in full force and effect with respect to Registrable Securities (other than the Standby Shares), except to the extent inconsistent herewith. In the event of any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and any Existing Agreement, as between the Company and the Standby Purchasers, the terms of this agreement shall prevail. For the avoidance of doubt, (i) the registration of any Registrable Securities in accordance with this Agreement shall satisfy any obligation to register any Registrable Securities under any Existing Agreement (including, for the avoidance of doubt, the obligation of the Company to register any Registrable Securities pursuant to the Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of April 19, 2013, between the Company and DRW Commodities, LLC); and (ii), nothing contained herein shall relieve the Company of its obligations (A) to pay to the Standby Purchasers liquidated damages with respect to Registrable Securities in accordance with any Existing Agreement in the event such Registrable Securities are not registered under such Existing Agreement or this Agreement, and (B) to indemnify the Standby Purchasers with respect to any registration with the SEC under any Existing Agreement.

assistant: Entire Agreements
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: unauthenticated, and failed to identify the authors. Id. Those weaknesses do not exist in Zhang’s affidavits. Nevertheless, we conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to fully credit this evidence. Chen v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 212, 218 (3d Cir.2005) (noting that only corroboration was a letter from a family member who did not witness incident and who was not subject to cross examination). Moreover, even if the affidavits could be credited, they are insufficient to establish changed country conditions in China. The affidavits’ largely anecdotal descriptions of religious persecution do not demonstrate that conditions had worsened in China for Christians since the time of Zhang’s merits hearing in 2001. See Shardar v. Att’y Gen., 503 F.3d 308, 316 (3d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). In addition, we agree that the documentary Options: A. holding that an asylum applicant must make a showing of a particularized threat of persecution B. holding that to qualify for asylum the fear of future persecution must be based on reasonably specific information showing a real threat to individual persecution not mere assertions of fear of possible persecution or speculative conclusions quoting mapouya 487 f3d at 412 C. holding that to show an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution an applicant must establish that he would be singled out for persecution or that there was a pattern or practice of persecution of similarlysituated individuals D. holding that to establish asylum eligibility based on future persecution an applicant must show that he or she subjectively fears persecution and that this fear is objectively reasonable E. holding that alien must show that he faces a particularized threat of persecution

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that an asylum applicant must make a showing of a particularized threat of persecution
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement and the Portfolio Managers’ Deferred Compensation Plan attached hereto as Exhibit B contain the entire agreement and understanding by and between Employer and Employee with respect to the employment herein referred to, and no representations, promises, agreements or understandings, written or oral, not herein contained shall be of any force or effect.

assistant: Entire Agreements
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 may terminate the Executive’s employment upon the Executive’s Permanent Disability. If any question shall arise as to whether the Executive has a Permanent Disability so as to be unable to perform the essential functions of the Executive’s then existing position or positions with or without reasonable accommodation, the Executive may, and at the request of the Company shall, submit to the Company a certification in reasonable detail by a physician selected by the Company to whom the Executive or the Executive’s guardian has no reasonable objection as to whether the Executive is so disabled or how long such disability is expected to continue, and such certification shall for the purposes of this Agreement be conclusive of the issue. The Executive shall cooperate with any reasonable request of the physician in connection with such certification. If such question shall arise and the Executive shall fail to submit such certification, the Company’s determination of such issue shall be binding on the Executive. Nothing in this Section 3(b) shall be construed to waive the Executive’s rights, if any, under existing law including, without limitation, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. §2601 et seq. and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Certified copies of all documents evidencing any necessary waivers, consents and approvals required by the Borrower, the Parent and the Servicer with respect to each Transaction Document (as defined in the Original Loan Agreement) to which it was, or would be, a party (including, without limitation, any and all approvals required for the Borrower or the Servicer to service the Collateral).

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: prejudice. Common v. W. Suburban Hosp. Med. Ctr., 301 Ill.App.3d 939, 235 Ill.Dec. 158, 704 N.E.2d 731, 738-39 (1998) (emphasis added) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). We quoted Common and echoed its sentiment in Sherrod v. Lingle, 223 F.3d 605, 614 (7th Cir.2000), where we held that a district court’s failure to permit a plaintiff to amend his complaint in order to comply with section 2-622 was an abuse of discretion. Second, although the district court believed that plaintiffs’ counsel should have known to submit an affidavit and report in accordance with section 2-622, it made no specific finding that the failure to do so was in bad faith or an attempt to delay litigation. See Cookson v. Price, 393 Ill.App.3d 549, 333 Ill.Dec. 22, 914 N.E.2d 229, 232 (2009) (<HOLDING>). Further, it did not explain whether or in Options: A. holding that a complaint that a report was not timely served was not subject to the twentyone day deadline to object to the sufficiency of a report under former section 74351a B. holding no jurisdiction where appellant argued report was no report because it failed to mention appellant in any substantive way but trial court found report was merely deficient on element of causation as to appellant and granted extension C. holding that it was error for the trial court to refuse to permit plaintiff to amend his complaint to include a new affidavit and report complying with section 2622 where there was no indication that the plaintiffs failure to file the report earlier in the litigation was in bad faith D. holding that the trial courts failure to dismiss the action to quiet title was error because the plaintiff was not in possession of the land in question but the error was not fatal to the claim because the superior court could sua sponte amend the pleadings to include an action in ejectment E. holding that rule was not violated where officer stated he made a report but was unable to find it because there was no report to tender to counsel

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that it was error for the trial court to refuse to permit plaintiff to amend his complaint to include a new affidavit and report complying with section 2622 where there was no indication that the plaintiffs failure to file the report earlier in the litigation was in bad faith