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: was not clearly established and did not provide the Deputies with "fair warning” that their conduct violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court reasoned "that without the benefit of McClish v. Nugent, 483 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir.2007), which was decided ... almost one year after the incident, the deputies could not have known whether entering the garage without a warrant was clearly a violation of the Coffins’ constitutional rights.” Coffin v. Brandau, No. 07-cv-835-T-26TBM, 2008 WL 2950117, at *7 (M.D.Fla. July 31, 2008). McClish addressed the question of whether a person who voluntarily opens his front door could be removed from his home and arrested outside the home’s threshold in light of Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 589-90, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 1381-82, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980) (<HOLDING>) and United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 96 Options: A. holding that in die absence of exigent circumstances the mere existence of probable cause does not justify a nonconsensual entry by police into a home without an arrest or search warrant B. holding that absent exigent circumstances an arrest within the home can only be effectuated with a warrant probable cause is insufficient C. holding that an arrest made outside an officers jurisdiction absent exigent circumstances violates the fourth amendment D. holding that absent consent or exigent circumstances law enforcement officers cannot legally search for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party without first obtaining a search warrant E. holding that absent exigent circumstances the fourth amendment prohibits warrantless nonconsensual entry into a suspects home in order to make a felony arrest notwithstanding the existence of probable cause to arrest

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that absent exigent circumstances an arrest within the home can only be effectuated with a warrant probable cause is insufficient
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: to the extent allowed by applicable law , you agree that you will bring any claim or cause of action arising from or relating to your access or use of this website within two ( 2 ) years from the date on which such claim or action arose or accrued or such claim or cause of action will be irrevocably waived .

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 Buyer represents that it holds warrants, a convertible loan and shares of preferred stock of the Company convertible or exercisable in the aggregate to 42,803,750 shares of Common Stock, on an as-converted basis, as of immediately prior to the Initial Closing, and therefore immediately after the Initial Closing will hold on an as-converted basis a majority of the fully diluted voting power of the capital stock of the Company. The Buyer and its affiliates agree to (i) waive any and all antidilution rights related to its debt and equity in the Company (other than (x) any antidilution rights set forth in the Transaction Documents, which, for the avoidance of doubt shall apply only after the Second Closing and (y) any antidilution rights set forth in those certain warrants to purchase Common Stock issued by the Company in connection with the issuance of the Company’s Series B Preferred Stock) and (ii) as promptly as practicable after the Initial Closing and prior to the Second Closing, but, in any case, subject to the conversion by all other holders of their shares of preferred stock into Common Stock, convert such securities into Common Stock pursuant to the terms of such securities in place immediately prior to the Initial Closing.

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: court. Failure to pursue a pretrial motion to hearing and decision before trial is deemed an abandonment of that motion; however, said motion may he heard after the commencement of trial in the discretion of the court. URCCC 2.04 (emphasis added). Trial was set for July 13. Perlman filed her motion for summary judgment on June 15 and set it for hearing. Faul responded on June 28. As noted by the circuit court, the earliest the court could hear the motion was July 12. We agree with the circuit court that the fact Perlman’s motion was not heard by July 2 was due to the court’s busy schedule, not Perlman’s failure to pursue her dispositive motion to a hearing and disposition. URCCC 4.03(5); URCCC 2.04. Cf. Braddock Law Firm, PLLC v. Becnel, 949 So.2d 38, 46-47 (¶ 31) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 33. We find no reversible error in the Options: A. holding trial court had discretion to look past partys failure to techni cally comply with rule 4032 so long as the purposes of the rule were fulfilled B. holding that failure to comply with bankruptcy rule 4004 may be waived C. recognizing rule D. holding that a court may sua sponte dismiss pursuant to rule 41b for failure to comply with a court order E. holding a party must timely present his legal theories to the trial court so as to give the trial court an opportunity to rule properly

assistant: The best answer is A. holding trial court had discretion to look past partys failure to techni cally comply with rule 4032 so long as the purposes of the rule were fulfilled
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 Trooper Weilminster, handcuffed her behind her back. (PI. Aff. ¶ 11; PI. Dep. 108:11-113:10.) Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, whether Trooper Nolan even had probable cause to arrest her is questionable, and there is no indication that she was trying to resist arrest. Plaintiff visited the hospital following her departure from the police barracks, and complained of injuries including bruised wrists. (PL Dep. 196:12-197:10, 201:13-19.) She also testified that she informed the hospital staff that she had sustained an injury to hear head and knees. (Pl. Dep. 194:6-197:10.) A reasonable jury could find that no force was warranted, and that forcibly removing Plaintiff from her car and handcuffing her was excessive force. See, e.g., Robison, 821 F.2d at 923-24 (<HOLDING>); Lemmo v. City of New York, No. 08-CV-2641, Options: A. holding that an officer intentionally hitting the plaintiffs head into the top of the police car as the plaintiff was being placed in the police car could be excessive force B. holding that forcibly removing nonviolent plaintiff from her car could be excessive force C. recognizing pretrial detainees constitutional right to be from excessive force D. holding that inquiry as to whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for use of excessive force is distinct from inquiry on the merits of the excessive force claim E. holding that the use of pepper spray on nonviolent protestors was excessive force

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that forcibly removing nonviolent plaintiff from her car could be excessive force
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: Directly or, to the Borrower’s knowledge, indirectly use the proceeds of any Credit Extension for any purpose which would breach the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, the UK Bribery Act 2010, or other similar legislation in other jurisdictions.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: If any court or governmental authority holds any provision in this Agreement invalid, illegal or unenforceable under any applicable law, then, so long as no party is deprived of the benefits of this Agreement in any material respect, this Agreement shall be construed with the invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision deleted and the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions contained herein shall not be affected or impaired thereby.

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: It is agreed and understood that the general rule that ambiguities are to be construed against the drafter shall not apply to this Agreement. In the event that any language in this Agreement is found or claimed to be ambiguous, each Party shall have the same opportunity to present evidence as to the actual intent of the Parties with respect to any such purportedly ambiguous language, without any inference or presumption being drawn against the purported drafter. In the event that one or more of the provisions of this Agreement shall become invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions contained herein shall not be affected. In the event that any of the provisions with respect to confidentiality, non-competition and/or non-solicitation as set forth in this Agreement are not enforceable in accordance with their terms, Executive and the Company agree that such provisions shall be reformed to make them enforceable in the manner which provides the Company with the maximum rights and protections permitted by law.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The execution, delivery and performance of the Transaction Documents by the Company and the consummation by the Company of the transactions contemplated thereby do not (i) conflict with or violate any provision of the Company’s articles of incorporation, bylaws or other organizational or charter documents, or (ii) conflict with, or constitute a default (or an event that with notice or lapse of time or both would become a default) under, result in the creation of any Lien upon any of the properties or assets of the Company, or give to others any rights of termination, amendment, acceleration or cancellation (with or without notice, lapse of time or both) of, any agreement, credit facility, debt or other instrument (evidencing a Company debt or otherwise) or other understanding to which the Company is a party or by which any property or asset of the Company is bound or affected, or (iii) result in a violation of any law, rule, regulation, order, judgment, injunction, decree or other restriction of any court or governmental authority to which the Company is subject (including federal and state securities laws and regulations), or by which any property or asset of the Company is bound or affected; except in the case of each of clauses (ii) and (iii), such as could not, individually or in the aggregate, have or reasonably be expected to result in a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: No Conflicts
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: The Recipient acknowledges that ownership of the Confidential Information including all Intellectual Property Rights in the Confidential Information remains vested in and shall vest in the Disclosers and its licensors, and that no licence or right is granted other than to the extent expressly set out in this Agreement.

assistant: Yes
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: Seller shall promptly provide Buyer with copies of all written notices received by Seller after the Effective Date which (i) assert any breach of Leases, Contracts, laws, rules, regulations, covenants or permits applicable to the Property, or (ii) relate to any litigation or other proceedings affecting the Property.

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

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 50 L.Ed.2d 373 97 S.Ct. 543 429 U.S. 165 Billy D. COOK et al., petitioners,v.Roger W. HUDSON et al No. 75-503 Supreme Court of the United States December 7, 1976 On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Dec. 7, 1976. PER CURIAM. 1 Certiorari was granted to consider the question presented: whether, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, a Mississippi public school board may terminate the employment of teachers sending their children not to public schools, but to a private racially segregated school. However, since the grant of certiorari, Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 96 S.Ct. 2586, 49 L.Ed.2d 415 (1976), held that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 prohibits private, commercially operated, nonsectarian schools from denying admission to prospective students because they are Negroes. Moreover, a Mississippi statute, Miss.Code Ann. § 37-9-59 (Supp.1976), enacted in 1974 after the school board action here complained of, prohibits school boards "from denying employment or reemployment to any person . . . for the single reason that any eligible child of such person does not attend the school system in which such (person) is employed." Though § 37-9-59 was cited in the record at the time of granting the writ, examination of the merits on oral argument in light of Runyon v. McCrary and § 37-9-59 satisfies us that the grant was improvident. Accordingly, the writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted. Cf. Rice v. Sioux City Cemetery, 349 U.S. 70, 75 S.Ct. 614, 99 L.Ed. 897 (1955). 2 Mr. Chief Justice BURGER, concurring in the result. 3 I join in the Court's disposition of this case. In doing so, I emphasize that our decision to dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted intimates no view on the question of when, if ever, public school teachers or any comparable public employees may be required, as a condition of their employment, to enroll their children in any particular school or refrain from sending them to a school which they, as parents, in their sole discretion, consider desirable. Few familial decisions are as immune from governmental interference as parents' choice of a school for their children, so long as the school chosen otherwise meets the educational standards imposed by the State. See Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972).

assistant: 9
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 use the net proceeds from the sale of the Securities hereunder for working capital purposes and shall not use such proceeds: (a) for the satisfaction of any portion of the Company’s Indebtedness (other than payment of trade payables in the ordinary course of the Company’s business and prior practices and other than ordinary course payments of principal and interest on the Company’s outstanding secured promissory notes), ), (b) for the redemption of any Common Stock or Common Stock Equivalents or (c) for the settlement of any outstanding litigation.

assistant: Use Of Proceeds
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 agreements in this Section and the indemnity provisions of Section 10.02(e) shall survive the resignation of the Administrative Agent , the L/C Issuer and the Swing Line Lender , the replacement of any Lender, the termination of the Aggregate Commitments and the repayment, satisfaction or discharge of all the other Obligations.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of a burden for purposes of the UUP test. Section 5 of the Charity Act After it concluded that Theater was not a “purely public charity” under the HUP test, the trial court then decided that Theater also did not qualify for an exemption under the Charity Act. It concluded that Theater did not prove that, upon dissolution, its assets would be donated to a charity or that it renders a substantial portion of its services gratuitously. Theater challenges both conclusions as inconsistent with the uncontradicted evidence. County responds that once the trial court determined that Theater did not qualify as a “purely public charity” under the HUP test, its analysis should have ended. Mesivtah Eitz Chaim of Bobov, Inc. v. Pike County Board of Assessment Appeals, 615 Pa. 463, 44 A.3d 3, 9 (2012) (<HOLDING>). County argues that this Court should remand Options: A. holding that the district courts question do you also understand that under some circumstances you or the government may have the right to appeal any sentence that i impose did not comply with rule llbln and failed to properly notify the defendant about the waiver of his appellate rights B. holding that if you do not qualify under the hup test you never get to the statute C. holding that it is not extortion to threaten economic harm when you have a legal right to engage in the activity you threaten D. holding that verbal threats such as we going to get you you better drop the suit do not rise to the level of adverse action E. holding do you think i need a lawyer to be ambiguous

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that if you do not qualify under the hup test you never get to the statute
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall reimburse Buyer for any and all expenses incurred by them in connection with the negotiation, preparation, execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement and the other agreements to be executed in connection herewith (“Documents”), including, without [imitation, reasonable attorneys’ and consultants’ fees and expenses, transfer agent fees, fees for stock quotation services, fees relating to any amendments or modifications of the Documents or any consents or waivers of provisions in the Documents, fees for the preparation of opinions of counsel, escrow fees, and costs of restructuring the transactions contemplated by the Documents. When possible, the Company must pay these fees directly, including, but not limited to, any and all wire fees, otherwise the Company must make immediate payment for reimbursement to the Buyer for all fees and expenses immediately upon written notice by the Buyer or the submission of an invoice by the Buyer. At Closing, the Company’s obligation with respect to this transaction is to reimburse Buyer’s legal expenses shall be $2,750 plus the cost of wire fees.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 29, 1997). Accordingly, all claims against the Waterbury Police Department are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l). F. Defendants Slavin and the City of Waterbury Defendant Slavin is a Waterbury police officer against whom two claims are asserted. First, Nicholson alleges that defendant Slavin used excessive force and conducted an illegal search of his personal effects when he arrested Nicholson in February 1999. The court has construed the brief reference to the City of Waterbury as relating to this claim. Second, he alleges that defendant Slavin made a false report charging him with robbery and provided that false information to the prosecutor. The limitations period for filing a section 1983 action is three years. See Lounsbury v. Jeffries, 25 F.3d 131, 134 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Nicholson alleges that defendant Slavin used Options: A. holding that the statute of limitations for 1983 claims is the most closely analogous state limitations period for general personal injury claims B. holding that in connecticut the general threeyear personal injury statute of limitations period set forth in connecticut general statutes 52577 is the appropriate limitations period for civil rights actions asserted under 42 usc 1983 C. holding that if state law provides multiple statutes of limitations for personal injury actions the general or residual statute for personal injury actions should be used for 1983 actions D. holding that civil rights claims at least those arising under 42 usc 1983 were subject to the applicable states personal injury statute of limitations E. holding that connecticuts threeyear limitations period for tort suits set forth in conn genstat 52577 is the appropriate limitations period for civil rights actions under 1983

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that in connecticut the general threeyear personal injury statute of limitations period set forth in connecticut general statutes 52577 is the appropriate limitations period for civil rights actions asserted under 42 usc 1983
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: on this language, we conclude that the release waived claims for injuries resulting from dangers inherent to riding a motorcycle, not for those resulting from defendant’s negligence. Although plaintiff waived claims for injuries resulting from dangers inherent in riding a motorcycle, the release did not cover claims for injury resulting from defendant’s alleged negligent representations to plaintiff. See Sirek v. Fairfield Snowbowl, Inc., 800 P.2d 1291, 1295 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990) (concluding that language in a release for ski rental alerted renter to “the dangers inherent in skiing,” but did not alert renter that she was also releasing ski area for “its own negligence in selecting appropriate skis or properly setting the bindings”); Turnbough v. Ladner, 754 So. 2d 467, 469 (Miss. 2000) (<HOLDING>). ¶20. This interpretation is supported by the Options: A. holding that claims made but not argued in a brief are waived B. holding that failure to follow state law requiring issuing judge to record testimony did not affect validity of warrant C. holding that failure to follow mandatory provision of statute renders the act void whereas failure to follow directory provision does not D. holding that the failure to follow rule 252b3a was jurisdictional E. holding that release that participant in scuba diving class signed waived claims associated with risks inherent in sport but did not waive right to recover for instructors failure to follow accepted safety standards

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that release that participant in scuba diving class signed waived claims associated with risks inherent in sport but did not waive right to recover for instructors failure to follow accepted safety standards
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: provision is unambiguous in setting forth, “We do not cover loss caused by mold”); Lundstrom v. United Services Auto. Ass’n-CIC, 192 S.W.3d 78, 91 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (presuming without deciding that even if the mold were a covered loss under the policy, the mold is not negligence claims can sometimes be asserted in the claims-handling context. See St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Dai-Worth Tank Co., Inc., 917 S.W.2d 29, 53-54 (Tex.App.Amarillo 1995); aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 974 S.W.2d 51 (Tex. 1998) (per curiam). 19 .See Tex.R.App. P. 38.1(h) ("The brief must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.”); San Saba Energy, L.P., 171 S.W.3d at 338 (<HOLDING>); Wright v. Greenberg, 2 S.W.3d 666, 673 Options: A. holding that parties asserting error on appeal must put forth some specific argument and analysis citing the record and authorities in support of the parties argument B. holding that appellate court will not consider an argument on appeal that is different from the specific argument presented to the trial court even if it relates to the same general issue C. holding that the defendant waived argument on appeal by failing to develop a cogent argument D. holding that the appellant waived an argument listed only in his summary of the argument E. holding party must support argument with legal authority

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that parties asserting error on appeal must put forth some specific argument and analysis citing the record and authorities in support of the parties argument
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: motion depends entirely on 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).” Smartt, 129 F.3d at 540 (quotation and brackets omitted). As applicable to Mr. Leroy’s situation, § 3582(c) allows the court to modify a sentence only if the sentencing range is subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission. A reduction of a defendant’s sentence “is not consistent with [the Sentencing Commission’s] policy statement and therefore is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)” if the amended drug-quantity table “does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (Supp.2008). Amendment 706 has no effect on the Guideline Mr. Leroy was sentenced under; accordingly, his motion for relief pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) was properly denied. Cf. Sharkey, 543 F.3d at 1238-39 (<HOLDING>). Turning to Mr. Leroy’s claim that the Options: A. holding that while amendment 706 was applicable to the defendants in question because it reduced their base offense levels a reduction was not authorized because the amendment did not have the effect of lowering their applicable guideline ranges because of the application of the career offender guideline B. holding that a defendant whose original sentence was based upon the careeroffender guideline and not 2d11 could not receive a sentence reduction based on amendment 706 because it did not have the effect of lowering the applicable guideline range C. holding that a defendant whose sentence is based on his status as a career offender under 4b11 is not entitled to 3582c2 relief because amendments 706 and 713 do not lower the applicable guideline range for a career offender D. holding that while amendment 706 was applica ble to the defendants in question because it reduced their base offense levels a reduction was not authorized because the amendment did not have the effect of lowering their applicable guideline ranges because of the application of the career offender guideline E. holding a reduction in defendants sentence as a career offender was not authorized under 3582c2 because amendment 706 did not lower his applicable guideline range under the careeroffender guidelines

assistant: The best answer is E. holding a reduction in defendants sentence as a career offender was not authorized under 3582c2 because amendment 706 did not lower his applicable guideline range under the careeroffender guidelines
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 U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 384 U.S. 891 86 S.Ct. 1916 16 L.Ed.2d 996 Fred WALLACE et al.v.VIRGINIA. No. 1011. June 20, 1966. Rehearing Denied Oct. 10, 1966. See 87 S.Ct. 12. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Former decision, 86 S.Ct. 1224. George E. Allen, Sr., Anthony G. Amsterdam, Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III, Charles Stephen Ralston, S. W. Tucker and Henry L. Marsh III for petitioners. Frederick T. Gray, for respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgments are affirmed. City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 86 S.Ct. 1800, 16 L.Ed.2d 944. 2 THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, Mr. Justice BRENNAN and Mr. Justice FORTAS would reverse the judgments for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice DOUGLAS in City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S., at 835, 86 S.Ct., at 1816, 16 L.Ed.2d, at 961.

assistant: 9
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of (i) the Company and its successors and assigns, and (ii) Director, and Director’s heirs, devisees, executors, administrators and personal representatives.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the Executive’s personal representatives, executors, administrators, heirs, distributees, devisees and legatees. In the event of the Executive’s death after his termination of employment but prior to the completion by the Company of all payments due him under this Agreement, the Company shall continue such payments to the Executive’s beneficiary designated in writing to the Company prior to his death (or to his estate, if the Executive fails to make such designation), subject to Section 6, above. The Company shall require any successor to the Company to expressly assume and agree to perform this Agreement in the same manner and to the same extent that the Company would be required to perform it if no such succession had taken place.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 519 U.S. 808, 117 S.Ct. 50, 136 L.Ed.2d 14 (1996) (quoting Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. at 194, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126); see also Frooks, 997 F.Supp. at 453 (stating that “a ‘taking’ is not “without just compensation’ under section 1983 unless a plaintiff has exhausted all state remedies that may provide just compensation”). The State of New York has established remedies for just compensation claims, under the New York EDPL § 101 et seq. and Article 78, that meet all constitutional requirements. See Hellenic American Neighborhood Action Comm. v. City of New York, 101 F.3d 877, 881 (2d Cir.1996) (Article 78 proceeding is “perfectly adequate postdeprivation remedy in ... situations” involving property interests): Frooks, 997 F.Supp. at 452 (<HOLDING>). b. Protectable Property Interest With respect Options: A. holding that court had no obligation to inform pro se litigant of procedural requirements due to clear evidence in record including inter alia defendants mention of requirements in summary judgment motion that litigant knew requirements B. holding that the decision whether an alien meets the hardship requirement in 8 usc 1229b is a discretionary judgment C. holding that the edpl meets all constitutional requirements D. holding that a roving wiretap surveillance warrant meets the fourth amendments particularity requirement E. holding that a roving wiretap surveillance warrant meets the fourth amendments particularity requirement

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the edpl meets all constitutional requirements
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 family member under the First Amendment. See id. at 44 (“[A] spouse’s claim that adverse action was taken solely against that spouse in retaliation for conduct of the other spouse should be analyzed as a claimed violation of a First Amendment right of intimate association.”); see also Garten v. Hochman, No. 08-CV-9425, 2010 WL 2465479, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2010) (“Courts in this circuit have acknowledged that a First Amendment right to intimate association is implicated ‘[w]here a plaintiff is allegedly retaliated against for the First Amendment activities of a family member.’ ” (alteration in original) (quoting Agostino v. Simpson, No. 08-CV-5760, 2008 WL 4906140, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2008))); Sutton v. Vill. of Valley Stream of N.Y., 96 F.Supp.2d 189, 192-93 (E.D.N.Y.2000) (<HOLDING>). “Where the intimate association right at Options: A. holding that plaintiff had stated a claim for violation of his first amendment right to intimate association where he alleged that his employer harassed him in retaliation for his fathers political activities B. holding that the plaintiff had a right of privacy in the contents of a settlement agreement that stated that the plaintiff had sued his employer for failing to hire him because he was a single gay male and because his employer suspected that he had aids C. holding that student stated a claim for violation of his first amendment right to speech when he alleged that school officials prevented him from openly stating that he was homosexual and retaliated against him for doing so D. holding that the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts in his complaint to state a claim for wrongful discharge where he alleged he was discharged due to his political affiliation and activities E. holding that an adverse action taken solely against a spouse in retaliation for conduct of the other spouse should be analyzed as a claimed violation of a first amendment right of intimate association

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that plaintiff had stated a claim for violation of his first amendment right to intimate association where he alleged that his employer harassed him in retaliation for his fathers political activities
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: After giving effect to the execution and delivery of the Loan Documents and the making of the Loans under this Agreement, the Parent is Solvent, the Borrower is Solvent, and the Loan Parties, taken as a whole, are Solvent.

assistant: Solvency
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 an Event of Default occurs, excluding an Event of Default under Section 2.00(xvii), the outstanding Principal Amount of this Note owing in respect thereof through the date of acceleration, shall become, at the Holder's election, immediately due and payable in cash at the “ Mandatory Default Amount ”. The Mandatory Default Amount means 150% of the outstanding Principal Amount of this Note, will be automatically added to the Principal Sum of the Note and tack back to the Effective Date for purposes of Rule 144. Commencing 5 days after the occurrence of any Event of Default that results in the eventual acceleration of this Note, this Note shall accrue additional interest, in addition to the Note’s “guaranteed” interest, at a rate equal to the lesser of 20% per annum or the maximum rate permitted under applicable law. In connection with such acceleration described herein, the Holder need not provide, and the Issuer hereby waives, any presentment, demand, protest or other notice of any kind, and the Holder may immediately and without expiration of any grace period enforce any and all of its rights and remedies hereunder and all other remedies available to it under applicable law. No such rescission or annulment shall affect any subsequent event of default or impair any right consequent thereon. Nothing herein shall limit the Holder's right to pursue any other remedies available to it at law or in equity including, without limitation, a decree of specific performance and/or injunctive relief with respect to the Issuer's failure to timely deliver certificates representing shares of Common Stock upon conversion of the Note as required pursuant to the terms hereof.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: logic to conclude that the act of showing Spartin the other witnesses’ grand jury statements in October 1986 caused Spartin to state that the plaintiff knew of the conspiracy during his grand jury testimony in September 1987, but not during his polygraph examination in December 1986. Therefore, the plaintiffs argument that the Inspectors’ violation of the secrecy rules “tainted” Spartin’s grand jury testimony by causing him to state a “phony opinion” necessarily fails. Whatever the reason for the apparent change in Spartin’s opinion between December 1986 and September 1987, the plaintiff offers no evidence — only conclusory allegations— that the opinion Spartin offered at the grand jury hearing was swayed by the Inspectors’ violation of the secrecy rules. See Greene, 164 F.3d at 675 (<HOLDING>). Because the plaintiff has presented no Options: A. holding that unsubstantiated representations will not withstand summary judgment B. holding that plaintiff who provides evidence of acts more severe than a lack of due care may withstand summary judgment motion on a failure to protect claim C. holding that an employees unsubstantiated testimony that he was better qualified than employees that were not subject to adverse employment actions was insufficient to defeat summary judgment D. holding that unsubstantiated assertions are not competent summary judgment evidence E. recognizing that the decedents claim should withstand summary judgment despite counsels concession that he will be unlikely to prevail at trial

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that unsubstantiated representations will not withstand summary judgment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Ct. App. 2002)). Accordingly, if the BZA’s findings are merely a general replication of the requirements of the ordinance at issue, they are insufficient to support the BZA’s decision. Id. (citing Metro. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, Div. II, Marion Cty. v. Gunn, 477 N.E.2d 289, 300 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985)). Here, the BZA’s findings of fact are nothing more than a recitation of the statutory language and an indication of how the members of the BZA voted on whether these statutory requirements had been met. In the portion of the form used by the BZA to record its findings, the space left for specific findings was left blank. Thus, the BZA’s “findings” are nothing of the sort required to permit adequate judicial review of the BZA’s decisions. See Carlton, 252 Ind. at 62-63, 245 N.E.2d 337, 342-43 (<HOLDING>); Wastewater One, 947 N.E.2d at 1051 (citing Options: A. holding documents insufficient when they simply restate the language of the statute and defendant enters a plea without elaboration B. holding that instructions are sufficient which substantially follow the language of the statute or use equivalent language C. holding that the language of the statute and the courts duty to apply the statute as written requires the court to interpret the statute to apply when the prisoner is sentenced without regard to the institution where the prisoner is incarcerated after the sentencing D. holding that boards findings were insufficient where they merely repeated language of relevant statute and rejecting claim that voting foims of the members of the board which also simply mirrored the language of the relevant statute without specific findings were findings sufficient to permit judicial review E. recognizing that a 2422b indictment that merely tracks the language of the statute without identifying an underlying statute may be insufficient

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that boards findings were insufficient where they merely repeated language of relevant statute and rejecting claim that voting foims of the members of the board which also simply mirrored the language of the relevant statute without specific findings were findings sufficient to permit judicial review
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: recent developments in the law have undermined the Ninth Circuit’s rationale for characterizing conciliation as jurisdictional. The Supreme Court “has implicitly rejected the notion that Congress’ preference for conciliation, while important, is a sufficient basis in of itself for concluding that Congress intended the requirement to be jurisdictional.” E.E.O.C. v. Alia Corp., 842 F.Supp.2d 1243, 1252, 2012 WL 393510, at *6 (E.D.Cal. February 6, 2012); see Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154, 130 S.Ct. 1237, 1248 n. 9, 176 L.Ed.2d 18 (2010) (“We do not agree that a condition should be ranked as jurisdictional merely because it promotes important congressional objectives.”); see also Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 504, 515-516, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court has made clear that a Options: A. holding requirement nonjurisdictional and remanding for a possible eeoc waiver of that requirement B. recognizing that most other courts apply title vii principles to title ix cases but refusing to apply title viis knew or should have known standard to a title ix claim C. holding that there is no individual liability under title vii D. holding that title viis numerosity requirement is nonjurisdictional even though it serves the important policy goal of sparing very small businesses from title vii liability because the statutory provision containing the requirement does not speak in jurisdictional terms or in any way refer to the jurisdiction of district courts E. holding that title viis provision limiting its application to businesses with fifteen or more employees was not jurisdictional on the basis that when congress does not rank a statutory limitation on coverage as jurisdictional courts should treat the restriction as nonjurisdictional in character

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that title viis numerosity requirement is nonjurisdictional even though it serves the important policy goal of sparing very small businesses from title vii liability because the statutory provision containing the requirement does not speak in jurisdictional terms or in any way refer to the jurisdiction of district courts
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: on appeal is to decide the case -within the framework of the issues raised by the parties.”). “[I]n the absence of the most cogent circumstances, we do not create issues....” Id. at 78 n. 4 (collecting cases). True, we have previously recognized that we will address issues that are “incident to” a determination of other issues properly presented. See Messina v. Iowa Dep’t of Job Serv., 341 N.W.2d 52, 58, 61 (Iowa 1983) (addressing issue of whether plaintiff had contractually waived his First Amendment rights when defendant had not raised that issue before the district court and holding “the waiver issue may be determined as an incident to the expressed issue”); Presbytery of Se. Iowa v. Harris, 226 N.W.2d 282, 234 (Iowa 1975); see also State v. Lyle, 854 N.W.2d 378, 382-83 (Iowa 2014) (<HOLDING>). However, this exception to our error Options: A. holding a new constitutional challenge not raised in district court was not properly before court of appeals B. holding constitutional challenge to void statute may be raised for first time on appeal C. holding that the alc may not rule upon a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a regulation or statute but may rule upon an asapplied challenge D. holding constitutional challenge to section 93991 raised for the first time on appeal was barred E. recognizing that categorical constitutional challenge was fundamentally similar to asapplied constitutional challenge initially raised on appeal

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that categorical constitutional challenge was fundamentally similar to asapplied constitutional challenge initially raised on appeal