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: by Eleventh Circuit case law. As discussed above, the Eleventh Circuit has found that a statute may refer to a class of persons or entities and require the government to take action relative to those persons or entities, but still not contain rights-creating language. See Arrington, 438 F.3d at 1345 (“[E]ven though [the statute] contain[s] language requiring the state to take certain actions relative to individual foster children (e.g., the State shall file a petition [to terminate the parental rights of the child’s parents], we determined [the statute] do[es] not have the kind of foeused-on-the-individual, rights-creating language required by Gon-zaga.”) (quoting 31 Foster Children v. Bush, 329 F.3d 1255, 1272 (11th Cir.2003)). See also Coutu, 450 U.S. at 771-73, 101 S.Ct. 1451 (<HOLDING>). Next, the present case is distinguishable Options: A. holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court to determine B. recognizing 1 of the davisbacon act is a minimum wage law designed for the benefit of construction workers but finding the act does not contain rightscreating language C. holding that 301 of the labor management relations act of 1947 29 usc 185 does not preempt claims brought under washingtons minimum wage act chapter 4946 rcw D. holding retroactive application of the act to prosecution that was pending before the effective date of the act was precluded because the act is prospective E. holding that claim construction is an issue of law for the court not a question of fact for the jury

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing 1 of the davisbacon act is a minimum wage law designed for the benefit of construction workers but finding the act does not contain rightscreating language
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 Third Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which together, shall constitute one and the same instrument. This Third Amendment may be executed and delivered by electronic mail in pdf format or by facsimile transmission. Any such transmission shall bind the party so executing and delivering this Third Amendment.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: Failure to admonish a defendant about the range of punishment before accepting a guilty plea is subject to harmless error analysis under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(b). Aguirre-Mata v. State, 125 S.W.3d 473, 474 (Tex. Crim.App.2003). In conducting the harm analysis, we must disregard the error unless it affected appellant’s substantial rights. Tex.R.App. P. 44.2(b); Burnett v. State, 88 S.W.3d 633, t erred when it failed to admonish appellant regarding the range of punishment. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected Boy-kin’s. applicability to article 26.13(a) admonishments, thus a harm analysis is necessary in this case. See Aguirre-Mata, 125 S.W.3d at 475-76, citing McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 465, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 1170, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969) (<HOLDING>). In conducting a harm analysis, we must Options: A. holding that factual basis inquiry is one way of satisfying the constitutional requirement that a guilty plea be voluntary and intelligent but it is not mandated by due process B. holding that deportation is collateral consequence and deportations admonishments are not constitutionally required C. holding the article 2613a admonishments are not constitutionally mandated but rather are designed to assist the trial judge in making the determination that the guilty plea was voluntary D. recognizing that where a guilty plea is shown to be constitutionally invalid leave to withdraw the plea is constitutionally mandated E. holding that criminal statutes of limitations are not jurisdictional but are a bar to prosecution which can be waived by a knowing and voluntary guilty plea

assistant: The best answer is C. holding the article 2613a admonishments are not constitutionally mandated but rather are designed to assist the trial judge in making the determination that the guilty plea was voluntary
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: disposable income.” Therefore, the only reasonable explanation is that Congress intended to change the definition of disposable income from its pre-BAPCPA computation, i.e. subtracting Schedule J expenses from Schedule I income, to the computation as specifically stated within the definition provided by Section 1325(b)(2). First, to judicially modify the definition of “disposable income” as given in § 1325(b)(2). would require the court to create a formula for determining payments to unsecured creditors, rather than following the clear statutory definition. Several courts have concluded that use of the word “projected” distinguishes projected disposable income from disposable income, as defined in Section 1325(b)(2) and requires that the court use the “old” method of computing di (<HOLDING>). While these may-sound like reasonable means Options: A. holding that personal injury settlement proceeds are disposable income to the extent that they are not reasonably necessary for the support of the debtors B. holding that a debtors disposable income as calculated under 11 usc 1325b2 is not the same as a debtors projected disposable income but that it can be used as the presumptive projected disposable income C. holding that the disposable income arrived at with form b22c is a beginning point for evaluating the debtors past and current financial status D. holding that projected disposable income for abovemedian debtors is disposable income as defined by 1325b E. holding that for abovemedian income debtors projected disposable income calculated on form b22c is the starting point but not the ending point in determining debtors correct minimum obligation and both income and expenses must be determined as of date of confirmation

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the disposable income arrived at with form b22c is a beginning point for evaluating the debtors past and current financial status
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following U.S. Supreme Court case excerpt and classify it into the correct legal issue area. Excerpt: 361 U.S. 115 80 S.Ct. 212 4 L.Ed.2d 148 J. ARON & COMPANY, Inc.,v.MISSISSIPPI SHIPPING COMPANY, Inc. No. 450. Supreme Court of the United States November 23, 1959 As Amended Dec. 14, 1959. Messrs. Eberhard P. Deutsch, Brunswick G. Deutsch and Rene H. Himel, Jr., for petitioner. As Amended Dec. 14, 1959. On Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. PER CURIAM. 1 It appearing from the petitioner's suggestion of mootness that, subsequent to the judgment of reversal by the Court of Appeals of the original interlocutory decree of the District Court and the filing of the petition for writ of certiorari, a consent judgment for damages and costs was entered by the District Court, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals with directions to dismiss the appeal as moot.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and by the different parties hereto on separate counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be an original, but all of which shall together constitute one and the same instrument. A set of counterparts executed by all the parties hereto shall be lodged with Parent and the Administrative Agent. Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page of this Agreement by facsimile or in electronic (i.e., “pdf” or “tif”) format shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any notices, requests, demands and other communications provided for by this Agreement shall be sufficient if in writing and delivered in person or sent by a nationally recognized overnight courier service or by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the Executive at the last address the Executive has filed in writing with the Company, with a copy to Littman Krooks LLP, 655 Third Avenue , New York, NY 10017 Attn: Mitchell C. Littman, Esq. or, in the case of the Company, to 413 West 14 th Street, New York, NY 10014 Attention: Human Resources Dept., Fax No. (212) 255-9715, with a copy to Kenneth Koch, Esq., Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., 666 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Fax No. (212) 983-3115.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: head. Further examination of the baby revealed eighteen unexplained rib, leg and arm fractures in various stages of healing, in addition to a skull fracture. The mother denied any knowledge of the injuries except for the skull fracture, which she explained was accidental. DCF was notified and initiated an investigation. DCF subsequently sought termination of both parents’ rights pursuant to sections 89.806(l)(f), (g) Florida Statutes (2010). The record shows that the evidence presented to the trial court did not rea undamental liberty interest, DCF must establish that termination of parental rights is the least restrictive means of protecting the child or children from serious harm. Id. at 571; see also J.C. v. Dept. of Children and Family Servs., 937 So.2d 184, 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (<HOLDING>); L.D. v. Dept. of Children and Family Servs., Options: A. holding that although parents have a fundamental right to the care and custody of their children they have no fundamental right to allocate support to their children as they see fit B. recognizing fundamental right of parents to care for their children C. holding that natural parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care custody and management of their children D. recognizing in dictum parents right to care custody management and companionship of their children E. holding care custody and control of children is a fundamental right

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that natural parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care custody and management of their children
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: Amendment requires that no person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. That is, even if Defendants may deprive SVP tted under California’s SVP Act has a right to procedural due process before being force-medicated in non-emergency situations. Next, Plaintiffs allege that reduction of their access levels decreases, or in some cases eliminates, the opportunity to move around the facility without escorts and that it affects their right to other privileges. The reduction of an SVP’s access level is similar to the transfer of prisoners from the general prison population to administrative segregation. Such a transfer may deprive the prisoner of a state-created liberty interest. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (<HOLDING>); see also Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, Options: A. holding that a statecreated liberty interest in ones classification may exist where classification imposes atypical and significant hardship B. holding that 30day segregated confinement in hawaii penitentiary did not present such atypical hardship so as to create liberty interest C. holding that liberty interests implicating the due process clause are generally limited to freedom from restraint which imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life D. holding that prisoner had no constitutionallyprotected liberty interest in prisoninmate classification system process where director of department of corrections retained unfettered discretion in classification and housing of prisoners E. holding that a prisoner has no constitutionallybased liberty interest in a particular prison classification because an inmate is not entitled to a particular degree of liberty in prison

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a statecreated liberty interest in ones classification may exist where classification imposes atypical and significant hardship
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: Amendment, federal power extend[s] to intrude upon the province of the Eleventh Amendment....” Seminole Tribe, 517 U.S. at 58-60, 116 S.Ct. 1114. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has never held that private parties may sue states without Congress first passing implementing legislation under the Fourteenth Amendment, § 5. Indeed, Seminole Tribe continues its discussion of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “intrufsion] upon the province of the Eleventh Amendment” by stating that “therefore ... § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment allow[s] Congress to abrogate the immunity from suit guaranteed by that Amendment.” Id. at 59, 116 S.Ct. 1114 (emphasis added); see Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 99-100, 119-121, 104 S.Ct. 900 (citing Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 342, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979) (<HOLDING>)). Similarly, the Supremacy Clause dictates Options: A. holding that 1983 does not override states eleventh amendment immunity B. recognizing absolute immunity to suits under 42 usc 1988 C. holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc 1983 D. holding that suits under 42 usc 1983 do not override state immunity E. holding that 1983 does not override a states eleventh amendment immunity

assistant: The best answer is D. holding that suits under 42 usc 1983 do not override state immunity
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) Except as could not, in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect, keep all property useful and necessary in its business in good working order and condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted and (b) maintain with financially sound and reputable insurance companies insurance on all its property in at least such amounts and against at least such risks (but including in any event public liability, product liability and business interruption) as are usually insured against in the same general area by companies engaged in the same or a similar business.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Any legal action or proceeding with respect to this Agreement shall be brought in the courts of the State of Delaware or of the United States District Court for District of Delaware, and, by execution and delivery of this Agreement; each Party hereby irrevocably accepts the exclusive jurisdiction of the aforesaid courts. Each Party hereby further irrevocably waives any claim that any such court lacks jurisdiction over it or to the laying of venue, and agrees not to plead or claim, in any legal action or proceeding with respect to this Agreement brought in any of the aforesaid courts, that any such court lacks jurisdiction over it or any such action or proceeding has been brought in an inconvenient forum.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: All notices, requests, and other communications hereunder shall be in writing and will be deemed to have been duly given and received (a) when personally delivered, (b) when sent by facsimile upon confirmation of receipt, (c) one (1) Business Day after the day on which the same has been delivered prepaid to a nationally recognized courier service, or (d) five (5) Business Days after the deposit in the United States mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, in each case addressed to the Company at Full House Resorts, Inc., One Summerlin, 1980 Festival Plaza Dr., Suite 680, Las Vegas, Nevada 89135, Attn: Lewis Fanger, Chief Financial Officer with a copy to Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, 410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200, Denver, CO 80202, Attn: Mark Oveson, facsimile number 303- 223-1111, and as to the Purchasers at the address and facsimile number set forth in Schedule 7.3 . Any party hereto from time to time may change its address, facsimile number, or other information for the purpose of notices to that party by giving notice specifying such change to the other parties hereto. The Purchasers and the Company may each agree to accept notices and other communications to it hereunder by electronic communications pursuant to procedures reasonably approved by it; provided that approval of such procedures may be limited to particular notices or communications.

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

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: with defendant’s eight-year sentence from another court. The district judge also clearly recognized that, despite the other comments made by the government with regard to the grand jury matter, the government was recommending a seven-year sentence, stating: “I have considered and given lots of thought to the Government’s recommendation of 7 years. After considering it I will not follow that recommendation.” (R.Vol. III, 23). Second, the court finds that the government attorney’s comments can, in the main, be viewed as informing the court about the grand jury incident. As stated above, informing the sentencing court of pertinent information cannot generally be considered a breach of a plea agreement. Williamsburg Check Cashing Corp., 905 F.2d at 28. Cf., Shorteeth, 887 F.2d at 256-57 (<HOLDING>). Third, although the government attorney Options: A. holding a sentence is not based on the guidelines unless the plea agreement itself expressly uses a guidelines sentencing range to establish the term of imprisonment B. holding that objecting to guidelines calculations as specifically reserved in the plea agreement is not a breach of the plea agreement even if the objection is overruled and thus government is not released from obligation under the agreement to move for acceptance of responsibility C. holding that the united states breach of the plea agreement releases the defendant from the appeal waiver D. holding that state liability only accrues as expressly authorized by law E. holding that 1b18 of the guidelines expressly prohibits the use of selfincriminating information gained from a cooperating defendant unless authorized by the plea agreement

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that 1b18 of the guidelines expressly prohibits the use of selfincriminating information gained from a cooperating defendant unless authorized by the plea agreement
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: of contract claims will be relatively easy to obtain, by defining the term ‘claim’ broadly, to include a demand or assertion seeking ... relief arising under or relating to the contract.” Id. at 1271. Therefore, the broad language of the statute and FAR provision supports a broad reading of the term “claim.” The legislative history of the CDA and Tucker Act also supports a broad reading of the term “claim.” Both the House and Senate Reports explained that the CDA was intended to “implement[] recommendations of the Commission on Government Procurement.” S.Rep. No. 95-1118, at 1 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5235; see also H.R.Rep. No. 95-1556, at 1 (1978). The Commission on Government Procurement had recommended that Congress “[ejmpowe 97, 103 S.Ct. 2890, 77 L.Ed.2d 490 (1983) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, in Tyco Healthcare Group LP v. Options: A. holding that district courts order remanding an erisa benefits determination to a plan administrator was nonfinal and therefore not appealable after the remand to plan administrator plan participant still could appeal the district courts decision that erisa preempted her state law claim and if successful she would be able to pursue punitive damage B. holding that state law relates to an employee benefit plan and is therefore preempted by erisa if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan C. holding that erisa preempted a state law claim because the courts inquiry centered on the employee benefits plan at issue D. holding that state breach of contract action preempted because it relates to employee benefit plan E. holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant

assistant: The best answer is B. holding that state law relates to an employee benefit plan and is therefore preempted by erisa if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the following Terms of Service clause and list all applicable unfairness categories. If none apply, answer with None. Clause: but , if any of us does not like the arbitrator 's decision , the courts only have a limited ability to change the outcome of arbitration or make the arbitrator reconsider his or her decision .

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: (a) The Company will use its reasonable best efforts to acquire directors and officers liability insurance, on terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Board of Directors, with the advice of counsel, covering Indemnitee or any claim made against Indemnitee by reason of Indemnitee’s Corporate Status and covering the Company for any indemnification or advance of Expenses made by the Company to Indemnitee for any claims made against Indemnitee by reason of Indemnitee’s Corporate Status. In the event of a Change in Control, the Company shall maintain in force any and all directors and officers liability insurance policies that were maintained by the Company immediately prior to the Change in Control for a period of six years with the insurance carrier or carriers and through the insurance broker in place at the time of the Change in Control; provided, however, (i) if the carriers will not offer the same policy and an expiring policy needs to be replaced, a policy substantially comparable in scope and amount shall be obtained and (ii) if any replacement insurance carrier is necessary to obtain a policy substantially comparable in scope and amount, such insurance carrier shall have an AM Best rating that is the same or better than the AM Best rating of the existing insurance carrier; provided, further, however, in no event shall the Company be required to expend in the aggregate in excess of 250% of the annual premium or premiums paid by the Company for directors and officers liability insurance in effect on the date of the Change in Control. In the event that 250% of the annual premium paid by the Company for such existing directors and officers liability insurance is insufficient for such coverage, the Company shall spend up to that amount to purchase such lesser coverage as may be obtained with such amount.

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: home and town, and that Jerald used the pickup truck for transportation between home and work. She also testified that the family used the Suburban for personal use. The court disallowed the entire deduction for the Suburban, but allowed the deduction for the pickup. On this record, we believe the superior court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing some, but not all, of the claimed automobile deductions. See Alaska R.Civ.P. 90.3, Commentary III.B. 7 . Jerald does not argue that he should be allowed to deduct accelerated depreciation: he seeks only to receive the benefit of imputed taxation on the accelerated portion of depreciation which is determined to be income for Rule 90.3 purposes. 8 . See Alaska Const., art. IV, § 15; Bradner v. Hammond, 553 P.2d 1, 5 (Alaska 1976) (<HOLDING>). 9 . Fitzgerald held the Guidelines in Options: A. recognizing doctrine B. recognizing that the judicial rewriting of a statute would violate the separation of powers doctrine C. recognizing a referendum on a court judgment would violate separation of powers D. recognizing separation of powers doctrine E. holding rfra is inconsistent with smith and violates the separation of powers doctrine

assistant: The best answer is D. recognizing separation of powers doctrine
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: T he parties to each assignment shall execute and deliver to the Administrative Agent an Assignment and Assumption, together with a processing and recordation fee in the amount of $3,500; provided , however , that the Administrative Agent may, in its sole discretion, elect to waive such processing and recordation fee in the case of any assignment. The assignee, if it is not a Lender, shall deliver to the Administrative Agent an Administrative Questionnaire.

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: Subject to Section 2.7 hereof, if at the time any such funds are received hereunder (A) the Secured Debt has not been accelerated pursuant to Article IX, and (B) no Event of Default has occurred and be continuing (or if an Event of Default has occurred and is continuing, Agent, at the direction of the Required Lenders, shall not have provided notice to a Borrower of its intention to apply the provisions of Section 2.3(b)(ii)), in the following manner: (a) first, to the following items (i), (ii) and (iii) below in such manner as Borrowers shall direct (except that Borrowers may not alter the division as between Lenders as set forth in subparts (ii) and (iii) below), or in the absence of such direction in the following order: (i) to the payment of all fees, charges and reimbursable expenses due and payable to Agent or a Lender under the Secured Debt, this Agreement or the other Loan Documents at such time; (ii) to the payment of all of the interest which shall be due and payable on the principal of the Secured Debt at the time of such payment in accordance with each Lender’s Applicable Commitment Percentage; (iii) to the payment of all obligations and liabilities of Borrowers under any Hedge Agreement entered into by Borrowers with the Secured Creditors to the extent then due and payable; (b) second, subject to the provisions of Section 2.4 hereof and the fees set forth in Section 2.4, if applicable, to the payment of the principal amount of any Revolving Loans then outstanding in accordance with each Revolving Loan Lender’s Applicable Commitment Percentage, and (c) to Borrowers.

assistant: No Defaults
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 “do not pertain to the Endowment Act’s constitutionality or validity,” clearly signaling that the court will not revisit the constitutional claims at issue here. (Id. at 8, 12-13.) While the record does not support any conclusion regarding the Commonwealth Court’s “deliberative process,” it does plainly show that the Rule 1034 Order is avowedly firm and in no way tentative. The Commonwealth Court’s Rule 1034 Order satisfies this prong of issue preclusion analysis. c.Parties fully heard Courts more readily apply issue preclusion when the party against whom preclusion is sought fully presented the merits of its case to the prior adjudicator.' Greenleaf, 174 F.3d at 358-59; see also Liggon-Redding v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co., No. 06-0227, 2009 WL 3101068, at *10 (M.D.Pa. Sept. 23, 2009) (<HOLDING>). It is clear that the Commonwealth Court order Options: A. holding that a court commits no error in refusing to rule on pro se motions raised by a represented party B. holding that a defendant proceeding pro se is bound by same rules as party represented by counsel and a court cannot allow pro se litigant lower standard of performance C. holding that leniency should be accorded to pro se litigants when the defect in a complaint is merely procedural and there are potential grounds for relief D. holding that although pro se litigants are entitled to liberal construction of their pleadings pro se litigants must follow procedural rules E. holding that a party was not fully heard when that party proceeded pro se and lost on procedural grounds in a prior adjudication

assistant: The best answer is E. holding that a party was not fully heard when that party proceeded pro se and lost on procedural grounds in a prior adjudication
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: appeal marked Memorandum Decision, Not for Publication. The Appellant, by counsel, has filed a Motion to Publish Memorandum Decision. The Appellant states that this Court’s opinion meets the criteria for publication under Ind. Appellate Rule 65 (A)(1). Having considered the matter, the Court FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Appellant’s Motion to Publish Memorandum Decision is GRANTED, and this Court’s opinion heretofore handed down in this cause on July 24, 2007, marked Memorandum Decision, Not for Publication is now ORDERED PUBLISHED. KIRSCH, DARDEN and MATHIAS, JJ., concur. 1 . Our review of the record does not indicate that the procedural requirements necessary for a finding of indirect contempt were followed. See Boggs v. State, 179 Ind.App. 607, 614, 386 N.E.2d 992, 997 (1979) Options: A. holding that in addition to statutory contempt powers city courts have inherent contempt power B. holding that the failure to appear in court pursuant to a court order can constitute direct criminal contempt C. holding evidence insufficient to show direct contempt and no basis for indirect contempt because of failure to meet procedural requirements D. holding that a juvenile defendant could not be found in indirect criminal contempt where defendant was not given specifics as to the acts which constituted the alleged contempt and there was no information in the order to show cause informing defendant that he was subject to possible criminal penalties E. holding that an attorney charged with contempt for failing to attend a scheduled hearing could be charged only with indirect not direct contempt because the contempt did not occur in open court and the judge did not have personal knowledge of the reasons for the attorneys nonappearance

assistant: The best answer is C. holding evidence insufficient to show direct contempt and no basis for indirect contempt because of failure to meet procedural requirements
system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: began to run at the filing of the Chapter 11 petition and expired on January 24, 1994, five months before the filing of this action. This court recently held that the two-year statute of limitations in Section 546(a) begins to run against a debtor-in-possession upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition in a Chapter 11 case. In re Harstad, 170 B.R. 666, 669 (D.Minn.1994). Although a question of first impression in this circuit, the decision is in accord with four courts of appeals. See In re Century Brass Products, Inc., 22 F.3d 37 (2d Cir.1994); In re Coastal Group, Inc., 13 F.3d 81 (3d Cir.1994); In re Softwaire Centre Int'l, Inc., 994 F.2d 682 (9th Cir.1993); Zilkha Energy Co. v. Leighton, 920 F.2d 1520 (10th Cir.1990); but see In re Maxway Corp., 27 F.3d 980 (4th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 580, 130 Options: A. holding that the statute of limitations does not run on a debtorinpossession B. holding that negligently allowing a statute of limitations to run does not constitute an ethical violation C. holding that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the alleged malpractice is discovered D. holding that statute of limitations does not run until it was or should have been clear to the employee that the union would not pursue the grievance E. holding that the statute of limitations period begins to run when the allegedly discriminatory pension plan is applied to the plaintiffs and leaving determination of the actual date the statute begins to run on each claim to the district court

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that the statute of limitations does not run on a debtorinpossession
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: Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S.Ct. 400, 402, 74 L.Ed.2d 225, 228 (1982). Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ Cal. Civ.Code § 52.1 claims are involved in the appeal because they, like the § 1983 claims, require finding a violation of constitutional rights. Defendants conclude that the Court lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ Cal. Civ.Code § 52.1 claims against Appellant Defendants. California Civil Code § 52.1 claims are not subject to qualified immunity. See e.g., Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1072 (9th Cir.2009) (“California law is ... clear that qualified immunity of the kind applied to actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not apply to actions brought under [Cal. Civil Code § 52.1].”); Venegas, 153 Cal.App.4th at 1248, 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 741 (<HOLDING>). Defendants appeal the Court’s denial of Options: A. holding that preclusion rules apply in 1983 actions B. holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity C. holding that qualified immunity under 1983 does not apply to actions brought under 521 D. holding that preclusion rules apply in section 1983 actions E. holding that in actions brought under 42 usc 1983 federal courts apply the states statute of limitation for personal injury

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that qualified immunity under 1983 does not apply to actions brought under 521
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: concluded, that the city’s conduct was operational because it failed to implement its plan to reconstruct the water main once it received adequate funding from a grant. But as we have previously discussed, because no development plan for Main Street was in place at the time of the January 2015 leak, there was no definite reconstruction plan that the city failed to implement. And even if there had been a definite plan, the city’s conduct was constrained by economic considerations. Holmquist, 425 N.W.2d at 234 (“Sometimes the implementation of a policy itself requires policymaking.”). Magnolia next asserts that the city’s conduct was operational because the city delayed infrastructure repairs of a known hazard. See Marlow v. City of Columbia Heights, 284 N.W.2d 389, 391-92 (Minn. 1979) (<HOLDING>). In Marlow, the supreme court held that Options: A. holding that in order to maintain a derivative cause of action a shareholder must maintain a continuous ownership interest in the corporation B. holding that a business owner has a duty to use reasonable care to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition for patrons C. holding that the failure to maintain the facility in a safe condition or to warn of hazards was an operational failure following the planning decision to operate and maintain the public landing D. holding that a failure to warn was not a policy judgment E. holding that passenger cannot maintain action for breach of implied warranty to provide safe passage

assistant: The best answer is C. holding that the failure to maintain the facility in a safe condition or to warn of hazards was an operational failure following the planning decision to operate and maintain the public landing
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 has furnished to each Lender (i) the audited consolidated balance sheet of the Borrower and its Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2011 and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity and cash flows for the Fiscal Year then ended prepared by Ernst & Young, LLP and (ii) the unaudited consolidated balance sheet of the Borrower and its Subsidiaries as of March 31, 2012, and the related unaudited consolidated statements of income and cash flows for the Fiscal Quarter and year-to-date period then ended. The financial statements described above fairly present the consolidated financial condition of the Borrower and its Subsidiaries as of the date(s) thereof and the consolidated results of operations of the Borrower and its Subsidiaries for such periods in conformity with GAAP (subject in the case of interim statements, to year-end adjustments and the absence of notes). Since December 31, 2011, there have been no changes with respect to the Borrower and its Subsidiaries that have had or could reasonably be expected to have, singly or in the aggregate, a Material Adverse Effect.

assistant: Financial Statements
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 issuing unfavorable job performance appraisals and/or terminating plaintiff; and if so, what are the appropriate damages, if any ... (emphasis added). At issue here is whether the district court properly instructed the jury that Metro could have committed an adverse employment action against Tuttle when it issued her an unfavorable job performance appraisal based upon her age. As Metro itself notes, a negative performance evaluation does not constitute an adverse employment action, unless the evaluation has an adverse impact on an employee’s wages or salary. Hollins v. Atlantic Co., Inc. 188 F.3d 652, 662 (6th Cir.1999) (citing Crady v. Liberty Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Indiana, 993 F.2d 132, 136 (7th Cir.1993)); see also Smart v. Ball State Univ., 89 F.3d 437, 442 (7th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the district court could have Options: A. holding that a negative criticism or performance evaluation unaccompanied by a materially adverse change in the terms or conditions of employment does not constitute adverse employment action B. holding in the context of a first amendment retaliation claim that adverse employment actions may include negative evaluation letters C. holding that assignment of unfavorable class schedules did not constitute an adverse employment action absent evidence of materially adverse consequences D. holding that termination is an adverse employment action E. holding that a negative performance evaluation on its own is insufficient to constitute an adverse employment action as a matter of law

assistant: The best answer is A. holding that a negative criticism or performance evaluation unaccompanied by a materially adverse change in the terms or conditions of employment does not constitute adverse employment action
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 to the extent that any law of the United States may apply, this Agreement shall be governed and interpreted according to the laws of Florida (the "Governing Law State"), without regard to any choice of law, rules or principles to the contrary. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit or otherwise affect any rights or remedies of the Bank under federal law.

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: 2690, 73 L. Ed. 2d 349 (1982) (Burger, C.J., concurring) (“[T]he Constitution provides no hint that either judges, prosecutors, or congressional aides should beso protected [through absolute immunity]. Absolute immunity forjudges and prosecutors is seen to derive from the common law and public policy ....”). And while “[f]ew doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction,” Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 200, 106 S. Ct. 496, 88 L. Ed. 2d 507 (1985) (quoting Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54, 87 S. Ct. 1213, 18 L. Ed. 2d 288 (1967)), the same was not true for contempt or criminal liability, Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 10 n.1, 112 S. Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed. 2d 9 (1991) (<HOLDING>)); O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 503, 94 Options: A. holding that prosecutors are absolutely immune from claims alleging conspiracy to present false testimony but witnesses including police officerwitnesses are not absolutely immune from such claims B. recognizing that a judge is not absolutely immune from criminal liability C. holding witnesses are absolutely immune from suit for damages with respect to testimony D. holding that state judges are absolutely immune from 1983 liability except when acting in the clear absence of all jurisdiction E. holding michigan friend of the court employees absolutely immune from suit under 1983

assistant: The best answer is B. recognizing that a judge is not absolutely immune from criminal liability
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: in no event shall our total liability to you for all damages ( other than as may be required by applicable law in cases involving personal injury ) exceed the amount of fifty dollars ( $ 50.00 ) .

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: The agreements in this Section and the indemnity provisions of Section 11.02(e) shall survive the resignation of the Administrative Agent, any L/C Issuer and the Swing Line Lender, the replacement of any Lender, the termination of the Commitments and the repayment, satisfaction or discharge of all the other Obligations.

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

user: a. The Receiving Party shall solely disclose the Material to its affiliates, employees and persons in the Receiving Party’s organization who (i) have responsibility for or are directly concerned with the purposes of this Agreement and of the Consortium Agreement; (ii) are subject to non-disclosure or confidentiality obligations to the Receiving Party (the Material constituting protected information for purposes of such obligations); and (iii) have been informed and are fully aware of the Receiving Party’s obligations under this agreement and under the Consortium Agreement.

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

user: Read the legal provision and list the applicable contract clause categories. Provision: Each Borrower agrees to reimburse the Administrative Agent for its reasonable out-of-pocket expenses in connection with this Amendment, including the reasonable fees, charges and disbursements of Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, counsel for the Administrative Agent, in each case to the extent provided in Section 9.03(a) of the Credit Agreement.

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: EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO IRREVOCABLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY WAIVES THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY ACTION, SUIT OR PROCEEDING RELATING TO A DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AWARD AGREEMENT AND FOR ANY COUNTERCLAIM WITH RESPECT THERETO.

assistant: Waiver Of Jury Trials