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: ALJ should consider the relationship between the physician and the claimant (treating and examining physicians being given more weight); the extent to which medical evidence supports the opinion; the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; the physician’s specialization; and other relevant factors. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) (2012). An ALJ may not discount a treating physician’s opinion without articulating good cause for doing so. See Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011). Acceptable reasons for discounting the opinion of a treating physician are that it is conclusory; it is unsupported by medical evidence; it is inconsistent with the record as a whole; or other evidence supports a contrary finding. See Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1159 (<HOLDING>); Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1241 (holding that Options: A. holding that the alj properly discounted a treating physicians report where the physician was unsure of the accuracy of his findings and statements B. recognizing that treating physicians opinion does not automatically control or obviate need to evaluate record as whole and that aljs decision to discount treating physicians medicalsource statement was upheld where limitations were never mentioned in numerous treatment records or supported by any explanation C. holding that where the alj had already obtained and considered reports from treating physicians the alj had before him a complete medical history and the evidence received from the treating physicians was adequate for him to make a determination as to disability D. holding that remand was not required and that the aljs failure to mention treating physicians opinion was harmless error because the alj adopted the treating physicians recommendations E. holding that treating physicians testimony was properly discounted when it was inconsistent with physicians own treatment reports and the record as a whole and appeared to be based on patients subjective complaints

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that treating physicians testimony was properly discounted when it was inconsistent with physicians own treatment reports and the record as a whole and appeared to be based on patients subjective complaints
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: that disclosure under the Privacy Act applies to records located within “a group of records ... from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual.”). Plaintiff offers two reasons as to why these documents should nevertheless be disclosed. First, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to invoke any Privacy Act exemptions in “the administrative record,” and therefore is precluded from doing so now. PL’s Reply at 11. This argument fails because there is no requirement that an agency administratively invoke an exemption in order to later rely on it in federal court. See Hodes v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Devel., 532 F.Supp.2d 108, 114 n. 2 (D.D.C.2008) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.) (<HOLDING>); Sciba v. Bd. of Governor of Fed. Reserve Options: A. holding that an agency carries its burden of proof by providing affidavits to explain why documents are subject to an exemption B. holding a debtors claim for loss of consortium to be entitled to an exemption under the oklahoma exemption statute and collecting other bankruptcy decisions recognizing a debtor spouses loss of consortium as the basis for allowing an exemption under federal and various state exemption statutes C. holding act qualifies as exemption statute under exemption 3 D. holding that an agency could invoke an exemption that was not previously asserted in its letters with the foiaprivacy act requester E. holding that agency demand letters are not suits

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that an agency could invoke an exemption that was not previously asserted in its letters with the foiaprivacy act requester
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: statute. The merger agreement provided that at the effective time of the merger, First Tennessee “shall be liable for all liabilities of each of the participating banks and all deposits, debts, liabilities, obligations and contracts of each of the participating banks, whether material or immaterial, accrued, contingent or otherwise ... shall become those of the Association, and shall not be released or impaired by the merger, and all rights of creditors and other obligees ... shall be preserved unimpaired.” (Emphasis added.) As one court has stated in a similar case, “It is difficult to imagine a more comprehensive statement of assumption of liability than that which is contained in this merger agreement.” Douglas v. Bank of New England/Old Colony, N.A., 566 A.2d 939, 941 (R.I.1989) (<HOLDING>). Under the merger agreement, the bank Options: A. holding successor national bank liable for punitive damages judgment against bank that merged into successor national bank B. holding that a bank customer did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in records maintained by the bank C. holding that the national bank act preempts state law claims challenging termination of national bank officers and voids a contractual promise to pay severance upon early termination D. recognizing that a bank customer may have a tort claim against a bank for the wrongful dishonor of a check E. holding a bank liable where a bank officer held checks that were intended to pay the irs for withheld taxes

assistant: The best answer is A. holding successor national bank liable for punitive damages judgment against bank that merged into successor national bank
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 issuance of certificates for shares of the Common Stock on conversion of this Debenture shall be made without charge to the Holder hereof for any documentary stamp or similar taxes that may be payable in respect of the issue or delivery of such certificates, provided that, the Company shall not be required to pay any tax that may be payable in respect of any transfer involved in the issuance and delivery of any such certificate upon conversion in a name other than that of the Holder of this Debenture so converted and the Company shall not be required to issue or deliver such certificates unless or until the Person or Persons requesting the issuance thereof shall have paid to the Company the amount of such tax or shall have established to the satisfaction of the Company that such tax has been paid. The Company shall pay all Transfer Agent fees required for same-day processing of any Notice of Conversion.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The headings herein are for convenience only, do not constitute a part of this Agreement and shall not be deemed to limit or affect any of the provisions hereof. The Parties agree that each of them and their respective legal counsel has reviewed and had an opportunity to revise this Agreement and, therefore, the normal rule of construction to the effect that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in the interpretation of this Agreement. Instead, the language used in this Agreement will be deemed to be the language chosen by the Parties to express their mutual intent.

assistant: Construction
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 may not be assigned or transferred by either Party without the prior written consent of the other Party. Notwithstanding the foregoing, either Party shall have the right to assign this Agreement to its Affiliates or to a Third Party in connection with: (i) an acquisition (of or by), a consolidation with, or merger into, any other corporation or other entity or person; (ii) any corporate reorganization wherein there is a change of control; or (iii) the sale of its business to which this Agreement is related; provided, however, that in any such transaction the assignee expressly obligates itself in a written instrument delivered to the non-assigning Party to this Agreement, on or before the date of closing of such transaction, to fully perform all of the obligations of the assigning Party under this Agreement. This right of assignment shall likewise be available to the assignee in the same manner as it is to the assigning Party, and subsequent assignees in like manner, provided that in each instance of assignment, the assignee provides the writing specified above to the non-assigning Party to this Agreement prior to the date of closing of such transaction.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Interest is payable monthly on the first (1st) calendar day of each month and shall be computed on the basis of a three hundred sixty (360)-day year for the actual number of days elapsed. In computing interest, all payments received after 12:00 p.m. Pacific time on any day shall be deemed received at the opening of business on the next Business Day, and the date of the making of any Credit Extension shall be included and the date of payment shall be excluded; provided, however, that if any Credit Extension is repaid on the same day on which it is made, such day shall be included in computing interest on such Credit Extension.

assistant: Payments
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: in no way constitutes a “trade secret.” (Docket # 195 at 48). The presumption is that information is within the public domain unless that information is protected by some “body of law” that creates an intellectual property right. ConFold Pacific, Inc., 433 F.3d at 959. Here, as the information in question is “not secret and [is] not protected by any of the laws that create property rights in information, it is in the public domain and freely usable.” Id. Put another way, as a matter of law, Wisconsin’s law of unjust enrichment dictates that it is “not inequitable” when one obtains the benefit of information that is not protected by some intellectual property right, such as a patent or a trade secret. Id.; see also Major Mat Co. v. Monsanto Co., 969 F.2d 579, 585 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Studio & Partners, s.r.l. v. KI, No. Options: A. holding that the plaintiff may proceed under a claim for breach of contract and unjust enrichment because the defendant admitted the existence of a contract solely for the purposes of summary judgment B. holding that unjust enrichment claim alleging fraudulent inducement was based on tort theory C. holding that plaintiffs unjust enrichment claim was predicated on tort and that it was therefore subject to the statute of limitations for tort actions D. holding that a claim based on the plaintiffs allegation that it conferred a benefit on the defendant by revealing a market which the defendant later exploited without compensating the plaintiff fails to state a claim under wisconsins unjust enrichment law E. holding that where an express contract was in place between plaintiff and defendant that governed the compensation sought by plaintiff plaintiff may not recover under a theory of unjust enrichment

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that a claim based on the plaintiffs allegation that it conferred a benefit on the defendant by revealing a market which the defendant later exploited without compensating the plaintiff fails to state a claim under wisconsins unjust enrichment 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each provision of this Agreement will be treated as a separate and independent clause and unenforceability of any one clause will in no way impact the enforceability of any other clause. Should any of the provisions of this Agreement be found to be unreasonable or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision will be enforceable to the maximum extent enforceable buy the law of that jurisdiction.

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: Each party hereto agrees that, from time to time after the Closing Date, it will execute and deliver, or cause its Affiliates to execute and deliver, such further instruments, and take (or cause its Affiliates to take) such other action, as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes and intents of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1 through Section 4 hereof or the terms of a Termination Agreement, if you have been continuously employed from the grant date specified above until the date that the Change in Control occurs (the “ Change in Control Date ”) or you are treated, for purposes of such Termination Agreement, to have remained in employment through the Change in Control Date, upon the occurrence of a Change in Control your rights in respect of the Performance Units shall be determined as provided in this Section 5. If your employment shall have terminated prior to the Change in Control Date, but at least some of your Performance Units remain outstanding pursuant to Section 4(b) or Section 4(c), your rights in respect of your outstanding Performance Units shall be determined as provided in this Section 5.

assistant: Change In Control
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: asserted to be conclusive of the matter. In response, Henderson filed a motion to compel Fleming to continue to pay for Henderson’s medical services and supplies. Henderson continued to receive medical treatment from Dr. Rayner during the pending motions filed with the Commission. Before a ruling had been made on the issue of whether Fleming was liable for Henderson’s continued medical services and supplies and without notice or authorization, Henderson sought and received further medical treatment from Dr. Whitecloud at the Tulane University Medical center in early 1994. ¶ 29. The Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission, pursuant to § 71-3-15(3), implemented a fee schedule which was in effect during this time. The pertinent portion of the fee schedule outlining the requi s.1975) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 32. However, in each of these instances the Options: A. holding that employers knowledge of employees injury followed by the employers failure to provide the necessary medical services sufficient to impose liability upon the employer for medical services selected by the employee B. holding that where the victim of a tortfeasor receives gratuitous medical services from a source wholly independent of the tortfeasor the value of the gratuitous medical services may not be deducted from the verdict for overall medical care received C. holding that employee was consumer of medical insurance purchased by employer for employees benefit D. holding that state medical director of prison medical services corporation was not final policymaker E. recognizing the importance of the employers knowledge of the disability

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that employers knowledge of employees injury followed by the employers failure to provide the necessary medical services sufficient to impose liability upon the employer for medical services selected by the employee
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: rather than opinions. As we said in Dayco Corp. v. NLRB, 382 F.2d 577, 579 (6th Cir.1967), “[a] single sentence contained in a letter or speech of an employer, cannot be considered apart from the entire statement and background in which it was made.” HCEA places great weight on one sentence from the letter, where Stewart, after explaining that PECCA removes principals and assistant principals from the collaborative conferencing unit, stated, “I trust this information will be shared appropriately with any HCDE administrators who inquire about remaining members of [HCEA].” While this statement could conceivably be read as a command in other contexts, here the full text of the letter confirms that Stewart’s statement is a request rather than an order. Notab 2d 1006, 1008 (5th Cir.1969) (<HOLDING>). Third, HCEA contends that the district court Options: A. holding that where contract does not authorize employers selective discharge of union officials discharge violates section 8a3 B. holding that threatening to discipline employees for not reporting union solicitation violated 8a1 C. recognizing that union members interests are adequately represented by the union D. holding that threatening to discharge union secretary for presenting employee grievances violated 8a1 E. holding union members state law claims for defamation against union preempted

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that threatening to discharge union secretary for presenting employee grievances violated 8a1
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: Long later filed, were in his possession the entire time. (Id. at pp. 27-28.) Additionally, Long testified that after learning that his taxes had not been paid, he never contacted Magida to inquire why the returns he later admitted Magida prepared had not been filed. (Id. at p. 28.) Conclusions of Law The issue before the Court is whether Long “willfully attempted in any manner to evade or defeat” his taxes for 1999, 2000, and 2001 under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C). Section 523(a)(1)(C) renders non-dischargeable any tax debt “with respect to which the debtor made a fraudulent return or willfully attempted in any manner to evade or defeat such tax.” The Eleventh Circuit has held that this language means that the government must prove both a conduct and a mental element b M.D.Ga. 2009) (<HOLDING>); In re Hamer, 328 B.R. 825, 834 Options: A. holding that the irs proved the conduct element of section 523a1c by showing among other things that a debtor failed to pay his taxes even though he had enough money to pay for nonnecessities such as vacations and private school B. holding that the lawyers failure to file tax returns and pay taxes over three years constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice C. holding that debt or who failed to file income tax returns and failed to pay tax satisfied 523alcs conduct requirement despite no affirmative conduct to evade taxes D. holding the conduct element satisfied where debtor failed to timely file tax returns and failed to pay taxes for those years E. holding the conduct element satisfied where debtor earned income during the tax years at issue but did not make any estimated tax payments had inadequate or no withholdings and latefiled his tax returns

assistant: The best answer is D. holding the conduct element satisfied where debtor failed to timely file tax returns and failed to pay taxes for those years
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: (a) Each Borrower will, and will cause each Material Subsidiary to, maintain, with financially sound and reputable insurance companies, (i) insurance in such amounts (with no greater risk retention) and against such risks as is (A) customarily maintained by companies of established repute engaged in the same or similar businesses operating in the same or similar locations and (B) considered adequate by each Borrower and (ii) all other insurance as may be required by law, provided that self-insurance through any captive insurance Subsidiary or through deductibles or copayments shall not be deemed a violation of this covenant to the extent that companies engaged in similar businesses similarly self-insure. Each Borrower will furnish to the Lenders, upon the reasonable request of the Administrative Agent, information in reasonable detail as to the insurance so maintained.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: why justice would so require an amendment to include a claim on an open account, and the cases cited by Alliance have done little to clarify the matter. See, e.g., Slide-A-Ride of Las Cruces, Inc. v. Citizens Bank of Las Cruces, 105 N.M. 433, 436, 733 P.2d 1316, 1319 (1987) (concluding that because “[n]othing ha[d] been offered by [the plaintiff] to explain why justice required allowance of the amendment,” the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend). Because we have decided that Alliance is precluded from recovering payment from Defendants in this case, the addition of a claim for recovery based on another theory would serve no purpose. Granting of the amendment would have been futile. See Stinson v. Berry, 1997-NMCA-076, ¶ 11, 123 N.M. 482, 943 P.2d 129 (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION {27} We hold that the district Options: A. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to amend complaint because the proposed amendment would have been futile B. holding that trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion to sever because trial of three defendants would not create confusion C. holding district court did not abuse its discretion in not granting plaintiffs leave to amend complaint for a third time D. holding that upon conclusion that plaintiffs proposed amendment was futile district court correctly denied plaintiffs motion to amend E. holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to amend complaint because the proposed amendment would have been futile
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: transfer of a juvenile’s case to a court of general jurisdiction. Andrews, 329 S.W.3d at 374-75. Echoing the United States Supreme Court’s concern with restricting the Apprendi rule to decisions within the jury’s historical realm, the court explained: The juvenile division’s consideration of the statutorily defined criteria in determining whether it should retain jurisdiction over a juvenile is not the type of factual determination that was understood to be within the jury’s domain by the framers of the Bill of Rights and, therefore, is not controlled by Apprendi and its progeny. In fact, the determination of those criteria does not increase the statutory maximum punishment the juvenile will face; it only determines which court has final jurisdiction over the juvenile. The Ky. 2004) Options: A. holding that the states transfer statute did not violate the apprendi rule because the transfer hearing determines not the minors guilt but the forum in which his guilt may be adjudicated B. holding that the apprendi rule was not implicated because a juvenile transfer proceeding does not involve sentencing or a determination of guilt or innocence C. holding that statute allowing for transfer of juvenile to adult criminal court does not implicate apprendi because the judges transfer determination does not subject the juvenile to enhanced punishment it subjects the juvenile to the adult criminal justice system D. holding apprendi is not implicated by an application of the sentencing guidelines that increases the sentencing range so long as the sentence imposed does not exceed the statutory maximum E. holding that apprendi does not apply to juvenile waiver hearings because the applicable statute does not involve guilt or innocence but involves the determination of which system will be appropriate for a juvenile offender

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that the apprendi rule was not implicated because a juvenile transfer proceeding does not involve sentencing or a determination of guilt or 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: counsel claims regarding voir dire: 1) that counsel should have moved to strike prospective juror Schleper for cause; and 2) that counsel should have moved to strike the entire group of prospective jurors who heard juror Rohan’s comment supporting the death penalty. The claim pertaining to Mr. Schleper is that he could not fully consider life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The motion court found that Ferguson’s claim was refuted by the’ record. This Court agrees. Although Mr. Schlep-er first indicated that he “kind of ... leaned toward” the death penalty, he then stated unequivocally that he would consider mitigating circumstances, would consider both possible penalties, and would follow the judge’s instructions. See State v. Ramsey, 864 S.W.2d 320, 336 (Mo. banc 1993) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1078, 114 S.Ct. 1664, Options: A. holding that leaning towards the death penalty is not the same as an automatic vote for the death penalty B. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion noting that the court had previously and repeatedly rejected the claim that asking whether a prospective juror could sign a death verdict if selected as foreperson improperly seeks a commitment from the venireperson and that ability to assess the death penalty as jury foreperson is a proper basis for followup questioning directed to an equivocating venireperson C. holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment D. holding that trial court did not err E. holding that the trial court did not err in overruling a challenge for cause of a venireperson who stated that he leaned toward the death penalty

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that the trial court did not err in overruling a challenge for cause of a venireperson who stated that he leaned toward the death penalty
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 not enter into any transaction, including, without limitation, the purchase, sale, lease or exchange of property or assets or the rendering or accepting of any service with any Affiliate, unless such transaction is (a) not otherwise prohibited in this Agreement, (b) in the ordinary course of Seller’s business, and (c) upon fair and reasonable terms no less favorable to Seller, as the case may be, than it would obtain in a comparable arm’s length transaction with a Person which is not an Affiliate.

assistant: Transactions With Affiliates
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 the First Lien Administrative Agent, the other First Lien Claimholders, the Second Lien Collateral Trustee, the other Second Lien Claimholders, the Company and the other Grantors, and their respective successors and assigns from time to time. If either of the First Lien Administrative Agent or the Second Lien Collateral Trustee resigns or is replaced pursuant to the First Lien Loan Documents or the Second Lien Documents, as applicable, its successor and/or assign shall be deemed to be a party to this Agreement and shall have all the rights of, and be subject to all the obligations of, this Agreement. No provision of this Agreement will inure to the benefit of a bankruptcy trustee, debtor-in-possession, creditor trust or other representative of an estate or creditor of any Grantor, including where any such bankruptcy trustee, debtor-in-possession, creditor trust or other representative of an estate is the beneficiary of a Lien securing Collateral by virtue of the avoidance of such Lien in an Insolvency or Liquidation Proceeding.

assistant: Assigns
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: Grantor has duly complied, and the Collateral and its business operations are in compliance, in all material respects, with all Applicable Law, except where noncompliance could not reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect. There have been no citations, notices or orders of noncompliance issued to Grantor under any Applicable Law, except where such noncompliance has been cured or 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Administrative Agent shall have received title information as the Administrative Agent may reasonably require, satisfactory to the Administrative Agent, setting forth the status of title to at least 85% of the PV-9 of the Borrowing Base Properties.

assistant: Titles
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 will, at Seller’s expense, maintain in full force and effect, products liability insurance coverage with a policy limit of at least Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000) per occurrence and Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000) in the aggregate, consisting of at least Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) in primary coverage and the remaining Eight Million Dollars ($8,000,000) in an umbrella form for excess liability coverage. Such policy referred to in this Section 19 shall (a) name Juice Plus+ and any Master Distributor or Affiliate designated by Juice Plus+ as additional insured parties thereunder (without any representation or warranty by or obligation upon Juice Plus+) as respects Production and Products, (b) provide that at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation, amendment, or lapse of coverage shall be given to Juice Plus+ by the insurer, (c) provide worldwide coverage for occurrences; and (d) provide coverage for occurrences during the Term of this Agreement which will continue for such occurrences after the Term of this Agreement. Seller will deliver to Juice Plus+ original or duplicate policies of such insurance, or satisfactory certificates of insurance.

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

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: if you subscribed using your google play store account or through tinder online : please contact customer support with your order number for the google play store ( you can find the order number in the order confirmation email or by logging in to google wallet ) or tinder online ( you can find this on your confirmation email ) .

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 term of the Executive’s employment under this Agreement (the “Term”) shall continue until the earlier of (i) December 31, 2018 and (ii) such earlier date on which the Term is terminated pursuant to Section 4.

assistant: Terms
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: Construction, $100,732.50. Finally, we turn to respondents’ statements of costs and disbursements. Plaintiff has objected to the $100 prevailing-party fee, allowed by ORS 20.190(l)(a), requested by each respondent because, under ORAP 13.05(6)(d)(iii), only one prevailing-party fee totaling $100 may be awarded against plaintiff. Plaintiff is correct. ORAP 13.05(6)(d)(iii) provides that a court may not “award more than one prevailing party fee against a nonprevailing party, regardless of the number of parties in the action.” See also ORS 20.190(4) (“A court may not award *** more than one prevailing party fee against a nonprevailing party regardless of the number of parties in the action [.]”); Seida v. West Linn-Wilsonville School Dist. 3 J T, 169 Or App 418, 427-28, 9 P3d 150 (2000) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we award a prevailing-party fee Options: A. holding that prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants seeking attorney fees are to be treated alike B. holding that prevailing party has no standing to appeal C. holding that the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorneys fees D. holding that a defendant is the prevailing party within the meaning of statutory provisions awarding attorneys fees to the prevailing party even when the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the action E. holding that ors 201904 is meant to prevent a nonprevailing party from incurring a larger penalty merely because there are multiple prevailing parties in the action and concluding that the trial court did not err in splitting the prevailingparty fee among the prevailing defendants

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that ors 201904 is meant to prevent a nonprevailing party from incurring a larger penalty merely because there are multiple prevailing parties in the action and concluding that the trial court did not err in splitting the prevailingparty fee among the prevailing defendants
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED HEREIN, All questions and/or disputes concerning the construction, validity and interpretation of this Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby shall be governed by the internal laws, and not the law of conflicts, of the State of Delaware (except that the provisions of the laws of the State of Oregon shall apply with respect to any provisions set forth herein that are required to be governed by such laws or where such laws are otherwise mandatorily applicable to the transactions contemplated hereby). EACH PARTY HERETO hereby irrevocably and unconditionally agrees to be subject to, and hereby consents and submits to, the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Delaware and agrees that any action involving any equitable or other claim shall be brought exclusively in the Delaware Court of Chancery. In the event that the Delaware Court of Chancery does not accept OR DOES NOT HAVE jurisdiction over any such action, EACH PARTY HERETO hereby irrevocably and unconditionally agrees that any such action then shall be brought exclusively in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The Company shall employ Executive, and Executive hereby accepts employment with the Company, upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement for the period beginning on the Effective Date and as set forth in Section 4 hereof (the “ Employment Period ”).

assistant: Employment
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: microsoft reserves the right to charge you for such services ( at the normal rate ) in the event that microsoft determines ( in its reasonable discretion ) that you are breaching the terms and conditions of the offer .

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: Each of the Parties hereto irrevocably and unconditionally confirms and agrees (a) that it is and shall continue to be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Delaware and of the federal courts sitting in the State of Delaware and (b)(i) to the extent that such Party is not otherwise subject to service of process in the State of Delaware, to appoint and maintain an agent in the State of Delaware as such Party’s agent for acceptance of legal process and notify the other Parties hereto of the name and address of such agent, and (ii) to the fullest extent permitted by applicable Law, that service of process may also be made on such Party by prepaid certified mail with a proof of mailing receipt validated by the U.S. Postal Service constituting evidence of valid service, and that, to the fullest extent permitted by Law, service made pursuant to (b)(i) or (ii) above shall have the same legal force and effect as if served upon such Party personally within the State of Delaware. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, EACH PARTY HERETO HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY (A) CONSENTS AND SUBMITS TO THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF ANY FEDERAL OR STATE COURT LOCATED IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE, INCLUDING THE DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY (THE “ DELAWARE COURTS ”) FOR ANY ACTIONS, SUITS OR PROCEEDINGS ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED BY THIS AGREEMENT (AND AGREES NOT TO COMMENCE ANY LITIGATION RELATING THERETO EXCEPT IN SUCH COURTS), (B) WAIVES ANY OBJECTION TO THE LAYING OF VENUE OF ANY SUCH LITIGATION IN THE DELAWARE COURTS AND AGREES NOT TO PLEAD OR CLAIM IN ANY DELAWARE COURT THAT SUCH LITIGATION BROUGHT THEREIN HAS BEEN BROUGHT IN ANY INCONVENIENT FORUM AND (C) ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT ANY CONTROVERSY THAT MAY ARISE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT IS LIKELY TO INVOLVE COMPLICATED AND DIFFICULT ISSUES, AND THEREFORE EACH SUCH PARTY HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY WAIVES ANY RIGHT SUCH PARTY MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN RESPECT OF ANY LITIGATION DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ARISING OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT OR THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED BY THIS AGREEMENT.

assistant: Consent To Jurisdiction
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: by the parents’ right to exercise broad discretion in raising their children. See, e.g., Yoder, 406 U.S. at 229-30, 92 S.Ct. 1526; Pierce, 268 U.S. at 534-35, 45 S.Ct. 571; Meyer, 262 U.S. at 400, 43 S.Ct. 625. Conse quently, the rights of minors in relation to the state must be analyzed to consider not only the interests of the minor and the state but also the interests of parents. Cf. Parham, 442 U.S. at 600, 99 S.Ct. 2493 (minor’s “interest is inextricably linked with the parents’ interest in and obligation for the welfare and health of the child”). Thus, the analysis of a minor’s rights is complicated by the addition of this third party (a parent) who can bolster either the state’s claim of authority or the minor’s assertion of rights. Cf. Yoder, 406 U.S. at 231, 92 S.Ct. 1526 (<HOLDING>). Although the Court’s language in Prince v. Options: A. holding that court should balance competing interests B. recognizing fundamental right of parents to care for their children C. holding that state may not subject children and their parents to an additional step not required by the eha D. recognizing that because the state has cognizable interests in the safety of children in its jurisdiction neglectful parents may be separated from their children E. recognizing that competing interests of parents children and the state requires additional analysis

assistant: The best answer is E. recognizing that competing interests of parents children and the state requires additional analysis
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All representations, warranties, covenants, and obligations in this Agreement shall survive the Closing, and for a period of one (1) year, after which they shall be of no further force and effect. The right to indemnification, payment of damages or other remedy based on such representations, warranties, covenants, and obligations will not be affected by any investigation conducted with respect to, or any knowledge acquired (or capable of being acquired) at any time, whether before or after the execution and delivery of this Agreement, with respect to the accuracy or inaccuracy of or compliance with, any such representation, warranty, covenant, or obligation. The waiver of any condition based on the accuracy of any representation or warranty, or on the performance of or compliance with any covenant or obligation, will not affect the right to indemnification, payment of damages, or other remedy based on such representations, warranties, covenants, and 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 legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement supersedes and merges all prior and contemporaneous promises, representations and agreements with respect to the matters set forth herein. No term of this Agreement may be modified or amended, nor may any rights hereunder be waived, except in a writing signed by the party against whom enforcement of the modification, amendment, or waiver is sought. Administrative Agent, the Lenders and Borrower Parties further agree that this Agreement may not in any way be explained or supplemented by a prior, existing or future course of dealings between the parties or by any prior, existing, or future performance between the parties pursuant to this Agreement or otherwise.

assistant: Integration
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: 274 F.3d at 7-8, 10; Román Meléndez, 826 F.2d at 134-35. In contrast, none of those prerogatives or powers are present here. Most importantly, unlike the employees in Dwriex-Gauthier and Román Meléndez, López-Quiñones was not involved in making or recommending any agency policy. There is nothing in the record to support a finding that López-Quiñones was a policymaker. The majority opinion describes him as having only “modest, if any, involvement in policymaking,” Op. at 26, and even the appellants “failed to identify policy decisions in which López[-Quiñones] was directly involved or over which he had influence.” Id. at 27. Policymaking is the key function in requiring that the employee be required to belong to the political party in power. See Elrod, 427 U.S. at 367, 96 S.Ct. 2673 (<HOLDING>). As stated by the majority at the outset of Options: A. holding that where the first amendment does not protect a certain activity there can be no first amendment right of association to engage in that activity B. holding that under the first amendment patronage dismissals must be restricted to policymaking positions C. recognizing first amendment and fourteenth amendment interests in inmate correspondence D. recognizing first amendment retaliation right E. holding that a claim under the first amendment overbreadth doctrine will not succeed unless the challenged statute itself will significantly compromise recognized first amendment protections of parties not before the court

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that under the first amendment patronage dismissals must be restricted to policymaking positions