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: been a basis for the preliminary injunction. C In sum, due to the jurisdictional and merits-based considerations discussed in detail above, the Association has failed to demonstrate even a fair chance of success on the likelihood of success prong as to any of the four claims. IV Turning briefly to the remaining prongs of the preliminary injunction test, even assuming that each of these prongs weighs in the Association’s favor, it was an abuse of discretion for the preliminary injunction to be granted. Regardless whether the fair chance standard or a more demanding standard applies to the likelihood of success prong, the Association did not establish even a fair chance of success on the merits and, therefore, a preliminary injunction was not warranted. See Mikohn Gaming, 165 F.3d at 895 (<HOLDING>). We note, however, our disagreement with the Options: A. holding that the standard for permanent injunction is the same as that for preliminary injunction with the one exception being that the plaintiff must show actual success on the merits rather than likelihood of success B. holding that under the sliding scale approach a petitioner had made a sufficiently strong showing of likely success on the merits where he presented a case which raises serious legal questions or has a reasonable probability or fair prospect of success C. holding that a court may issue injunctive relief only when the movant demonstrates four factors substantial likelihood of success on the merits irreparable harm no substantial injury to the other party and furtherance of the public interest D. holding that a movant that clearly establishes likelihood of success on the merits receives the benefit of a presumption of irreparable harm E. holding that regardless of other factors as to harms a movants likelihood of success must carry at least a fair chance of success on the merits in order to warrant interim relief internal quotation omitted

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that regardless of other factors as to harms a movants likelihood of success must carry at least a fair chance of success on the merits in order to warrant interim relief internal quotation omitted
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: evidence indicating that Bass did not object to the postponement, it is also clear that neither KERS nor Bass himself ever represented that Bass had any authority to bind KERS. (Sims dep. at 311). ATC cites Sims’s deposition assertion that he thought Bass was an agent of KERS. This rather overstates the evidence. Sims’s deposition directly indicates that Bass’s status was ambiguous, stating that Bass “had been acting in a role as&emdash;I guess it would be agent or go-between for ATC&emdash;or for KERS with ATC.” (Dep. at 310). Just as importantly, ATC has presented no evidence that KERS did anything which would reasonably lead Sims or ATC to believe that Bass was acting as authority to bind KERS. See Finnegan Construction Co. v. Robino-Ladd Co., 354 A.2d 142, 144-45 (Del.Super.1976) (<HOLDING>). The final set of arguments presented by the Options: A. holding that when an agent has limited authority and informs the third party of this limitation the principal is not bound by the agents actions that exceed that authority B. holding that a principal is not hable for the actions of an agent when these actions exceed the agents authority and the thirdparty has knowledge that the agent does not have the authority asserted C. holding that both agent and principal will be liable when the agent acts within the scope of his employment but for his own purposes D. holding that a principal is bound by a contract entered into by the principals agent on her behalf if the agent had authority to bind the principal E. holding apparent authority can never be derived from the acts of the agent alone but is to be determined by indicia of authority given by the principal

assistant: The best answer is E. holding apparent authority can never be derived from the acts of the agent alone but is to be determined by indicia of authority given by the principal
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: argues that the Addenda are not parol evidence, but rather, are part of the original Release and Settlement Agreement, and that it was therefore proper for the court to consider those documents. That argument however, is incorrect. These documents were not executed contemporaneously with the Release and Settlement Agreement and cannot be said to be part and parcel of that Agreement. More to the point, these documents did not serve to explain an ambiguity but instead created an ambiguity which would not otherwise exist in the Release and Settlement Agreement. Neither the Addenda nor the “memorandum of settlement” can be relied upon to “explain” an agreement which, by its terms, required no explanation. Wickenheiser v. Ramm Vending Promotion, Inc., 560 So.2d 350, 352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (<HOLDING>). The intent of the parties was to be Options: A. holding if the language of a deed or other written instrument is clear and unambiguous the intention of the parties is gathered from the instrument it is what the grant or said and not what he intended to say B. holding evidence that would contradict add to or subtract from or affect the construction of a valid complete and unambiguous written instrument is inadmissible under the parol evidence rule C. holding the parol evidence rule presumes finality with respect to the written terms of the agreement only and does not prevent consideration of parol evidence concerning the duration of contract D. holding that parol evidence was inadmissible to contradict the terms of a security agreement and promissory note E. holding parol evidence inadmissible to vary a written instrument which is complete unambiguous valid and unaffected by fraud duress mistake or illegality

assistant: The best answer is B. holding evidence that would contradict add to or subtract from or affect the construction of a valid complete and unambiguous written instrument is inadmissible under the parol evidence rule
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 Plan became effective as of March 21, 2011 and was amended and restated on May 21, 2013. This Plan shall terminate as of the first annual meeting of the Company ’ s stockholders to occur on or after April 12, 2027, unless terminated earlier by the Board. Termination of this Plan shall not affect the terms or conditions of any award granted prior to termination.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: In addition to the foregoing, and in further exchange for the consideration described in Section 3 of this Agreement, SINHA specifically represents and warrants that as of the date that he executes this Agreement, either (i) he has disclosed to ALEXION’s General Counsel or to another member of ALEXION’s internal Legal Department in writing any matter that he knows or suspects could constitute an actual or potential violation of the ALEXION Code of Ethics and Business Conduct or of any internal or external legal, regulatory or compliance requirement applicable to ALEXION in any jurisdiction in which it does business, or (ii) he has no information concerning any such matter.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: for the sole purpose of checking driver licenses. We find that the later provision of § 55-50-804 controls under the facts of the present case. See State v. James Herbie Hinkle, Jr., No. 80-89-III, Davidson County (Tenn.Crim. App. filed December 9, 1980, in Nashville). Based upon these provisions, Deputy Johnson’s actions were proper and the resulting knowledge that the defendant was driving on a revoked license is properly admissible. The defendant contends that if the motion to suppress is overturned on appeal, officers would be permitted to randomly stop drivers to determine whether their registration was valid. However, this argument has no merit under the facts of this case because the stop was neither random nor arbitrary. Further, it is we .Ct. 1391, 1401, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979) Options: A. holding that owners and officers of automobile dealership who were neither consumers nor competitors in automobile market lacked standing to bring antitrust action against automobile manufacturer B. holding that a canine sniff of an automobile need not be justified by reasonable articulable suspicion of drug activity C. holding the drivers refusal to consent to search of automobile did not give rise to reasonable suspicion that vehicle contained narcotics D. holding that except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his drivers license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the fourth amendment E. holding that asking a detained motorist whether he would consent to a search of his automobile for contraband even after he had produced a valid drivers license did not necessarily make the traffic stop unreasonable in scope or duration

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his drivers license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the fourth amendment
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you will not , and waive any right to , seek to recover any other damages , including lost profits and consequential , special , direct , indirect , or incidental damages , from the application publisher .

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: subordinate liability and supervisory liability. Individuals who aid in the implementation of an adverse action at the instructions of a superi- or will be liable along with their superior if they knew or should have known that the adverse action was unlawful. Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 393 (“[Rejecting prison officers’ argument that ‘since they did not have the authority to alter the [prisoner’s security] classification, any consequence of that status cannot be their responsibility.’ ” (quoting Villanueva v. George, 659 F.2d 851, 854 (8th Cir.1981) (en banc))). Because this stems from principles of agency, the plaintiff must establish that the superi- or intended to retaliate but only that the subordinate knowingly participated in the acts of the superior. Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 393 (<HOLDING>). Superiors and supervisors, on the other hand, Options: A. holding that evidence of a cursory investigation can give rise to an inference of an unlawful motive B. holding that puffing does not give rise to fraud liability under mississippi law C. holding that failure to record an assignment does not give rise to a cause of action D. holding that a violation of a state statute regarding the swearing of criminal complaints does not give rise to constitutional liability E. holding a subordinates knowing participation in a superiors retaliatory conduct sufficient to give rise to liability of subordinate who merely executed the unlawful orders

assistant: The best answer is E. holding a subordinates knowing participation in a superiors retaliatory conduct sufficient to give rise to liability of subordinate who merely executed the unlawful orders
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: limitations period, where suit was not filed until after the amended statute became effective). Thus, the Legislature may not retroactively extinguish or eliminate accrued and pending causes of action, either by procedural changes such as shortening statutes of limitation, or by substantive changes, such as creating new affirmative defenses. See, e.g., DeCordova v. City of Galveston, 4 Tex. 470, 480 (Tex.1849) (“[I]f a statute of limitations applied to existing causes barred all remedy or did not afford a reasonable period for their prosecution ... such legislation would be retrospective within the intent of the prohibition, and would therefore be wholly inoperative.”); Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. R.J. Reagan Co., 577 S.W.2d 341, 345-46 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>). The dissent argues that the Statute does not Options: A. holding that the state may waive the affirmative defense of procedural default by failing to assert it B. holding a plaintiff cannot assert a violation of the ecoa as an affirmative defense C. holding the recoupment doctrine could allow a spouse to assert an ecoa affirmative defense against a creditor even after the statute of limitations had run D. holding that defendant does not waive an affirmative defense if defendant raises it at a pragmatically sufficient time such as summary judgment and the defendants failure raise the affirmative defense in its answer did not cause the plaintiff prejudice E. holding that defendant could not assert statutory affirmative defense enacted three years after claim accrued because such would affect vested rights and substantive law

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that defendant could not assert statutory affirmative defense enacted three years after claim accrued because such would affect vested rights and substantive law
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: 2002). III. DISCUSSION Appellants each contend that the government failed to prove that AmSouth’s deposits were insured by the FDIC, which they maintain requires this Court to vacate their convictions. In support of their argument, Appellants claim that exhibit 6, which is the FDIC certification and affidavit of the Assistant Secretary of the FDIC, was testimonial evidence admitted in violation of the Confrontation Clause as set forth in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). To obtain a conviction for conspiring to interfere with interstate commerce through robbery, in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), the government need only prove a robbery and effect on commerce. United States v. Rodriguez, 218 F.3d 1243, 1244 (11th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). At trial, Dean admitted to committing the Options: A. holding that conviction for hobbs act robbery is constitutional so long as it has de minimis impact on interstate commerce B. holding that the government can satisfy the hobbs act interstate commerce requirement by showing that the robbery resulted in the closure of a business engaged in interstate commerce C. holding that robbery of nationwide checkcashing company affected interstate commerce in violation of hobbs act D. holding two elements are essential for a hobbs act prosecution robbery and an effect on commerce E. holding the limitations to congresss commerce clause authority recognized in lopez have no effect on the establishment of the interstate commerce element of the hobbs act

assistant: The best answer is D. holding two elements are essential for a hobbs act prosecution robbery and an effect on commerce
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: plastic — no phone-no dad signed false statement to murders (Tonto) Aaron.” “Sign false statements to murder, Tonto on statements is code word Aaron.” On the door of the room was written “Aaron lied.” Self-serving statements by an accused are inadmissible hearsay. (People v. Tenny (1991), 224 Ill. App. 3d 53, 62; see also People v. Visnack (1985), 135 Ill. App. 3d 113, 127; People v. Barnes (1982), 107 Ill. App. 3d 262, 267; but see People v. Berry (1988), 172 Ill. App. 3d 256, 262.) Such statements are considered inadmissible hearsay because their relevance depends upon the truth of the matter asserted or the declarant’s belief in the truth or falsity of the matter asserted. (People v. Young (1990), 206 Ill. App. 3d 789, 811; see also People v. Vanda (1982), 111 Ill. App. 3d 551, 558 (<HOLDING>).) In this case, defendant’s writings clearly Options: A. recognizing distinction made in maynard that one accomplices outofcourt statement may corroborate the incourt testimony of another accomplice but outofcourt testimony of a testifying accomplice cannot be used to corroborate his own testimony B. holding that testimony of childs mother during temporarycustody probablecause bearing regarding defendant fathers shaking of child where defendant proceeded without counsel was admissible under hearsay exception for former testimony because the defendants motive to develop the testimony in the chancery case was very similar to his motive in the criminal case ie to avoid any implications of child abuse C. holding that testimony of childs mother during temporarycustody probablecause hearing respecting defendant fathers shaking of child where defendant proceeded without counsel was admissible under hearsay exception for former testimony because the defendants motive to develop the testimony in the chancery case was very similar to his motive in the criminal case ie to avoid any implications of child abuse D. holding that it was error not to allow juvenile to present testimony concerning alleged prejudice and bias of two of the states key witnesses the error was not harmless because it went to possible motive the witnesses may have had to exaggerate or even completely fabricate them testimony E. holding testimony regarding outofcourt statements made by a defendant after commission of a crime is incompetent because the defendant had a motive to fabricate favorable testimony relating to innocence

assistant: The best answer is E. holding testimony regarding outofcourt statements made by a defendant after commission of a crime is incompetent because the defendant had a motive to fabricate favorable testimony relating to innocence
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: demonstrates that there is no consensus on the issue. Compare Reynolds v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 32 A.D.3d 1268, 1269, 822 N.Y.S.2d 216 (2006) (“Absent evidence of collusion between the co-defendant and plaintiffs to the detriment of the company, the failure to disclose the high-low agreement did not mandate reversal.”), Monti v. Wenkert, 2006 WL 3908564, *14, 2006 Conn.Super. LEXIS 3849, 45-6 (Conn.Super.Ct.2006) (In upholding use of high-low agreement without disclosure to nonset-tling defendant: “If the true alignment of the codefendants is apparent to the parties, the court and the jury, introduction of the agreement to the jury is unnecessary because there is no prejudice to be avoided.”), and Ziegler v. Wendel Poultry Seros., Inc., 67 Ohio St.3d 10, 17, 615 N.E.2d 1022 (Ohio 1993) (<HOLDING>), with Hashem, v. Les Stanford Oldsmobile, Options: A. holding highlow settlement agreement between estate and company was not a mary carter agreement and it was not erroneous to have allowed the company to participate in the trial or by failing to disclose the agreement to the jury B. holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt C. holding that where one party had received a written agreement and conformed his conduct to that agreement for an extended period of time but failed to sign the agreement he was equitably estopped from denying the validity of the agreement D. holding that plaintiffs personal injury action against other driver in auto accident was not precluded by arbitration award between insurance carriers regarding damage to plaintiffs car because plaintiff did not participate in or control arbitration was not a party to arbitration agreement did not adopt agreement or attempt to benefit from agreement E. holding that the plaintiffs lawsuit which was filed despite a general release in the parties settlement agreement constituted a material breach of the settlement agreement

assistant: The best answer is A. holding highlow settlement agreement between estate and company was not a mary carter agreement and it was not erroneous to have allowed the company to participate in the trial or by failing to disclose the agreement to the jury
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: is surely an exception. From television shows like “Law & Order” to movies such as “Guys and Dolls,” we are steeped in the culture that knows a person in custody has “the right to remain silent,” Miranda is practically a household word. And surely, when a criminal defendant says, “I plead the Fifth,” it doesn’t take a trained linguist, a Ph.D, or a lawyer to know what he means. Indeed, as early as 1955, the Supreme Court recognized that “in popular parlance and even in legal literature, the term ‘Fifth Amendment’ in the context of our time is commonly regarded as being synonymous with the privilege against self-incrimination.” Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 163, 75 S.Ct. 668, 99 L.Ed. 964 (1955); accord In re Johnny V., 85 Cal.App.3d 120, 149 Cal.Rptr. 180, 184, 188 (1978) (<HOLDING>). More recently, the Court highlighted that Options: A. holding that denial of reduction for acceptance of responsibility was a penalty which could not be imposed for defendants assertion of fifth amendment privilege B. holding that a valid assertion of the fifth amendment privilege in a civil case may not be treated as an admission that allegations are true C. holding that juveniles request to call parent is assertion of fifth amendment privilege against selfincrimination D. holding that the statement ill take the fifth was an assertion of the fifth amendment privilege E. recognizing that policy reasons undergirding assertion of fifth amendment privilege outside jurys presence apply even if privilege is invalid

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that the statement ill take the fifth was an assertion of the fifth amendment privilege
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: applies to prevent an inventory of a vehicle after it has been impounded, we do not need to address the issue here. By its own terms, § 321J.4B(5)(a) only applies to impound-ments resulting from a violation of § 321 J.2, “Operating while under the influence d one from 1999, were both for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. They were certainly similar in kind, if not identical to, the charged offenses of possession of methamphetamine, cocaine and marijuana with intent to distribute. Furthermore, given the similarities between the prior convictions and the current offenses, which occurred in 2002, the prior convictions were not overly remote in time from the charged conduct. See Thomas, 398 F.3d at 1063; United States v. Frazier, 280 F.3d 835, 847 (8th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Betterton makes no argument that the Options: A. holding that crimes of bank fraud punishable by up to five years imprisonment each were a serious offense for speedy trial act purposes B. holding evidence of similar drugrelated crimes five years in the past was well within the bounds of admission C. holding that drug testing lay well within the district courts discretion given elwells past use and past dealing in drugs D. holding that a potential prison sentence of up to five years was clearly serious E. holding that sentences of five years in prison followed by ten years probation were illegal sentences that exceeded the statutory maximum of five years for a thirddegree felony

assistant: The best answer is B. holding evidence of similar drugrelated crimes five years in the past was well within the bounds of admission
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: it. Porch v. Chater, 115 F.3d 567, 571 (8th Cir.1997). The ALJ must apply a sequential analysis to determine if a claimant is disabled, specifically whether the claimant is not currently working and has a severe impairment; whether this impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; if not, whether the impairment prevents the claimant from returning to his past relevant work; and, if so, whether the impairment prevents the claimant from performing other work in light of his age, education, and past work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. Further, it is the ALJ’s duty to investigate a claim presented at the time of the application or offered at the hearing as a basis for disability. Gregg v. Barnhart, 354 F.3d 710, 713 (8th Cir.2003); Battles v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 43, 44-45 (8th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Christner’s main argument on appeal is that Options: A. holding the defendants claim that he was denied the right to testify was appropriate for direct review when the record was adequately developed to permit full consideration of the defendants claim the pertinent facts were undisputed a pcr hearing was not necessary to resolve a factual dispute and would not aid in the application of the law and the defendants claim was presented not as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim but rather as an error committed by the trial court in excluding the defendants testimony which was not an appropriate basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim B. holding that evidence based on new asthma attacks that occurred after alj hearing as immaterial to present application for benefits C. holding that a claimants failure to list an impairment either in her application for disability benefits or through her testimony disposes of the claim because the alj was under no obligation to investigate a claim not presented at the time of the application for benefits and not offered at the hearing as a basis for disability D. recognizing that an alj has a duty to ensure that an adequate record is developed during the disability hearing consistent with the issues raised E. recognizing that the alj has an obligation to investigate a claim not presented in the application for benefits when testimony at the hearing places him on notice of the need for further inquiry

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that the alj has an obligation to investigate a claim not presented in the application for benefits when testimony at the hearing places him on notice of the need for further inquiry
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 constitutes the entire agreement of the parties with regard to the subject matter of this Agreement and replaces and supersedes all other written and oral agreements and statements of the parties relating to the subject matter of this 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: THIS AMENDMENT AND ANY CLAIM, CONTROVERSY OR DISPUTE ARISING UNDER OR RELATED THERETO IS GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK WITHOUT REGARD TO THE CONFLICTS OF LAWS PROVISIONS THEREOF THAT WOULD APPLY THE LAWS OF ANY OTHER STATE. THE HEP PARTIES AND THE MANAGERS EACH WAIVE TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY ACTION, PROCEEDING OR COUNTERCLAIM BROUGHT BY OR ON BEHALF OF EITHER PARTY WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER WHATSOEVER RELATING TO OR ARISING OUT OF THE TERMS OF THIS AMENDMENT AND THE OFFERING CONTEMPLATED HEREBY.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: 1150, 1155 (2d Cir.1978) (an employee “only needs to demonstrate that [she] possesses the basic skills necessary for performance of the job.”). Tomassi suffered an adverse employment action because her employment was terminated. See Cordoba v. Beau Deitl & Assoc., No. 02 Civ. 4951, 2003 WL 22902266, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.8, 2003). Finally, the fact that her responsibilities were taken over by a newly-hired 25-year-old is enough to warrant the inference — at the prima facie stage — that Tomassi was the victim of age discrimination. See id. (terminating an employee in the protected age group while retaining a 27 year old and 34 year old is enough to warrant the inference that the plaintiff was the victim of age discrimination); see also Tarshis v. Riese Org., 211 F.3d 30, 38 (2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). However, Insignia and MetLife can rebut Options: A. holding district court abused discretion in denying leave to amend complaint to add count when no prejudice resulted from two and onehalf year delay and facts underlying new and old counts were similar B. holding that it is wellsettled that rule 59 is not a vehicle for relitigating old issues presenting the case under new theories or otherwise taking a second bite at the apple C. holding that when a 56year old employee was replaced by a 40year old employee this qualified as someone substantially younger for the purposes of establishing a prima facie case D. holding inference is warranted when a 67 year old is replaced by a 59 year old E. holding that a change between old and new rules was fundamental to a degree that impacts our jurisdiction over the plaintiffs challenges to the old rules

assistant: The best answer is D. holding inference is warranted when a 67 year old is replaced by a 59 year old
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 cancel , you can either ( i ) email us at support@academia.edu and follow instructions , if any , we provide to you in response to your cancellation request , or ( ii ) initiate a cancellation through your account settings within the services .

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: 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000). A claimant can demonstrate pretext “by showing that the proffered reason (1) has no basis in fact, (2) did not actually motivate the defendant’s challenged conduct, or (3) was insufficient to warrant the challenged conduct.” Dews v. A.B. Dick Co., 231 F.3d 1016, 1021 (6th Cir.2000). “Regardless of which option is used, the plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of producing ‘sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably reject [the defendants’] explanation and infer that the defendants intentionally discriminated against him.’ ” Johnson v. Kroger Co., 319 F.3d 858, 866 (6th Cir.2003) (quoting Braithwaite v. Timken Co., 258 F.3d 488, 493 (6th Cir.2001) (alteration in original)). See also Barnes v. GenCorp Inc., 896 F.2d 1457, 1466 (6th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Johnson v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Options: A. holding that a plaintiff can establish pretext only by showing that her employers explanation is a he B. holding that temporal proximity together with evidence of a retaliatory atmosphere and the employers statement supported an inference of retaliation and satisfied the second part of the manzer pretext showing C. holding that a plaintiff can establish a causal link by showing that the employers decision was based in part on knowledge of the employees protected activity D. holding that a petitioner did not make a prima facie showing of illegal discrimination because the petitioner needed to point to more facts than the number of africanamericans struck in order to establish a pattern of strikes supporting an inference of discrimination E. holding that statistical evidence presented by the plaintiff showing an employers pattern of conduct toward a protected class is relevant to a showing of pretext and can create an inference of discrimination

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that statistical evidence presented by the plaintiff showing an employers pattern of conduct toward a protected class is relevant to a showing of pretext and can create an inference of discrimination
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Borrower and each of its Restricted Subsidiaries is in compliance in all material respects with the requirements of all Laws and all orders, writs, injunctions and decrees applicable to it or to its properties, except in such instances in which ( a ) such requirement of Law or order, writ, injunction or decree is being contested in good faith by appropriate proceedings diligently conducted or ( b ) the failure to comply therewith, either individually or in the aggregate, could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: orders that the decision of the Secretary be REVERSED and REMANDED to the Secretary with an order to enter an open-ended award for disability benefits to Mr. Jones. Such order does not, of course, impair the right of the Secretary to assess Mr. Jones’ benefits once again should he come to believe that Mr. Jones’ condition is such that there ought be some change in his benefits. 1 . Admittedly, Miranda, and indeed most cases involving the termination of benefits are ones in which the benefits were originally granted in an earlier, separate proceeding, unlike the instant case where the disability benefits were in effect awarded and terminated in the same proceeding. However, nothing of importance turns on this distinction. Cf. Richardson v. Heckler, 750 F.2d 506, 509-10 (6th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Rivas v. Weinberger, 475 F.2d 255, 258 (5th Options: A. holding that even if no previous proceeding had established that the plaintiff was disabled once it is shown at the present proceeding that the plaintiff was disabled at some earlier point in time a presumption still arises that in the absence of proof to the contrary the disability continues B. holding that because the plaintiff was not disabled for the purposes of the ada this court need not to address the other elements of the prima facie case C. holding that no ada violation was shown because the disabled were not denied benefits that were otherwise available D. holding that an employer did not regard the plaintiff as disabled E. holding that despite the housing authorities challenge to the plaintiffs proof that she is disabled under the federal disability statutes for the purposes of preliminary injunction motion the plaintiff was likely to prevail on showing she was disabled based on 1 the plaintiffs personal declaration concerning the nature of her disabilities 2 the declaration of her social worker and 3 evidence that plaintiff is receiving ssi disability benefits

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that even if no previous proceeding had established that the plaintiff was disabled once it is shown at the present proceeding that the plaintiff was disabled at some earlier point in time a presumption still arises that in the absence of proof to the contrary the disability continues
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: No alteration, amendment, waiver, cancellation or any other change in any term or condition of this Agreement will be valid or binding on either party unless the same will have been mutually assented to in writing by both parties.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: you acknowledge that this termination will not apply to any other copies or instances of the same content that you have not specifically deleted from the service , including without limitation those that may be displayed elsewhere through the service and those that may be in the account inventories of other users to whom you transferred copies .

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: Bank will be solely responsible for providing all terms, conditions, disclosures and notices required by Applicable Law to be included in the eQuickscreen process (“ Disclosures ”). As the [***], Retailers will make the Disclosures available to each Retailer Customer on the eQuickscreen acceptance page in the order and as directed by Bank by pulling the Disclosures from a Bank maintained site. Bank will (1) ensure all Disclosures comply with Applicable Law, (2) maintain such Disclosures on a Bank-maintained site, and (3) make them available to Retailers to pull into the eQuickscreen user experience presented on the applicable page of the Internet Site. [***].

assistant: Disclosures
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 terms set forth herein, the Company agrees to continue to employ Executive and Executive hereby accepts such continued employment. In addition, Executive shall continue to serve as Chief Revenue Officer of Tenable Holdings, Inc., the Company’s parent entity (“ Holdings ”). During the term of Executive’s employment with the Company, and excluding periods of vacation and sick leave to which Executive is entitled, Executive shall devote all business time and attention to the affairs of the Company and its Affiliates necessary to discharge the responsibilities assigned hereunder, and shall use commercially reasonable efforts to perform faithfully and efficiently such responsibilities.

assistant: Positions
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 Parties will: a. limit disclosure of any Confidential Information to its directors, officers, employees, agents or representatives (collectively "Representatives") who have a need to know such Confidential Information in connection with the Transaction, and only for that purpose; The Receiving Party agrees to use the same degree of protection it uses for its own trade secret information, and in no event less than reasonable efforts, to prevent and protect the Confidential Information, or any part thereof, from disclosure to any person other than the Receiving Party's employees having a need for disclosure in connection with the Receiving Party's authorized use of the Confidential Information.

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 case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: to the same amount of money if Husband opts to increase his disability benefits, thereby decreasing his military retirement, (2) calls for direct payment by the Military Finance Center where the parties were not. married for ten years during Husband’s military service, and (3) provides for retained jurisdiction to supervise and enforce the payment of military retirement pay. The Trial Court denied the motion for new trial on November 20, 2002. Husband appeals. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶ 5 Because a divorce action is one of equitable cognizance, a trial court has discretion to divide the marital estate. Teel v. Teel, 1988 OK 151, ¶ 7, 766 P.2d 994, 998. We will not disturb a trial court’s order dividing marital property unless we find the court abused its discretion or that its (N.M.App.2000) (<HOLDING>); and Johnson v. Johnson, 37 S.W.3d 892, 894 Options: A. holding that military retirement benefits are current pay and thus significantly different than other retirement benefits B. holding that unemployment compensation benefits received by plaintiff are collateral source and that defendant could not reduce personal injury damages because of such benefits C. holding that although disability benefits cannot be included as part of the marital estate a court may consider the waiver of retirement pension benefits in favor of disability benefits in determining whether there has been a material change in circumstances which would justify modification of an alimony award to a former spouse who was previously awarded a fixed percentage of the retirement pension benefits D. holding that retirement benefits are accrued benefits under erisa E. holding that federal law does not prohibit a marital settlement agreement which provides for indemnification if husband takes voluntary action to reduce wifes share of military retirement benefits as along as the disability benefits are not specified as the source of the payments to wife

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that federal law does not prohibit a marital settlement agreement which provides for indemnification if husband takes voluntary action to reduce wifes share of military retirement benefits as along as the disability benefits are not specified as the source of the payments to wife
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: Petitioner cannot demonstrate that the prosecutor’s comments “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Darden, 477 U.S. at 181, 106 S.Ct. 2464 (internal citations and quotations omitted). The prosecutor’s statement did not improperly shift the burden of proof onto the defense; rather, the prosecutor was commenting on the state of the evidence. More specifically, the prosecutor was commenting on the weakness of the defense theory of the case that another assailant had been present at the crime. Neither are improper. See, e.g. United States v. Cabrera, 201 F.3d 1243, 1250 (9th Cir.2000); United States v. Robinson, 485 U.S. 25, 26-34, 108 S.Ct. 864, 99 L.Ed.2d 23 (1988); Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1240 (9th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). In addition, even if the prosecutor had Options: A. holding a prosecutor may not comment on a defendants silence B. holding that a prosecutor may comment on the absence of evidence so long as there is sufficient evidence to support the prosecutors version of events C. holding that it was permissible for prosecutor to comment on the general failure of the defense to produce any evidence D. holding that comment by prosecutor in closing argument that defense counsel did not produce evidence of the defendants innocence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify E. holding the prosecutors statements were not an inappropriate comment on the defendants failure to testify but rather a comment on the defendants failure to present convincing evidence to support his defense

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that a prosecutor may comment on the absence of evidence so long as there is sufficient evidence to support the prosecutors version of events