Datasets:

quyanh

/

lexglue-cot-dpo-test

like 0

Consider the following statement: Interest at the maturity/default rate for all times after the maturity of the notes. ii. balancing the equities debtor suggests that this court balance the equities involved in allowing cbe to calculate its claim using the maturity/ default rate. i rejected the “balancing of the equities” method in gillikin. see also in re sublett, 895 f.2d 1381 (11th cir.1990) (rejecting the “balancing the equities” approach to the extent it contravenes clear language in the bankruptcy code). even if this court had not rejected that approach, the equities in this case would not justify a different outcome in this case. debtor is solvent, and any decrease in its interest rate would only benefit the debtor once it emerges from bankruptcy. summary of schedules, dckt. no. 21. sublett, 895 f.2d at 1385-86 (<holding>); cf. in re holmes, 330 b.r. 317, 321 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that nonconsensual oversecured tax claim is entitled to the statutory rate of interest unless the statutory rate constitutes a penalty B. holding that an oversecured creditor is entitled to postpetition interest if the creditor is oversecured or if the estate proves to be solvent C. holding that when an oversecured creditor seeks interest on its claim courts apply the interest rate provided for in the contract D. holding that when a creditor is oversecured solvency is not required for the creditor to be entitled to postpetition interest and fees and granting contractual default interest to the oversecured creditor of approximately 24 E. holding that nonconsensual oversecured creditor shall receive the statutory rate of interest unless it can be characterized as a penalty. Answer:

B. holding that an oversecured creditor is entitled to postpetition interest if the creditor is oversecured or if the estate proves to be solvent

Consider the following statement: Essentially assumes a trustee’s role of deciding what information is relevant or material, and thus undercuts the central principles of chapter 7”); klutchko, 338 b.r. at 568 ("generally ... it is not for the debtor to determine which assets should be disclosed to creditors.... the debtor’s duty is merely to answer truthfully. it is left to the creditors or parties-in-interest to judge whether that information will aid them or prejudice them.”); fokkena v. peterson (in re peterson), 356 b.r. 468, 478 (bankr.n.d.iowa 2006) (stating that debtors have an absolute duty to report whatever interests they hold in property, even if they believe their assets are worthless) (citing kas-den v. kasden (in re kasden), 209 b.r. 239, 243-44 (8th cir. bap 1997)). 39 .see bressler, 387 b.r. at 461-62 (<holding>) (citing bank of india v. sapru (in re sapru), Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that a debtors right to strip off a wholly unsecured lien is conditioned on the debtors obtaining confirmation of and performing under a chapter 13 plan that meets all of the statutory requirements rather than on a debtors discharge B. holding that a retainer agreements general payorwewill quit language was not specific enough to comply with a local rule that required bankruptcy attorneys to represent debtors in adversary proceedings unless the debtors expressly agreed otherwise C. holding that otherwise immaterial falsehoods or omissions can aggregate into a critical mass substantial enough to bar a debtors discharge D. holding that a cause of action exists under 523a15 by which a debtors own former divorce attorneys might except from discharge the debtors contractual obligation to them E. holding that a debt that was the result of debtors fraud could be exempted from discharge under 523a4 when the parties had later entered into a settlement agreement. Answer:

C. holding that otherwise immaterial falsehoods or omissions can aggregate into a critical mass substantial enough to bar a debtors discharge

Consider the following statement: Beverages & tobacco, 496 u.s. 18, 51, 110 s.ct. 2238, 110 l.ed.2d 17 (1990). but despite the constitutional requirement that there be a remedy, the supreme court expressly noted in reich v. collins, 513 u.s. 106, 115 s.ct. 547, 130 l.ed.2d 454 (1994), that “the sovereign immunity [that] states enjoy in federal court, under the eleventh amendment, does generally bar tax refund claims from being brought in that forum.” id. at 110, 115 s.ct. 547 (second emphasis added). to ensure that taxpayers possess an avenue for relief, the court held that state courts must hear suits to recover taxes unlawfully exacted, the “sovereign immunity [that] states traditionally enjoy in their own courts notwithstanding.” id.; cf. alden v. maine, 527 u.s. 706, 740, 119 s.ct. 2240, 144 l.ed.2d 636 (1999) (<holding>). reasoning analogously, we conclude that the Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that in statute authorizing suits against united states limits time period in which such suits may be brought united states retains its sovereign immunity as to any suits brought outside of that time period therefore court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over suit against united states that is barred by statute of limitations B. holding that congress has power to subject the states to wage and hour regulation C. holding that congress did not properly abrogate states eleventh amendment immunity from suits under the patent act D. holding that eleventh amendment bars federal suits against state courts E. holding that congress cannot subject states to suits in state courts but taking care not to overrule reich. Answer:

E. holding that congress cannot subject states to suits in state courts but taking care not to overrule reich

Consider the following statement: For sum mary judgment that the plaintiff does not have a vested right or property interest in the position of municipal judge. although in his original petition the plaintiff alleges in a conclusory fashion that he was a public employee working pursuant to a contract of employment, the plaintiff fails to allege any facts to indicate that a contract of employment existed and further fails to provide any competent summary judgment evidence to support this allegation. the city of was-kom’s ordinance provides that the term of office of the municipal judge shall be by appointment of the city council by a majority vote of the governing body. the city’s ordinance does not appear to create a contract of employment. see youngblood v. city of galveston, 920 f.supp. 10b (s.d.tex. 1996) (<holding>). the plaintiff does not even allege that the Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that plaintiff did not have dueprocessprotected property interest because he failed to sufficiently plead a rule or other mutually explicit understanding from the manual or otherwise bridling the reason for which he could be terminated and thereby creating a sufficient expectation of continued employment the critical component herewithout alleging such a bridle plaintiff was an atwill employee consequently he lacked a property interest in his continued employment B. holding that former municipal judge did not have property interest in continued employment C. holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property D. holding that property interest in continued expectation of public employment does not include right to actually occupy position E. holding an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was insufficient to create a property interest in continued employment under montanas statutory scheme for at will employment. Answer:

B. holding that former municipal judge did not have property interest in continued employment

Consider the following statement: (finding objections on hearsay and foundational ground sufficient to preserve a sixth amendment claim for appeal because of the close relationship between hearsay and confrontation), aff'd 933 n.e.2d 1271 (ind.2010). the best practice is for attorneys to make both objections when applicable. the failure to do so in this case is not particularly egregious; because the trial court concluded that the testimony was not hearsay, it seems unlikely that the trial court would have sustained an objection based on the confrontation clause. regardless, we agree with the state that officer thompson’s testimony was not “testimonial hearsay,” the type of hearsay barred pursuant to the confrontation clause. see davis v. washington, 547 u.s. 813, 821, 126 s.ct. 2266, 165 l.ed.2d 224 (2006) (<holding>). davis described the distinction between Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that the admission of testimonial statements against a defendant is unconstitutional when the declarant does not appear at trial unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for crossexamination B. holding that the confrontation clause bars admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless the witness was unavailable to testify and the defendant had a prior opportunity for crossexamination C. holding that the admission of prior testimony that had been subjected to crossexamination violated the confrontation clause because the state did not prove that the witness was unavailable D. holding that outofcourt statements by witnesses that are testimonial in nature are barred under the confrontation clause unless witnesses are unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to crossexamine them E. holding the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial statements. Answer:

B. holding that the confrontation clause bars admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless the witness was unavailable to testify and the defendant had a prior opportunity for crossexamination

Consider the following statement: Care servs. v. dobos, 380 so.2d 516, 518 (fla.dist.ct.app.1980) (referring to rule as the “officious intermeddler doctrine”). in certain circumstances, however, restitution for services performed will be required even though the recipient did not request or voluntarily consent to receive such services. for example, section 116 of the restatement of restitution provides: a person who has supplied things or services to another, although acting without the other’s knowledge or consent, is entitled to restitution therefor from the other if (a) he acted unofficiously and with intent to charge therefor, and (b) the things or services were necessary to prevent the other from suffering serious bodily harm or pain, and (c) the person supplying them had no reason to know that 668, 675 (1996) (<holding>). 2. application of law to facts. the district Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. recognizing that a caregiver and patient relationship may be confidential B. holding that plaintiffs claim that medical providers did not comply with baker act was not subject to medical malpractice statutes ajlthough a medical diagnosis is necessary in order to involuntarily commit a patient the process of complying with the statute does not require medical skill or judgment C. holding that hospital had claim against patient based on implied contract for reasonable value of services rendered even though patient was not fully compensated by settlement with atfault party medical providers claim rests upon debtorcreditor relationship and cannot be extinguished by doctrine of subrogation D. holding evidence of apparent authority insufficient where patient sought services of particular doctor rather than services of hospital generally E. holding that a psychiatrist had no duty to detain a patient who killed himself and injured his wife because the patient was outside of the scope of the facilitys range of observation and control even when the psychiatrist agreed to treat the patient the patient had suicidal tendencies and the psychologist took the patient into custody but then later permitted him to leave. Answer:

C. holding that hospital had claim against patient based on implied contract for reasonable value of services rendered even though patient was not fully compensated by settlement with atfault party medical providers claim rests upon debtorcreditor relationship and cannot be extinguished by doctrine of subrogation

Consider the following statement: Under the ada. the district court denied his motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. in september 2011, the district court granted summary judgment for cryovac on spring’s fmla claims. spring filed a timely notice of appeal. ii. a. state-law claims spring argues that the district court erred in dismissing his state-law claim for retaliatory discharge. we review the district court’s grant of a rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss de novo. marcavage v. nat'l park serv., 666 f.3d 856, 858 (3d cir.2012). spring contends that under pennsylvania law, which recognizes an exception to the at-will employment doctrine for a termination based on filing a workers’ compensation claim, he also has a claim for retaliatory discharge. see shick v. shirey, 552 pa. 590, 716 a.2d 1231, 1232 (1998) (<holding>). the pennsylvania courts have yet to enumerate Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that employee must prove that the sole reason for their discharge was their filing of a workers compensation claim to prevail on a claim of wrongful discharge under marylands workers compensation act B. holding that because maryland law expressly creates right to file workers compensation claim action exists for wrongful discharge for termination based solely on the filing of a workers compensation claim C. recognizing a tort action when employee was dismissed for filing a workers compensation claim D. holding that an atwill employee who alleges retaliatory discharge for the filing of a workers compensation claim has stated a cause of action under pennsylvania law E. recognizing retaliatory discharge tort implied by the workers compensation act. Answer:

D. holding that an atwill employee who alleges retaliatory discharge for the filing of a workers compensation claim has stated a cause of action under pennsylvania law

Consider the following statement: Motion to dismiss. a. tribal sovereign immunity as a threshold matter, we must determine if cni enjoys tribal-sovereign immu nity. if so, a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was proper. see lovely, 570 f.3d at 782 n. 2 (6th cir.2009) (“[sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional doctrine----”) (internal quotation marks omitted); cf. nair v. oakland county cmty. health auth., 443 f.3d 469, 474 (6th cir.2006) (“[t]he eleventh amendment is jurisdictional in the sense that it is a limitation on the federal court’s judicial power.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). moreover, if cni enjoys tribal-sovereign immunity, we need not address the issues of diversity jurisdiction and federal-question jurisdiction. see miner elec., inc. v. muscogee (creek) nation, 505 f.3d 1007, 1011 (10th cir.2007) (<holding>). mbf argues that cni waived its Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that the race of the prosecutor is irrelevant B. holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit C. holding that an official capacity suit should be treated as a suit against the entity D. holding that if property is not property1 of the public entity then the public entity cannot be subject to suit under the dangerous condition waiver E. holding that if an entity enjoys tribalsovereign immunity federal jurisdiction is otherwise irrelevant and dismissal of the suit is proper. Answer:

E. holding that if an entity enjoys tribalsovereign immunity federal jurisdiction is otherwise irrelevant and dismissal of the suit is proper

Consider the following statement: Mexico. on february 6, 2012, saldana filed a timely petition for review and petition for habeas corpus with this court. ii. discussion a. jurisdiction though the parties agree that we have jurisdiction, we must first satisfy ourselves of our own jurisdiction. see, e.g., ojedar-terrazas v. ashcroft, 290 f.3d 292, 294 (5th cir.2002). this case arises from dhs’s january 17, 2012 reinstatement of the 1999 removal order against saldana. we treat this appeal as a petition for review of that order of reinstatement. see 8 u.s.c. § 1252(a)(5) (providing that a petition for review with the court of appeal is the “sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal”). we clearly have jurisdiction over a petition for review of a reinstatement order. ojeda-terrazas, 290 f.3d at 295 (<holding>). under the applicable regulations, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that orders remanding an action to a federal agency are generally not considered final appealable orders B. holding that court of appeals statutory jurisdiction over final orders of removal extends to reinstatement orders C. holding that remand orders are also appealable orders under 28 usc 1291 D. recognizing that orders denying motions to reopen are treated as final orders of removal E. holding that appellate jurisdiction over final orders of removal are limited to claims that have been exhausted before the bia. Answer:

B. holding that court of appeals statutory jurisdiction over final orders of removal extends to reinstatement orders

Consider the following statement: That because mr. firth did not directly appeal the revocation of his probation, the relevant judgment became final on may 20, 2004. see 28 u.s.c. § 2244(d)(1)(a) (mandating that a judgment becomes final for purposes of the limitations period upon “the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review”); see also col. r.app. p. 4(b) (requiring criminal defendants to file a notice of appeal within forty-five days of the entry of the judgment from which they are appealing). we also agree that the limitations period was tolled 75 days later, on august 3, 2004, when mr. firth filed his motion for reconsideration, and did not begin to run again until september 28, 2004, when that motion was denied. see robinson v. golder, 443 f.3d 718, 721 (10th cir.2006) (<holding>). thus, mr. firth had 290 days from september Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that properly filed application for statecourt discretionary review tolls aedpa limitations period B. holding that suit filed within six years of assessment tolls the limitation period indefinitely C. holding that a motion to reconsider filed after the entry of final judgment must be considered a motion to correct error D. holding that a properly filed motion to reconsider under colo rcrim p 35b tolls the oneyear limitations period E. holding that a timely motion for reconsideration tolls the statute of limitations even if the motion is procedurally invalid. Answer:

D. holding that a properly filed motion to reconsider under colo rcrim p 35b tolls the oneyear limitations period

Consider the following statement: Third factor is satisfied because argentina will be unable to obtain effective review in a united states court of the discovery order through a later appeal of a final judgment. because the discovery order grants nml discovery respecting foreign assets, any future attachment or collection proceeding would be conducted in a foreign court. argentina would have no further opportunity to challenge the discovery order in this or any other united states court. moreover, depending on the laws of the jurisdictions where any attachable property is located, nml may be able to levy argentina’s foreign assets directly, without instituting a separate proceeding, rendering the discovery order unreviewable by any court. see resolution trust corp. v. ruggiero, 994 f.2d 1221, 1225 (7th cir.1993) (<holding>). finally, because the discovery order does not Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that an order was interlocutory in nature despite the trial courts certification of the order as a final appealable judgment B. holding that an order compelling arbitration in an independent proceeding is appealable as a final order because in that context the order compelling arbitration resolves the sole issue before the court C. holding that where an adversary proceeding continues the order is no more a final decision than an order denying summary judgment or denying a request for additional discovery the litigation proceeds and the issue will be reviewed if it turns out to make a difference to an order that is independently appealable D. recognizing that an order denying a motion to modify a family court order where the motion is based on changed factual or legal circumstances is appealable as a special order after final judgment E. recognizing that an order granting discovery may be a final appealable order where the sole object of a postjudgment proceeding is discovery of the judgment debtors assets and the assets discovered may then be levied without a court order. Answer:

E. recognizing that an order granting discovery may be a final appealable order where the sole object of a postjudgment proceeding is discovery of the judgment debtors assets and the assets discovered may then be levied without a court order

Consider the following statement: Given this, the trial court on remand had no discretion to deny united’s cross-motion for summary judgment which was based on the unreasonableness of telus-nor’s failure to attend the imes. the appellate division was similarly bound by this court’s opinion in comprehensive i, as well as by its own prior determination on the issue of “reasonableness.” accordingly, we find that the appellate division’s decision before us failed to apply the correct law when it failed to follow the law of the case as established in comprehen sive i. see juliano, 801 so.2d at 105 (“the doctrine of the law of the case requires that questions of law actually decided on appeal must govern the case in the same court ... through all subsequent stages of the proceedings.”); see also dougherty, 23 so.3d at 158 (<holding>). comprehensive, however, asserts that this Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that district courts of appeal have jurisdiction to review by common law certiorari decision of circuit court upholding county court conviction obtained in violation of constitution B. holding that this court will consider a petition for a writ of certiorari only after the court of appeals has overruled the application for rehearing on the point challenged in the petition implying that the decision by the court of criminal appeals must be final before certiorari review would be available C. holding that circuit court failed to apply the correct law when it failed to enforce its prior decision after this court issued a denial of certiorari review in morningside civic assn v dougherty 944 so2d 370 fla 3d dca 2006 table D. holding that review by common law certiorari in district courts of appeal is limited to circuit court decisions constituting denial of procedural due process application of incorrect law or miscarriage of justice E. holding that this court laeks the authority to review a sentencing courts denial of a downward departure unless the court failed to understand its authority to do so. Answer:

C. holding that circuit court failed to apply the correct law when it failed to enforce its prior decision after this court issued a denial of certiorari review in morningside civic assn v dougherty 944 so2d 370 fla 3d dca 2006 table

Consider the following statement: That did not satisfy the machine-or-transformation test were rarely granted in earlier eras, especially in the industrial age, as explained by judge dyk’s thoughtful historical review. see 545 f.3d, at 966-976 (concurring opinion). but times change. technology and other innovations progress in unexpected ways. for example, it was once forcefully argued that until recent times, “well-established principles of patent law probably would have prevented the issuance of a valid patent on almost any conceivable computer program.” diehr, 450 u.s., at 195, 101 s. ct. 1048, 67 l. ed. 2d 155 (stevens, j., dissenting). but this fact does not mean that unforeseen innovations such as computer programs are always unpatentable. see id., at 192-193, 101 s. ct. 1048, 67 l. ed. 2d 155 (majority opinion) (<holding>). section 101 is a “dynamic provision designed Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that while the computer program at issue was within the subject matter of copyright the right sought under state law pursuant to a license was not equivalent to the exclusive rights under copyright as such copyright preemption did not apply B. holding that patents that would disproportionately tie up the use of the underlying natural laws are invalid for lacking patentable subject matter C. holding that trial court properly granted motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff had failed to exhaust remedies available through exclusive grievance procedure D. holding that copying occurs when a computer program is transferred from a permanent storage device to a computers random access memory E. holding a procedure for molding rubber that included a computer program is within patentable subject matter. Answer:

E. holding a procedure for molding rubber that included a computer program is within patentable subject matter

Consider the following statement: In benefits, ineligibility for promotional opportunities, or more formal discipline”). defendant’s placement of plaintiff on the county’s performance improvement plan more closely constitutes an adverse employment action. plaintiff alleges that the “p.i.p. is a tool, which is a step toward dismissal, demotion, suspension, etc.” (dkt.36-2, p. 22) defendant placed plaintiff on the pip based on its conclusion that plaintiff was not receptive to counseling regarding her performance. (dkt. 25, papin aff. ¶ 4; dkt. 27, balzer aff. ¶ 3). as a result of her placement on pip, plaintiff alleges she was given additional assignments and reporting requirements and increased supervision, although she does not develop the record in this regard. (dkt.36-2, pp. 22, 43) see smith, 509 f.supp.2d at 1203 (<holding>). plaintiffs “reassignment to building 41,” Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that deprivation of increased compensation as the result of a failure to train constitutes an adverse employment action B. holding that an employers requirement that an employee comply with a performance improvement plan or face disciplinary action did not constitute adverse employment action C. holding that reduction in workload is an adverse employment action D. holding that change in employment assignment that inter alia increased onthejob commuting time was not an adverse employment action E. holding that plaintiffs placement on a performance improvement plan was an adverse employment action because it resulted in increased workload increased reporting requirements increased supervision and tempo rarity prevented plaintiff from receiving pay raises or bonuses. Answer:

E. holding that plaintiffs placement on a performance improvement plan was an adverse employment action because it resulted in increased workload increased reporting requirements increased supervision and tempo rarity prevented plaintiff from receiving pay raises or bonuses

Consider the following statement: Agree with the state and water defense association that aboriginal water rights must be established by evidence of historical use, and that, under the facts herein, the trial court correctly rejected the argument that the tribe was entitled to an aboriginal priority date for water for agricultural purposes quantified by a pia standard, i believe the trial court erred in refusing to recognize that the tribe had established an aboriginal water right with a priority date of time immemorial to waters appurtenant to the lands included in the area of the reservation for reasonable domestic use. see adair, 723 f.2d at 1413 (confirming aboriginal title of tribe to water rights for domestic purposes and “to support its hunting, fishing, and gathering lifestyle”); aamodt, 618 f.supp. at 1009-10 (<holding>). there is evidence in the record of an actual Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. recognizing the right to use water to generate power B. holding in custody dispute that fathers alleged domestic violence in an earlier marriage must be considered for purposes of as 2524150gi C. recognizing aboriginal right to use of waters by pueblos for domestic purposes D. holding that for a domestic corporation the foreign principal place of business does not count E. recognizing private right of action. Answer:

C. recognizing aboriginal right to use of waters by pueblos for domestic purposes

Consider the following statement: Seized literature of khalistan and pamphlets relating to a protest rally, but he testified at the hearing that police found only a small sheet of paper and no pamphlets. we also think the ij was within the bounds of reasonable adjudication in discounting kaur’s testimony that she was raped at the police station. the police conduct was heinous if the testimony is believed, and it is understandable that the female petitioner may have been reluctant to discuss such a degrading experience if it occurred. in light of the overall credibility problems with the testimony of singh and kaur, however, we cannot say that the ij was compelled to accept kaur’s statements about the incident at the police station without some corroboration. see esaka v. ashcroft, 397 f.3d 1105, 1110 (8th cir.2005) (<holding>). in sum, because the record does not compel a Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that where testimony is inherently improbable the court may choose to disregard it B. holding that an adverse credibility determination may be dispositive where the applicant does not produce any corroborating evidence C. holding that the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony D. holding jury as judge of credibility may believe all some or none of the testimony E. holding that an immigration judge may base a credibility determination on the lack of corroborating evidence if the judge also encounters inconsistencies in testimony contradictory evidence or inherently improbable testimony. Answer:

E. holding that an immigration judge may base a credibility determination on the lack of corroborating evidence if the judge also encounters inconsistencies in testimony contradictory evidence or inherently improbable testimony

Consider the following statement: Obtain other forms of discovery from bonilla including: a response to a request for admissions, answers to interrogatories, and a response to a request for production. finally, in september of 1992, bonilla’s attorney filed a notice of availability with the court stating that bonilla had just arrived in miami and was available for deposition, but apollo never responded to this notice. taking the totality of these unique circumstances into consideration, it appears that bonilla did not wilfully disregard the trial court’s orders; instead he made a conscious effort, and displayed a willingness, to comply with the court’s orders, to the extent that he was capable of doing so. the facts clearly indicate that, at the time the trial court ordered bonilla to appear for 78 (fla. 3d dca 1982) (<holding>); turner v. anderson, 376 so.2d 899, 901 (fla. Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding if a deposition is taken for discovery only not for use at trial the deposition is not a stage of trial for which the defendant must be present B. holding that plaintiff need not have submitted requests for admissions by the august 15 discovery motion cutoff date or by the discovery cutoff date of september 15 because requests for admissions are distinct from other general discovery devices and are not subject to discovery cutoff dates C. holding that because the plaintiff had not perfected service within 120 days of filing the complaint the complaint was subject to mandatory dismissal D. holding that dismissal for discovery violations was an extreme remedy but warranted under the facts of the case E. holding that dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint was too drastic a remedy where plaintiff had difficulty getting to the united states from jamaica the deposition was set after the cutoff date for completing discovery and it was only eleven days prior to trial. Answer:

E. holding that dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint was too drastic a remedy where plaintiff had difficulty getting to the united states from jamaica the deposition was set after the cutoff date for completing discovery and it was only eleven days prior to trial

Consider the following statement: But only as evidence of the property’s willing-seller/willing-buyer value on the date of the foreclosure sale; by permitting the court to consider evidence that is not typically relevant to a fair-market-value analysis, the statute simply reflects the nature of foreclosure sales, not a new meaning of “fair market value,” the statute expressly requires that the court determine “the fair market value of the real property as of the date of the foreclosure sale,” and the evidence regarding the discounted future sales price is permissible only to “arrive at a current fair market value” on that date. tex. prop. code § 51.003(b)(5). c. “discounting” the future sales price although the statute refers to a “future sales price,” it does so using terms that necessarily tie that p mm’n app.1931) (<holding>). as we explained in jaeger, discounting future Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that in computing the present worth of such future payments same should have been discounted to their present worth at the date of judgment at 6 per cent interest per annum B. holding that courts may not find a per se sixth amendment violation where the defendant was unable to present relevant evidence C. holding that an award of future salary payments should have been discounted to its present value at the legal rate of interest D. holding that plaintiff must present such evidence E. holding that bonds that bore interest at one percent per annum plus on supplemental coupons up to 212 additional interest per annum to the extent net revenues are available were not negotiable instruments because the supplemental coupons indefinite interest rate failed to state a sum certain under section 3106. Answer:

A. holding that in computing the present worth of such future payments same should have been discounted to their present worth at the date of judgment at 6 per cent interest per annum

Consider the following statement: On august 31, 2000 she reported to the human resources manager, donald vincent, that she had been told that john warren had rhymed her last name with “slut.” in response vincent immediately had henry morrissey (the area manufacturing manager) interview warren about the remark. he also interviewed two other employees who were present at that meeting; they denied that he made the remark. also, cynthia holm (the equal employment opportunity commission) interviewed warren and three other supervisors. all those interviewed denied that warren had called cooper-schut a slut; because of this, no discipline was implemented. visteon’s response of immediately conducting multiple interviews with the employees involved was a reasonable response, and was not negligent. see perry, 126 f.3d at 1014-15 (<holding>). regarding her confrontations with subordinate Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that eeoc charge filed by plaintiff more than 180 days after alleged incident of sexual harassment was timely where alleged sexual harassment violation continued as hostile work environment through time of plaintiffs termination B. holding that managements failure to investigate and report incidents of sexual harassment made the employers response unreasonable C. holding that an employer must remedy situation of sexual harassment D. holding an employers response to a complaint of sexual harassment was reasonable when the employer investigated the incident but the alleged harasser and supervising employee denied that the incident occurred E. holding trial court was proper in admitting a doctors testimony that a delay between the occurrence of an incident of child sexual abuse and the childs revelation of the incident was the usual pattern of conduct for victims of child sexual abuse. Answer:

D. holding an employers response to a complaint of sexual harassment was reasonable when the employer investigated the incident but the alleged harasser and supervising employee denied that the incident occurred

Consider the following statement: The asphalt foreman positions. clark alleges that he was qualified because he worked on an asphalt crew at apac for well over a decade and because he acted as temporary foreman for two or three weeks out of the year for the years 1999-2004. apac disputes that clark’s experience establishes that he was qualified to be an asphalt foreman. instead, apac declares that clark was not qualified because he was unable to run the electronics on the apac [paver] — a factor that sam head, the individual making the decision to fill the jobs, considered the single most important skill for the jobs. ([head, doc 20-2 at] 7-8, 17). therefore, [clark] cannot demonstrate that he was qualified for the job. see e.g., greer [v. birmingham beverage co., inc.], 291 fed.appx. [948] at 945 [ (11th cir.2008) ] (<holding>). (doc. 19 at 15-16). head testified that clark Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case that the defendants failure to promote him was discriminatory where the plaintiff failed to that show he was qualified for the relevant position B. holding to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination a plaintiff must show he 1 C. holding that plaintiff could not establish prima facie case of discrimination where plaintiff failed to meet minimum qualifications for job D. holding that the employers discharge of the plaintiff four months after the plaintiff filed a discrimination claim is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge E. holding that plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she was unable to present evidence that she was qualified for the position. Answer:

C. holding that plaintiff could not establish prima facie case of discrimination where plaintiff failed to meet minimum qualifications for job

Consider the following statement: And prohibit that spouse from realizing any investment income generated by his separate property interest. steven r. brown, an interdisciplinary analysis of the division of pension benefits in divorce and post-judgment partition actions: cu 534, 535 (1996) (noting that qdro unambiguously gave the non-employee wife a right to receive her portion of the marital share of any early retirement subsidy available to the husband when the husband actually retires); layne v. layne, 83 ohio app.3d 559, 615 n.e.2d 332, 336 (1992) (stating that a non-employed former spouse is entitled to the benefit of any increase in the value of his or her unma-tured proportionate share after divorce attributable to the continued participation of the other spouse in the retirement plan, including earl .app.1994) (<holding>); greenwood v. greenwood, 746 a.2d 358, 361-62 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding husbands early retirement subsidy was not marital property as a vested right but an option contingent upon his continued employment and eventual qualification for the subsidy in nine years based upon value of the pension frozen at the time of dissolution B. holding that a nonemployee spouse holds a community marital property interest in pension plan early retirement enhancements because practically by definition the right to retirement benefits that accrues at least in part during marriage before separation underlies any right to an enhancement C. holding that qdros providing the former wife with future enhancements that were not part of the marital portion of husbands pension plan including future improvements cost of living adjustments and early retirement subsidies conflicted with the final judgment that valued the pension at the time of dissolution D. holding that nonemployee spouse waived distribution of her husbands early retirement benefits because although both parties were aware of the enhancements the additional benefits were not included in calculation of the pension funds at the time of dissolution E. recognizing the continued interest of a criminal defendant in frozen property prior to forfeiture. Answer:

A. holding husbands early retirement subsidy was not marital property as a vested right but an option contingent upon his continued employment and eventual qualification for the subsidy in nine years based upon value of the pension frozen at the time of dissolution

Consider the following statement: Contract balances on any of the above contracts.” d’s app. at 92-93. the postal service’s response, dated march 22, 1989, indicated that the lake worth contract should not be covered by the agreement and then stated that there should be further discussions on march 24, 1989 if this were unacceptable. d’s app. at 95. by letter dated april 4, 1989, rodeo’s attorney notified usps that ”[t]he [draft] mods are acceptable except that one element of the agreement that is important to rodeo has been left out." d’s app. at 96. that element was that rodeo would continue to be eligible for contracts with usps. the modifications were executed on april 5, 1989 after they were amended to reflect this change. see supra note 5. 8 . see arb, inc. v. e-sys., inc., 663 f.2d 189, 198-99 (d.c.cir.1980) (<holding>); schultz v. dain corp., 568 f.2d 612, 614 n. 4 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that integration clauses are to be given effect under ucc law and maryland common law B. holding that article 2 of the ucc preempts common law claims C. holding that article 4a of the ucc preempts common law claims where they are inconsistent or duplicative D. holding that acceleration clauses are quite common and are generally enforceable according to their terms E. holding that intent of parties to choice of law must be given effect. Answer:

A. holding that integration clauses are to be given effect under ucc law and maryland common law

Consider the following statement: Arrest is amenable to “grave abuse” by police officers and prosecutors: “minor acts of evasion and resistance are sufficiently ambiguous to give rise to honest error, sufficiently elusive to encourage false allegations, and sufficiently commonplace to afford general opportunity for discriminatory enforcement.” id. most—though not all—jurisdictions that have adopted statutes based upon the model penal code provision, consistent with the code’s commentary, construe these statutes to exclude punishment for mere flight. see, e.g., womack, 847 p.2d at 611-13 (stating that leading police on a chase in arizona was not resisting arrest under “a common sense application of the ordinary meaning of the statutory language”); see also howard v. state, 101 p.3d 1054, 1058 (alaska ct.app.2004) (<holding>); state v. crane, 46 or.app. 547, 612 p.2d 735, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that resisting arrest is lesser offense of assault on an officer B. holding avoiding arrest is not the same as resisting arrest C. holding that fleeing from officers and hiding in the woods did not constitute resisting arrest D. holding that it is equally wellestablished that a suspects mere flight to escape arrest does not violate the resisting arrest statute E. holding fleeing police officers in a vehicle was a violent felony under the acca. Answer:

C. holding that fleeing from officers and hiding in the woods did not constitute resisting arrest

Consider the following statement: A substantial preliminary showing that officer mcgrew recklessly made false statements and has further shown that the false statements were necessary or material to the magistrate judge’s finding of probable cause, we remand the case for a franks hearing on flake’s allegations. b. downward departure in sentencing flake contends that the federal district court erroneously concluded during the sentencing proceedings that it did not have the legal authority to depart downward on the basis of the six months that flake had already been held in custody on related state charges. we find no support for flake’s contention in the record and hold that the district court was aware of and properly exercised its discretion. see united states v. rivera-sanchez, 222 f.3d 1057, 1064-65 (9th cir.2000) (<holding>). c. right of allocution flake contends that he Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that we may not review a district courts refusal to grant a downward departure unless the court mistakenly believed that it lacked the authority to grant such a departure B. holding that the district courts refusal to grant a downward departure was discretionary and not because it believed it lacked the authority to depart where the court assessed the facts of the case and concluded that the departure requested does not seem to have a basis C. holding that a district courts statement that there was no basis for a downward departure did not indicate that it believed it lacked authority D. holding that the district court was not required to state affirmatively on the record that it knew it possessed the authority to depart downward E. holding that the district courts denial of a downward departure was an exercise of discretion and therefore not reviewable. Answer:

C. holding that a district courts statement that there was no basis for a downward departure did not indicate that it believed it lacked authority

Consider the following statement: Other equipment. 45 u.s.c. § 51. “fela is liberally construed, and its language regarding causation is as broad as could be framed.” pitter v. metro-n. commuter r.r., 826 f.supp.2d 612, 615 (s.d.n.y.2011) (citing csx transp., inc. v. mcbride, — u.s. -, 131 s.ct. 2630, 2636,180 l.ed.2d 637 (2011); consol. rail corp. v. gottshall, 512 u.s. 532, 543, 114 s.ct. 2396, 129 l.ed.2d 427 (1994)) (internal quotation marks omitted). accordingly, “the united states supreme court has interpreted fela as prescribing a relaxed standard of causation that departs from the ordinary proximate cause requirement of common law negligence.” id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also corsale v. delaware & hudson ry. co., 1:08-cv-572 gls/rft, 2010 wl 3907827, at *3 (n.d.n.y. sept. 30, 2010) (<holding>) (quoting marchica v. long island r.r. co., 31 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. recognizing that the federal pleading standard is a less stringent standard than the delaware pleading standard B. recognizing that in an fela case the traditional concept of proximate cause is supplanted by the less stringent standard that there be some causal relation no matter how slight between the injury and the railroads breach of duty C. holding that a physicians negligence need only be a proximate cause not the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury D. holding proximate cause required for claim of breach of special duty E. holding that negligence must be the proximate cause of injury. Answer:

B. recognizing that in an fela case the traditional concept of proximate cause is supplanted by the less stringent standard that there be some causal relation no matter how slight between the injury and the railroads breach of duty

Consider the following statement: So accommodating. see, e.g., 11 u.s.c. § 327(a) (“... the trustee, with the court’s approval, may employ ...”); 11 u.s.c. § 363(b) (“the trustee, after notice and a hearing, may use, sell, or lease ... ”); and 11 u.s.c. § 365(a) (“... the trustee, subject to the court’s approval, may assume or reject ... ”). as a consequence, courts have been left in these many instances to figure out for themselves what they are to consider. their response, though, has frequently been limited to only the adoption of some vague standard that in turn is exemplified by some equally vague phrase. take, for example, the different measures that courts have offered in connection with section 363(b) sales. section 363(b)(1) of the bankruptcy code governs the present dispute and provides (bankr.d.del.1987) (<holding>); in re charlesbank laundry co., 37 b.r. 20, 22 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that the duty of good faith and fair dealing is a contractual duty B. holding that duty of good faith and fair dealing did not extend to thirdparty claimant C. holding that benefiting fiduciary must show he acted in good faith and that transactions were fair and equitable D. holding that a sale must be both fair and reasonable in price and made in good faith E. holding that the transaction must be fair and equitable and in good faith. Answer:

E. holding that the transaction must be fair and equitable and in good faith

Consider the following statement: Bank account. asked about that during his deposition, fisher testified that he did so in part because he was concerned about possible garnishment for child support that he later learned had already been collected out of a tax refund. despite fisher’s abandonment of his bank account during this period, the bankruptcy court specifically found that the transfers to brennan both before and after november 2002 were in fact used to pay the debtor’s share of the ongoing expenses of maintaining them combined household. it was not clear error for the bankruptcy court to conclude that these monetary transfers were not made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any of fisher’s creditors. see bennett & kahnveiler assocs. v. rainer (in re rainer), 132 b.r. 728, 733 (n.d.ill.1991) (<holding>); glaser v. glaser (in re glaser), 49 b.r. Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that actual intent to defraud is not necessary to finding of constructive fraud B. holding that 506a does not require or permit a reduction in the creditors secured claim to account for purely hypothetical costs of sale of chapter 13 debtors residence C. holding that the statute requires actual intent to hinder delay or defraud creditors or the trustee constructive intent to defraud does not suffice D. holding that although there was evidence the defendant transferred or caused to be transferred more money to the debtor than the debtor transferred to the defendant there was legally sufficient evidence to support the jurys finding of actual fraud under section 24005a1 and b because the badges of fraud showed the debtors intent to hinder delay or defraud creditors E. holding that debtors depositing of funds into spouses separate account did not establish actual intent to hinder delay or defraud creditors for purposes of denial of discharge under chapter 7. Answer:

E. holding that debtors depositing of funds into spouses separate account did not establish actual intent to hinder delay or defraud creditors for purposes of denial of discharge under chapter 7

Consider the following statement: While exclusion of present claimants appears to have limited the opposition, it did not completely eliminate it. 14 . see koniak, feasting, supra note 4, at 1058; crampton, supra note 4, at 829-30. 15 .in addition, the settlement’s silence regarding the actual compensation that claimants can expect — other than various caps and limitations on recovery — makes it difficult for class members and courts to evaluate the settlement. that lack of information might be one of the reasons that the intervenors chose not to attack the settlement’s substantive fairness on appeal. 16 . the ninth circuit has held that a class action certified under rule 23(b)(1) and (b)(2) cannot bind absent plaintiffs unless they are allowed to opt out. brown v. ticor title ins. co., 982 f.2d 386 (9th cir.1992) (<holding>), cert. dismissed as improvidently granted, 511 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that a district of columbia consumer protection statute that authorized representative actions and did not reference class action requirements or mandate class certification was a separate and distinct procedural vehicle from a class action and thus did not constitute a class action under cafa B. holding that the right of all putative members of a proposed class in an action filed pursuant to kansass class action rule of civil procedure to file a separate action is preserved pending the determination of whether the initial case shall be maintained as a class action C. holding that a class action judgment awarding money damages will not bind an absent plaintiff without adequate notice D. holding that a subsequent action was not barred because the initial court did not have jurisdiction over the claim E. holding that absent plaintiffs were not bound by a rule 23blb2 class action for money damages because the original class action court did not have personal jurisdiction over the plaintiffs and did not provide them with an optout right. Answer:

E. holding that absent plaintiffs were not bound by a rule 23blb2 class action for money damages because the original class action court did not have personal jurisdiction over the plaintiffs and did not provide them with an optout right

Consider the following statement: For a trial on the merits. ¶ 32. the circuit court found that the appellants’ negligence claim against barlow eddy jenkins, p.a. (barlow eddy) failed because the appellants did not pres ent any competent evidence to demonstrate that barlow eddy’s actions were the proximate cause or proximate contributing cause of robert gary rogers’s (rogers) injuries. although the circuit court correctly pointed out that evidence of osha’s regulations are not admissible in mississippi to show negligence, osha’s standards and regulations may be “admissible as a measure to show reasonable care consistent with industry standards.” wilkins v. bloodsaw, 850 so.2d 185, 188(¶ 11) (miss.ct.app.2003); see also accu-fab & constr., inc. v. ladner, 778 so.2d 766, 771(¶ 21) (miss.2001) (overruled on other grounds) (<holding>). ¶ 33. the appellants presented two expert Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that safety standards regarding the safe design and use of trampolines including astm standards were admissible on the issue of the defendants negligence even though the defendants were unaware of the standards B. holding that oshas regulations were admissible as a measure of reasonable care consistent with industry standards C. holding failure to raise issue of improper measure of damages in trial court waived review of complaints that proper measure of damages was not submitted to jury and that plaintiff failed to present evidence on the proper measure D. holding that although compliance with administrative safety regulations did not establish due care it was evidence of due care E. holding that an experts testimony that a victims symptoms were consistent with administration of a date rape drug were admissible. Answer:

B. holding that oshas regulations were admissible as a measure of reasonable care consistent with industry standards

Consider the following statement: Alaska consumer fraud act); colo.rev.stat. ann. § 6-l-113(2)(a) (the court may award three times the actual damages, or $500, whichever is greater, if it is proven that the defendant engaged in bad faith conduct); quist v. specialties supply co., inc., 12 p.3d 863, 867 (colo.ct.app.2000) (where the court held plaintiff was precluded under principles of collateral estoppel from challenging the amount of actual damages fixed by the judgment, but holding that collateral estoppel did not preclude plaintiff from pursuing enhanced punitive damages); ohio rev. code ann. 1345.09(b)(the injured party may seek and the trial court in its discretion may rescind the contract or award treble the actual damages or $200, whichever is greater); crye v. smolak, 110 ohio app.3d 504, 674 n.e. 2d 779 (1996)(<holding>). connecticut, delaware and kentucky make no Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that treble damages are appropriate under ohio law when the seller engages in an unconscionable practice or deceptive act B. holding treble damages under the civil theft statute are punitive C. holding that a plaintiff may receive both treble damages under rico and state law punitive damages for the same course of conduct D. recognizing that an award of treble damages for an antitrust violation and punitive damages for common law tortious interference with business relations based on same conduct would be duplicative holding that punitive and treble damages cannot both be awarded and indicating that a special jury verdict in this situation would be appropriate E. holding that treble damages under the housing and rent act are remedial in nature. Answer:

A. holding that treble damages are appropriate under ohio law when the seller engages in an unconscionable practice or deceptive act

Consider the following statement: For the proposition that “an insured cannot recover from an insurer for attorney’s fees and expenses incurred by it in defense of suit against it in an absence of showing that those items have actually been paid.” we decline, however, to follow that opinion’s isolated preference for physical payment. rather, “it [i]s not necessary that [an attorney’s] fee be paid to enable [an insured] to recover, but when he established that he [i]s obligated to pay, and that the fee is reasonable ... his cause of action accrued.” royal indem. co. v. schwartz, 172 s.w. 581, 584 (tex.civ.app.-el paso 1914, writ dism’d w.o.j.); see also oliver b. cannon and son, inc. v. fidelity & cas. co. of new york, 519 f.supp. 668, 675-76 (d.c.del.1981) (recognizing that an insured x.app.-texarkana 1992, no writ) (<holding>). similarly, we decline hartford’s invitation Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding attorney fees may be allowed for expenses incurred for default B. holding that trial court must make entry of default prior to entry of default judgment and court may not make entry of default when there is no default in law or in fact C. holding in an appeal from a postanswer default judgment that third prong of craddock test required appellant to offer to reimburse appellee for legal expenses he incurred in obtaining default judgment even though most of the fees incurred had not been paid D. holding that a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment precluded default judgment E. holding that an award for medical expenses is proper when the expenses have been incurred but not paid. Answer:

C. holding in an appeal from a postanswer default judgment that third prong of craddock test required appellant to offer to reimburse appellee for legal expenses he incurred in obtaining default judgment even though most of the fees incurred had not been paid

Consider the following statement: 3 . griffith v. kentucky, 479 u.s. 314, 328, 107 s.ct. 708, 93 l.ed.2d 649 (1987). 4 . d.c.code § 48-904.01(a)(l) (2001). 5 . d.c.code § 48-1103(a) (2001). 6 . gant, supra note 2, 129 s.ct. at 1714-15. 7 . id. at 1715. 8 . id. 9 . arizona v. gant, 216 ariz. 1, 162 p.3d 640, 646 (2007). the arizona supreme court added: "the state has advanced no alternative theories justifying the warrantless search of gant's car, and we note that no other exception to the warrant requirement appears to apply.” id. the court therefore did not inquire into the good-faith exception to suppression of evidence under the fourth amendment exclusionary rule. 10 . see griffith, supra note 3, 479 u.s. at 328, 107 s.ct. 708. 11 . see united states v. leon, 468 u.s. 897, 104 s.ct. 3405, 82 l.ed.2d 677 (1984) (<holding>). 12 . id. at 909, 104 s.ct. 3405. 13 . Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that evidence should not be suppressed if police officers acted in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate B. holding that evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant is not barred by the exclusionary rule C. holding that the fourth amendment exclusionary rule should not bar the use of evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faith and with reasonable reliance on a facially valid search warrant D. holding exclusionary rule inapplicable to evidence obtained by police officers acting in reasonable reliance on search warrant later held invalid E. holding suppression of evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant is not required. Answer:

D. holding exclusionary rule inapplicable to evidence obtained by police officers acting in reasonable reliance on search warrant later held invalid

Consider the following statement: It is, in any event, incorrect. if rooney receives a declaratory judgment that the discharge was valid and the revocation invalid, “release ... would follow automatically since, in a second action for a writ of habeas corpus, the prior judgment would have res judicata effect.” monk, 793 f.2d at 366. it thus does “not matter that he ha[s] not asked for release.” lobue, 82 f.3d at 1083. nor may rooney “avoid the requirement that he proceed by habeas corpus by adding a request for relief that may not be made in a petition for habeas corpus.” monk, 793 f.2d at 366. accordingly, habeas corpus is rooney’s exclusive remedy. see id. (citing preiser v. rodriguez, 411 u.s. 475, 490, 93 s.ct. 1827, 36 l.ed.2d 439 (1973)); cf. heck v. humphrey, 512 u.s. 477, 114 s.ct. 2364, 129 l.ed.2d 383 (1994) (<holding>). the problem for rooney is that, because his Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc 1983 B. holding that public defenders do not act under color of state law and therefore are not subject to suit under 42 usc 1983 C. holding that a state prisoner may not challenge the constitutionality of his conviction in a suit for damages under 42 usc 1983 D. holding that 42 usc 1396aa13a is enforceable in a suit under 1983 E. holding that a municipality is immune from punitive damages under 42 usc 1983. Answer:

C. holding that a state prisoner may not challenge the constitutionality of his conviction in a suit for damages under 42 usc 1983

Consider the following statement: 106-11 (2d cir.2001) (finding that the alleged misrepresentations as to the value of the variable annuities were “in connection with” the security); korsinsky, 2002 wl 27775, at *5 (finding that the alleged misrepresentations as to the value of a stock were “in connection with” the stock); hardy, 189 f.supp.2d at 18 (same). in contrast, courts have found that the “in connection with” element was not met when the plaintiff did not allege that the fraud concerned the value of the security or the consideration received in return. see anatian v. coutts bank (switzerland) ltd., 193 f.3d 85, 88 (2d cir.1999) (finding that the alleged misrepresentations as to the authority to extend credit did not concern the value of a security or the consideration received); spielman, 2001 wl 1182927, at *5 (<holding>); laub v. faessel, 981 f.supp. 870, 871 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that the same must pertain to the value of the security and where the facts indicated they did not B. holding that a plaintiff satisfied rule 9b by pleading which machines were the subject of alleged fraudulent transactions and the nature and subject of the alleged misrepresentations C. holding that the alleged misrepresentations concerning the transaction fees charged by a broker did not concern the value of a security or the consideration received D. holding that if the alleged misrepresentations are material a plaintiff is entitled to recovery whether or not the misrepresentations caused the alleged damage E. holding that plaintiff was entitled to sue under rule 10b5 for the difference between the price and the value received from the sale of the security where as here the evil is not the price at which plaintiff bought but the fact of being induced to buy. Answer:

C. holding that the alleged misrepresentations concerning the transaction fees charged by a broker did not concern the value of a security or the consideration received

Consider the following statement: Not err in her evaluation of the medical evidence or in discounting casey’s subjective complaints. casey challenges the alj’s reliance on dr. may’s rfc opinion, directing us to nevland v. apfel where we reversed an alj’s decision because he relied on the opinions of nontreating, nonex-amining physicians in determining the claimant’s rfc. 204 f.3d 853, 858 (8th cir.2000). but as we recognized in eichelberger v. barnhart, nevland addressed the evidence necessary to satisfy an alj’s burden of proof at step five in the disability analysis; nevland does not preclude the alj’s reliance on a reviewing physician’s report at step four when the burden is on the claimant to establish an inability to do past relevant work. 390 f.3d 584, 591 (8th cir.2004); see also masterson, 363 f.3d at 737-39 (<holding>). “it is well settled that an alj may consider Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that the alj properly relied on the assessments of a nonexamining physician and not claimants treating physicians in determining the rfc at step four B. holding that the alj properly discounted a treating physicians report where the physician was unsure of the accuracy of his findings and statements C. holding that the commissioner must determine a claimants rfc based on all of the relevant evidence including medical records observations of treating physicians and others and an individuals own description of the limitations D. holding that the alj erred in failing to give the findings and assessments of the treating physicians any weight when the medical evidence and claimants testimony supported a diagnosis of cfs E. holding that where a treating physicians opinion is contradicted by a consulting physician the alj must explain on the record the reasons for rejecting the opinion of the treating physician. Answer:

A. holding that the alj properly relied on the assessments of a nonexamining physician and not claimants treating physicians in determining the rfc at step four

Consider the following statement: 184-192; pl. opp. at 8 n. 15. 186 . see fac ¶¶ 351-358; pl. opp. at 8 n. 15. 187 . see fac ¶¶ 279-287; pl. opp. at 8 n. 16. 188 . see fac ¶¶ 206, 372. 189 . see id. ¶ 300. 190 . see id. ¶¶ 222-228, 318-324, 387-393. 191 . see id. ¶¶ 229-234. - 192 . see berman v. sugo llc, 580 f.supp.2d 191, 202 (s.d.n.y.2008) (dismissing a breach of contract claim where counterclaim plaintiff failed to "set forth a single fact relating to the formation of the contract, the date it took place, the contract’s major terms, the parties to the contract, or [counter-defendant's] assent to its terms”) (quotation marks omitted). 193 . see iqbal, 129 s.ct. at 1949. 194 . see levy v. bessemer trust co., n.a., no. 97 civ. 1785, 1997 wl 431079, at *5 (s.d.n.y. july 30, 1997); sedona corp., 2005 wl 1902780, at *20 (<holding>). 195 . see fac ¶¶ 3, 61-64, 189, 281, 291, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding failure to establish terms of an oral loan agreement precluded the existence of a breach of contract claim B. holding part performance of an oral agreement necessary to take the oral agreement out of the statute of frauds must be consistent only with the existence of the alleged oral contract C. holding breach of contract claim not preempted as a straightforward breach of contract action as it alleged violation of specific covenant D. recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract E. holding that a laundry list of alleged breaches of myriad alleged oral and written agreements was insufficient to provide defendants with notice of the breach of contract claim. Answer:

E. holding that a laundry list of alleged breaches of myriad alleged oral and written agreements was insufficient to provide defendants with notice of the breach of contract claim

Consider the following statement: Persons affected.” state v. breed, 111 idaho 497, 500, 725 p.2d 202, 205 (ct.app.1986). in any equal protection analysis, the court must: first, identify the classification that is being challenged; second, articulate the standard under which the classification will be tested; and third, determine whether the standard has been satisfied. id. at 500, 725 p.2d at 205. accordingly, in order for rome to prevail, he is required to show that he, by virtue of some classification, was treated differently than a person who does not share that classification, however, i.c. § 18-1401 does not create a classification. the statute applies to “every person” who enters a building with the intent to commit any theft or felony. see state v. hamlin, 156 idaho 307, 316, 324 p.3d 1006, 1015 (ct.app.2014) (<holding>). it is true, as rome points out, that idaho Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that statute which defined sexual contact as any touching of the anus breast or any part of the genitals of another person with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person was not vague B. holding that a statute applied to any person who sexually abused and exploited a vulnerable adult and did not treat the defendant differently on account of any classification C. holding that language in a merrill lynch customer account agreement that the plaintiff signed upon opening the first account providing for arbitration of any controversy arising out of its business applied to the disputed second account even though the plaintiff did not sign a separate customer account agreement for the second account D. holding that the plaintiff who alleged he was subjected to discipline and a disciplinary proceeding not applicable to any other police officer under the collective bargaining agreement but not alleging any classbased discrimination failed to state a claim as the plaintiff did not show how he was treated differently from others similarly situated emphasis added E. holding with no analysis that any person or organization who may be legally liable therefor applies to a person legally liable for injuries caused by an accident 4 when under the facts of the case the only person to whom the clause could have applied was a tortfeasor. Answer:

B. holding that a statute applied to any person who sexually abused and exploited a vulnerable adult and did not treat the defendant differently on account of any classification

Consider the following statement: Whereas before ... they were exempt from the requirements of § 327. the difference is significant because § 327 authorizes the trustee to employ an attorney ‘with the court’s approval.’ ” id. in lamie v. u.s. trustee, 540 u.s. 526, 538-39, 124 s.ct. 1023, 157 l.ed.2d 1024 (2004), the court succinctly stated: [w]e hold that § 330(a)(1) does not authorize compensation awards to debtors’ attorneys from estate funds, unless they are employed as authorized by § 327. if the attorney is to be paid from estate funds under § 330(a)(1) in a chapter 7 case, he must be employed by the trustee and approved by the court. this reading of the statute shows “that the revised § 330 means what it says.” weinschneider, 395 f.3d at 403; see also in re oliver, 511 b.r. 556, 561-62 (bankr. w.d.wis.2014) (<holding>). without citing any authority, jones argues Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that where an attorney serves as trustee and attorney for the trustee in a bankruptcy proceeding the attorney must distinguish time spent in each role B. holding that where the insurer retains an attorney to represent the insured pursuant to an insurance policy the attorney acts in the capacity of an independent contractor for the insured C. holding the district courts conclusion that the attorney should receive no compensation was an abuse of discretion because we are confident that some legitimate time was expended by the attorney D. holding that an attorney could not receive compensation from the estate pursuant to 330 because the chapter 7 trustee never sought to hire the attorney pursuant to 327 whose employment would have also required court approval E. holding that an attorney approval clause in a contract for the sale of real estate was a part of that contract and would have to be satisfied for the underlying contract to be enforceable. Answer:

D. holding that an attorney could not receive compensation from the estate pursuant to 330 because the chapter 7 trustee never sought to hire the attorney pursuant to 327 whose employment would have also required court approval

Consider the following statement: Waived arguments that might have supported such jurisdiction.”). 6 . the department of labor asserts that taylor has standing to pursue her claims, even in the absence of injury, simply because defendants breached duties owed to her pursuant to erisa. this argument, however, was not raised by the parties in their appellate briefs. accordingly, we will not consider this issue. cellnet commons, inc. v. fcc, 149 f.3d 429, 443 (6th cir.1998) ("while an amicus may offer assistance in resolving issues properly before a court, it may not raise additional issues or arguments not raised by the parties."). 7 . entry of final judgment, alone, is not a basis upon which to deny a motion to intervene. see united airlines, inc. v. mcdonald, 432 u.s. 385, 394-96, 97 s.ct. 2464, 53 l.ed.2d 423 (1977) (<holding>). 8 . following the filing of a notice to Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that a motion to reconsider filed after the entry of final judgment must be considered a motion to correct error B. holding that a motion to intervene filed ten weeks after the commencement of the action was timely C. holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed D. holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed E. holding that a motion to intervene filed after final judgment should have been granted. Answer:

E. holding that a motion to intervene filed after final judgment should have been granted

Consider the following statement: Does not violate the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination guaranteed by the fifth and fourteenth amendments.” 435 u.s. at 340-41. the court rejected the defendant’s argument that giving the instruction was “like waving a red flag in front of the jury,” finding this assertion premised on an “indulgence in two very doubtful assumptions” that (1) jurors would not notice the defendant did not testify absent the instruction, and (2) jurors would disregard the instruction not to give weight to the defendant’s failure to testify. id. at 340. 7 the right to testify was extended to criminal defendants in vermont by public act no. 40, § 1, 1866 (predecessor to 13 v.s.a. § 6601). 8 baker's ruling is no longer controlling in light of griffin v. california, 380 u.s. 609, 613 (1965) (<holding>), and the 1955 statutory amendment. 1955, no. Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that admitting evidence of a defendants prior statement to an investigator proffered by the commonwealth did not violate the defendants fifth amendment rights by forcing him to testify to dispute it B. holding that a defendants fifth amendment rights were violated when an interpreter was withdrawn by the court C. holding that state prosecutor violated fifth amendment by telling jury that a defendants failure to testify supports an unfavorable inference against him D. recognizing that the fifth amendment forbids comment by the prosecution on a defendants failure to testify E. holding that prosecutors direct comments on a defendants failure to testify were not cured by subsequent inclusion in the jury charge of an instruction regarding the defendants right not to testify. Answer:

C. holding that state prosecutor violated fifth amendment by telling jury that a defendants failure to testify supports an unfavorable inference against him

Consider the following statement: That tull required courts to determine statutory damage awards. the court noted that in tull, it was “presented with no evidence that juries historically had determined the amount of civil penalties to be paid to the [government,” while in feltner there was “clear and direct historical evidence that juries, both as a general matter and in copyright cases, set the amount of damages awarded to a successful plaintiff.” id. at 354-55, 118 s.ct. 1279. the supreme court has repeatedly affirmed the historical nature of the seventh amendment right to a trial by jury in federal cases involving punitive damages. its decisions, taken together, indicate that this right includes the right to a jury determination regarding the amount of punitive damages. see capital solutions, 695 f.supp.2d at 1152 (<holding>). rule 38, by preserving “the right to a trial Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that the seventh amendment does require that the jury also be allowed to determine the amount of any punitive damages awarded B. holding that curtis suggests that the amount of punitive damages is a question for the jury under the seventh amendment C. holding that punitive damages are not allowed under the flsa D. holding that directed verdict does not violate seventh amendment E. holding that punitive damages may be awarded for egregious violations of the lmrda. Answer:

A. holding that the seventh amendment does require that the jury also be allowed to determine the amount of any punitive damages awarded

Consider the following statement: Provides that the “applicable commitment period” of a plan “shall be” either (a) subject to subparagraph (b), ... (i) 3 years; or (ii) not less than 5 years, if the [debt- or’s] current monthly income ..., when multiplied by 12, is not less than [the median annual family income in the applicable state]; and (b) may be less than 3 or 5 years, whichever is applicable under subpara-graph (a), but only if the plan provides for payment in full of all allowed unsecured claims over a shorter period. id. § 1325(b)(4). the debtor’s “current monthly income” and “disposable income” are calculated according to statutorily defined formulae. see id. § 101(10a) (defining “current monthly income”); id. § 1325(b)(2) (defining “disposable income”); see also lanning, 130 s.ct. at 2469, 2471-74, 2478 (<holding>). it is undisputed that debtors’ current Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that the statute incorporated all the rights and obligations of the contract emphasis added B. holding that courts must cjonsider the practical effect of a putative judgment on the state treasury emphasis added C. holding that courts must calculate projected disposable income which is not statutorily defined using a forwardlooking approach emphasis added D. holding that the prosecution must present sufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief that defendant committed a crime emphasis added E. holding that an application is pending from the time it is first filed emphasis added. Answer:

C. holding that courts must calculate projected disposable income which is not statutorily defined using a forwardlooking approach emphasis added

Consider the following statement: Of green to section 693 of the probate code, the trial court could dispense with further proceedings and sua sponte appoint a guardian. in other words, if section 692 grants to a trial judge the power to conduct a preliminary trial and dismiss the proceeding if the applicant fails to prove incapacity, then section 693 must surely permit the same court to appoint a guardian if incapacity is established in that same pretrial hearing. given this result and its supposed validity, we again wonder why the legislature enacted section 643 if the trial court has the power to sua sponte grant final relief prior to a jury trial. but, because the legislature enacted section 643, the latter must be given meaning. see holt v. f.f. enterprises, 990 s.w.2d 756 (tex.app.—amarillo 1998, pet. denied) (<holding>). we cannot ignore it. rather, our duty is to Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that each provision of a statute must be afforded meaning when possible B. holding that effect must be given if possible to every clause and word of a statute C. holding that a statute should where possible be construed according to its plain meaning and as a whole giving meaning to all its parts D. holding that an appellate court must give a statute its clear and plain meaning when the statute is unambiguous E. holding that each element required under the act must be included in the written notice and each element must be sufficiently clear and accurate . Answer:

A. holding that each provision of a statute must be afforded meaning when possible

Consider the following statement: Organized and existing under the laws of the state of nevada, with its principal place of business in las vegas, nevada.” in response, wade averred in his answer, “defendant denies the allegations set forth in paragraph one (1) of plaintiffs petition.” further, wade’s first affirmative defense averred, “the court lacks jurisdiction to hear and enter orders regarding this matter because the plaintiff is not in good standing with the state of nevada and is therefore restricted from bringing suit or participating in litigation.” as a threshold matter, wade’s cursory denial of allstar’s paragraph one is inadequate under rule 55.13. it is well established that a general denial of allegations of corporate capacity or existence fails to satisfy the requirements of rule 55.13. see id. (<holding>); student loan mkt. ass’n v. holloway, 25 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that appeal from denial of rule 60b motion raised for review only the district courts order of denial and not the underlying judgment itself B. holding bare allegation of social friendship insufficient C. holding that making a nonfrivolous allegation is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction D. holding that a mere allegation of fraud is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to the pslra E. holding that a denial of each and every allegation is insufficient under rule 5513. Answer:

E. holding that a denial of each and every allegation is insufficient under rule 5513

Consider the following statement: In the state’s insurance market. in addition to this competitive disadvantage, the legislature considered the practical “business difficulties” confronting all insurers as a result of such possible catastrophic claims, such as the difficulty in determining the amount of reserves to keep on hand. it was thought that the creation of such an association of insurers would alleviate the competitive inequity of these catastrophic claims by spreading their cost throughout the industry, and also increase the statistical basis for prediction of the overall cost of such claims, making the management of these liabilities easier. see house legislative analysis, sb 306, march 13,1978. [in re certified question, supra at 714 n 2.] 19 t laims ass’n, 177 mich app 538 (1989), aff'd 434 mich 901 (1990) (<holding>). 27 in re certified question, supra at 723. Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that insured cannot demand reimbursement for defense insurer had no opportunity to control if insured does not promptly notify insurer of facts triggering coverage B. holding that indemnitees could recover their attorneys fees and costs from an indemnitor despite the fact that the fees and costs had been paid directly by an insurer and noting that the indemnitor is not relieved from liability either on the theory that the insurer is entitled to reimbursement out of the indemnitees recovery or that the defendant should not benefit from a contract providently made and paid for by the plaintiff C. holding that the plaintiff insurer was not entitled to reimbursement from the mcca D. holding that insured may recover attorneys fees from insurer where insurer acts in bad faith E. holding that the insurer was entitled to credit against the owners claim in the amount paid to the mortgagee. Answer:

C. holding that the plaintiff insurer was not entitled to reimbursement from the mcca

Consider the following statement: Was, under the totality of the circumstances, insufficient to taint mcleod’s confession as involuntary. there fore, we hold that the state carried its burden of proving that mcleod’s confession was voluntary. we reverse the judgment of the court of criminal appeals and remand the case for an order or proceedings consistent with this opinion. reversed and remanded. hooper, c.j., and maddox and houston, jj., concur. almon, shores, kennedy, and butts, jj., concur in the result. 1 . miranda v. arizona, 384 u.s. 436, 86 s.ct. 1602, 16 l.ed.2d 694 (1966). 2 . there was evidence to indicate that mckissick and his girlfriend had visited mcleod's wife at mcleod’s residence; that mcleod returned home and became angry when he saw mckissick sitting at the kitchen table; that mcleod ir.1988) (<holding>); united states v. baldacchino, 762 f.2d 170, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that an officers promise to bring defendants cooperation to the attention of the prosecutor did not make confession involuntary B. holding that agents promise to inform prosecutor of defendants cooperation does not render a subsequent confession involuntary C. holding that confession was voluntary although agents had promised to inform prosecutor of defendants cooperation D. holding that federal agents indication to defendant that his cooperation would be reported to the united states attorney did not make defendants confession involuntary E. holding that cooperation was insufficient where the defendants cooperation was based on his confession to the charged crimes. Answer:

B. holding that agents promise to inform prosecutor of defendants cooperation does not render a subsequent confession involuntary

Consider the following statement: See brzonkala v. morrison, 272 f.3d 688, 692 (4th cir.2001) (rejecting the applicability of the common benefit doctrine, given that the plaintiffs did not identify a strategy for “shiftpng] costs with some exactitude to those bene-fitting” (internal quotation marks omitted)). second, the plaintiffs urge us to find attorneys’ fees appropriate because the defendants “acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.” hall, 412 u.s. at 5, 93 s.ct. 1943 (internal quotation marks omitted). however, the “bad faith” requirement has been interpreted strictly by this court. see satoskar v. indiana real estate comm’n, 517 f.2d 696, 698 (7th cir.1975) (“the standards for bad faith are necessarily stringent.”); see also singer co. v. skil corp., 803 f.2d 336, 341 (7th cir.1986) (<holding>). we find no need to liberalize the rule in Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that if the town acted in bad faith in negotiations and litigation which prevented construction then the plaintiffs on remand cannot be deemed to have lost any rights to vest that they would have been able to exercise in the absence of bad faith B. holding the bad faith rationale inapplicable given that the defendants acted in good faith in appealing the case and in raising defenses to the plaintiffs claims C. holding that bad faith includes lack of good faith in investigating the facts of a complaint D. holding the carew rule to be inapplicable to claims of insurer bad faith E. holding that use of plaintiffs mark is in good faith even though other aspects of defendants behavior may have evidenced bad faith. Answer:

B. holding the bad faith rationale inapplicable given that the defendants acted in good faith in appealing the case and in raising defenses to the plaintiffs claims

Consider the following statement: Of the patrol car. within seconds after brett jarman’s exit, six feathers ran head-on into tarrell’s vehicle. brett jar-man fired four shots at six feathers, but, as the district court noted, it is unclear whether the shots were fired “before, during, or after the collision.” mem. op. and order at 5 (july 31, 2002). six feathers died at the scene. the district court denied the summary judgment motions of brett jarman and tarrell. subsequently, based on the motions of tarrell and brett jarman, the district court issued an order of clarification because it believed its prior ord used excessive force during their seizure of six feathers “under the fourth amendment and its ‘objective reasonableness’ standard.” seiner, 304 f.3d at 812; cole v. bone, 993 f.2d 1328, 1332-33 (8th cir. 1993) (<holding>). in determining whether this use of force in Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that an initially reasonable seizure can become an unreasonable seizure that violates the fourth amendment when officers refuse to return seized property B. holding that an officer may use deadly force when a fleeing suspect threatens the officer with a weapon C. holding seizure of evidence in plain view reasonable under fourth amendment D. holding that a fourth amendment seizure of a fleeing suspect occurs only when there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied E. holding a fourth amendment seizure oceurs when an officer fatally shoots a fleeing suspect. Answer:

E. holding a fourth amendment seizure oceurs when an officer fatally shoots a fleeing suspect

Consider the following statement: Keziah v. w.m. brown & son, 888 f.2d 322 (4th cir.1989), the district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant was affirmed on plaintiffs iied claim when plaintiff alleged, among other things, that her telephone messages were withheld and used by male sales representatives to usurp her sales leads, information was secretly removed from her files and mail, and she was harassed, humiliated, and otherwise subject to an adverse employment environment. id. at 326-27 (citing hogan v. forsyth country club, 79 n.c.app. 483, 340 s.e.2d 116 (1986)). furthermore, claims of iied based upon sexual harassment generally include a combination of explicitly obscene language, sexual advances, and/or sexual touching. compare poole v. copland, inc., 348 n.c. 260, 261-62, 498 s.e.2d 602, 603 (1998) (<holding>), with guthrie v. conroy, 152 n.c.app. 15, 24, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that plaintiffs allegations that her supervisor was a lesbian and that she made improper remarks to her including telling the plaintiff to invite her to lunch and making comments about plaintiffs coworkers private lives and sexual preferences and on one occasion approaching the plaintiff from behind hugging her and whispering in her ear a request for a cookie from another table did not suffice to establish a hostile working environment B. holding that conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive where a supervisor allegedly touched plaintiffs hand and thigh lifted her dress hem repeatedly asked her to lunch told her that she was beautiful stared at her and called her home on numerous occasions at night and asked about personal matters C. holding that plaintiff could not show that he was disabled because he conceded that he could do his job despite his impairment D. holding that conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive where the female plaintiffs supervisor frequently tried to get plaintiff to date him using many direct as well as indirect propositions for sex including following her into the restroom repeated attempts to touch her breasts place his hands down her pants and pull off her pants and enlisting the assistance of others to hold her while he attempted to grope her E. recognizing an iied claim sufficient to go to a jury where defendant repeatedly used explicitly obscene language to describe what he would do to plaintiff touched his genitals in her presence while propositioning plaintiff or gesturing toward her obscenely and stood behind her with his pants unzipped suggesting he would show plaintiff what a real man felt like. Answer:

E. recognizing an iied claim sufficient to go to a jury where defendant repeatedly used explicitly obscene language to describe what he would do to plaintiff touched his genitals in her presence while propositioning plaintiff or gesturing toward her obscenely and stood behind her with his pants unzipped suggesting he would show plaintiff what a real man felt like

Consider the following statement: 16 f.3d 590 (4th cir. 1994), the fourth circuit discussed at length the purpose and intent behind the act as follows: “congress enacted emtala in response to its concern that hospitals were ‘dumping’ patients (who were) unable to pay, by either refusing to provide emergency medical treatment or transferring patients before their emergency conditions were stabilized. brooks v. maryland general hospital inc., 996 f.2d 708, 710 (4th cir. 1993). through emtala, congress sought ‘to provide an adequate first response to a medical crisis for all patients,’ baber v. hospital corp. of america, 977 f.2d 872, 880 (4th cir. 1992) (quoting 131 cong. rec. s13904 (daily ed. october 23, 1985) (statement of senator dole)); see also, brooker v. desert hospital corp., 947 f.2d 412, 415 (9th cir. 1991) (<holding>); gatewood v. washington healthcare corp., 933 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that hospital did not violate emtala by failing to follow a thrombolysis protocol because by its very terms the protocol was not expressly applicable to patients in the er B. holding that emtala applies to any and all patients C. holding that a company providing administrative purchasing and financial services to a hospital was not a hospital and thus could not be held directly liable under emtala D. holding that trial court abused its discretion in ordering chiropractor to disclose the identity of all patients that had any type of connection to the plaintiffs attorneys and to produce all billing records for services rendered to attorneys or patients E. holding that doctors do not have to accept patients. Answer:

B. holding that emtala applies to any and all patients

Consider the following statement: Explicitly and on the record as to whether mother validly intended to waive her right to contest the termination.”). if the parties were not prepared to address the issue, the trial court should have ordered a brief continuance. here, such a continuance would have given the parties an opportunity to propose arrangements for mother to participate even though she cbuld not be physically present, see ruth anne e., 1999— nmca-035, ¶¶ 28-29, 126 n.m. 670, 974 p.2d 164 to develop evidence as to whether mother had voluntarily waived her due process rights, see stella p., 1999-nmca-100, ¶¶ 30-31, 127 n.m. 699, 986 p.2d 495 or to gather evidence that reasonable efforts had been made to contact mother without success, cf. in re dependency of a.g., 93 wash. app. 268, 968 p.2d 424, 428-30 (1999) (<holding>). {13} we recognize that mother’s right to Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that mother did not waive the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by failing to raise it in her first responsive pleading ie her answer to dhrs petition to terminate her parental rights because the mother sought leave to amend her answer to include the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction dhr did not object to that motion and the juvenile court allowed the mother to amend her answer B. holding that a mother in a child protection proceeding was afforded due process when she had notice of a hearing was represented by counsel and was given the opportunity to rebut evidence C. holding mothers due process rights were not violated when her appointed counsel was allowed to withdraw and hearing was held without mother because the record showed mother did not inform counsel of her whereabouts after moving thereby frustrating counsels efforts to contact her and because mother was properly served with notice of the termination hearing D. holding indigent mothers due process rights were not violated by trial courts failure to appoint attorney ad litem for her until six months after parental termination suit was filed against her where counsel was appointed giving mother a year to prepare for trial when department of protective and regulatory services made clear its intent to pursue dualtrack of both termination and reunification E. holding that evidence was sufficient to support trial courts best interest finding where mother allowed child to be in contact with individual who had physically abused her mother was not capable of caring for child on her own mother admitted at trial she had not found stable employment and child was doing well in her current placement. Answer:

C. holding mothers due process rights were not violated when her appointed counsel was allowed to withdraw and hearing was held without mother because the record showed mother did not inform counsel of her whereabouts after moving thereby frustrating counsels efforts to contact her and because mother was properly served with notice of the termination hearing

Consider the following statement: Are distributed without affording an opportunity for creditors to present and enforce claims. id. at 965. the trust fund doctrine was developed to protect creditors who are otherwise without a remedy. bowers-siemon chemicals co. v. bowers (in re bowers-siemon chemicals co.), 139 b.r. 436, 450 (bankr.n.d.ill.1992). andeo fails to provide any legal authority to support its proposition that this doctrine applies where a debtor has filed a bankruptcy petition. furthermore, in this ease, the disputed funds were not distributed without affording andeo an opportunity to enforce its claims through the bankruptcy process. therefore, as in bowers, i conclude that the purpose of the trust fund doctrine is satisfied and the doctrine does not apply here. see, e.g., bowers, 139 b.r. at 450 (<holding>). andco’s third theory for imposing a Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing inapplicable when a witness had been deported during the period of time the defendant had been a fugitive B. holding that creditor did not have actual knowledge of the bankruptcy filing where the debtor informed creditor of the possibility that a bankruptcy case would be filed C. holding that the beneficiary of a trust was not the real party in interest regarding rights owned by the trust D. holding that an anticipated tax refund was property of the bankruptcy estate as of the date the bankruptcy case was filed E. holding that the trust fund doctrine was inapplicable where the corporation had filed bankruptcy. Answer:

E. holding that the trust fund doctrine was inapplicable where the corporation had filed bankruptcy

Consider the following statement: The expiration date of the batch.” 21 c.f.r. § 211.180(a). these records “shall be readily available for authorized inspection” by the fda at any time. 21 c.f.r. § 211.180(c). we think that the requirement to maintain records for fda inspection satisfies the requirement that the uses be reasonably related to the development and submission of information to the fda. it is not disputed by the parties that these records are produced in order to develop and submit to the fda proof that the amphastar products comply with a federal law. the fact that the fda does not in most cases actually inspect the records does not change the fact that they are for the “development and submission of information under a federal law.” 35 u.s.c. § 271(e)(1); cf. merck kgaa, 545 u.s. at 207, 125 s.ct. 2372 (<holding>). thus, we consider this information Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that class ii medical devices which are not subject to a rigorous premarket approval process and thus cannot receive patent term extensions are nonetheless covered by the safe harbor B. holding that uses which are not ultimately included in a submission to the fda are nonetheless exempted by the safe harbor C. holding that arguments which are not sufficiently developed are waived D. holding that sanctions under rule 11 are unavailable unless the motion for sanctions is served on the opposing party for the full twentyone day safe harbor period before it is filed with or presented to the court E. holding that rules which are genuinely responsive to safety concerns are exempted from preemption. Answer:

B. holding that uses which are not ultimately included in a submission to the fda are nonetheless exempted by the safe harbor

Consider the following statement: Of state laws applicable to credit card transactions, ots op. letter, no. p-96-14, 1996 wl 767462, at *5. 17 . gleich v. bongio, 128 tex. 606, 611, 99 s.w.2d 881 (1937); wierzchula v. wierzchula, 623 s.w.2d 730, 732 (tex.app.-houston [1st dist.] 1981, no writ). 18 . tex. fam. code § 3.003; richardson v. richardson, 424 s.w.3d 691, 697 (tex.app.-el paso 2014, no pet.). 19 . tex. estates code § 201.003; dakan v. dakan, 125 tex. 305, 317, 83 s.w.2d 620 (1935) (“it is, however, the rule in this state 'that the community estate passes charged with the debts against it.’ ”). 20 . tex. estates code § 453.002; shepherd v. ledford, 926 s.w.2d 405, 412-15 (tex.app.fort worth 1996), aff'd, 962 s.w.2d 28 (tex. 1998). 21 . cf. wilson v. bank of am., n.a., 48 f.supp.3d 787, 796-97 (e.d.pa.2014) Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that the surviving spouse of the borrower could not maintain a respa claim in her individual capacity because she never assumed the deceaseds loan B. holding under a similar statute ownership of property was transferred to surviving joint tenants upon the death of the joint tenant by operation of law thus defeating the homestead claim of deceaseds spouse C. holding where among other things the borrower signed confirming the transaction had not been rescinded on the date the loan closed she stated a claim for violation of tila D. holding that nonsignatory wife asserting in her individual capacity claims for damages such as her own mental anguish and loss of consortium earnings companionship society and inheritance lacked the type of privity contemplated for the contracting parties to bind her to a contract that she did not sign in her individual capacity E. holding plaintiff stated claim in his individual capacity. Answer:

A. holding that the surviving spouse of the borrower could not maintain a respa claim in her individual capacity because she never assumed the deceaseds loan

Consider the following statement: Before us, it would not salvage the day. there is nothing talismanic about the phrase “procedural harm.” a party claiming under that rúbric is not relieved from compliance with the actual injury requirement for standing. see, e.g., munoz-mendoza, 711 f.2d at 425-26 (requiring, as a precondition to standing, that plaintiffs who allege procedural harm also show “injury in fact”). thus, one who asserts procedural harm as the basis for standing must set forth particulars that serve to indicate a distinct and palpable injury. warth, 422 u.s. at 501, 95 s.ct. at 2206. put bluntly, a party must set forth a sufficient panoply of facts to show that his injury is real as opposed to being theoretical or abstract. see capital legal found. v. commodity credit corp., 711 f.2d 253, 258 (d.c.cir.1983) (<holding>). in the case of an association, this Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that hypothetical injury was insufficient for standing B. holding that to have standing a plaintiff must establish an injury in fact a casual connection between the injury and that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision C. holding that allegation of procedural injury does not affect the issues of injury in fact or causation D. holding that because fact of injury was a distinct question from quantum of injury common proof could establish classwide injury even though amount of damage to each plaintiff was uncertain E. holding that a plaintiffs claim of injury stemming from alleged procedural harm is insufficient to ground standing where the harm is uncoupled from any injury in fact or tied only to an undifferentiated injury common to all members of the public. Answer:

E. holding that a plaintiffs claim of injury stemming from alleged procedural harm is insufficient to ground standing where the harm is uncoupled from any injury in fact or tied only to an undifferentiated injury common to all members of the public

Consider the following statement: The application of law to undisputed fact are reviewed de novo. see salimatou bah v. mukasey, 529 f.3d 99, 110 (2d cir.2008). as an initial matter, because huang fails to challenge the agency’s denial of his claim for cat relief before this court, any such challenge is deemed waived. see yueqing zhang v. gonzales, 426 f.3d 540, 545 n. 7 (2d cir.2005). regarding huang’s asylum and withholding claims, we find that the agency reasonably concluded that huang was not eligible for relief as a result of his mother’s sterilization. see shao yan chen v. u.s. dep’t of justice, 417 f.3d 303, 305 (2d cir.2005) (determining that “the children of those victimized by coercive family planning policies” are not per se eligible for asylum); see also tao jiang v. gonzales, 500 f.3d 137, 141 (2d cir.2007) (<holding>). in addition, huang does not challenge the Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. recognizing that the harm suffered by family members in combination with other factors would presumably only be persecution where the applicant not only shares or is perceived to share the characteristic that motivated persecutors to harm the family members but was also within the zone of risk when the family member was harmed and suffered some continuing hardship after the incident B. holding that absent a pattern of persecution linked to the applicant persecution of family members is insufficient to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of persecution C. holding that an asylum applicant cannot claim past persecution based solely on the harm that was inflicted on a family member on account of that family members political opinion or other protected characteristic D. recognizing that an applicant may be able to demonstrate persecution based on persecution of family members where the applicant shares the characteristic that motivated persecutors to harm the family member was in the zone of risk when the family member was harmed and suffered some continuing hardship after the incident citing jorgetzoc v gonzales 435 f3d 146 150 2d cir2006 E. holding that an alien cannot claim asylum based on persecution that is personally motivated. Answer:

C. holding that an asylum applicant cannot claim past persecution based solely on the harm that was inflicted on a family member on account of that family members political opinion or other protected characteristic

Consider the following statement: That the unmarketability of one person’s title should not delay the payment of other entitled parties’ royalties, but it is not clear whether the unmarketa-bility of part of one person’s title justifies a delay in paying the rest of that same person’s proceeds. while the issue is not free from doubt, we believe that the arkansas supreme court would not interpret this provision as excusing a delay in the payment of royalties on the interest in which howell’s title was marketable. see wright, the arkansas law of oil and gas, 10 u.ark. little rock l.j. 5, 25 (1987-88) (“the arkansas supreme court is likely to interpret section 53-525 in favor of the ... party entitled to receive lease proceeds” (citing, e.g., txo prod. corp. v. first nat’l bank, 288 ark. 338, 705 s.w.2d 423, 424-25 (1986) (<holding>)). this is a case of “a company ... withholding Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that a notice of claim period did not begin to run until discovery of the injury B. holding the sixyear limitations period begins to run upon date that payment is made C. holding that the statute does not begin to run until at least a demand has been made upon the government but determining that the facts of that case made it unnecessary to choose between the date of demand and the date of actual payment as the triggering date for the running of the statute of limitations D. holding that the time limits in section 53525 begin to run as soon as the oil or gas is delivered not when payment is actually made E. holding that because an indemnitor is not liable until the indemnitee actually makes payment interest does not accrue until the payment is made. Answer:

D. holding that the time limits in section 53525 begin to run as soon as the oil or gas is delivered not when payment is actually made

Consider the following statement: Servs., l.p. v. perez, 792 f.3d 554, 560 (5th cir. 2015). to the extent that the award is based merely on repeated filings, it is unclear that a court’s inherent powers can do the same work as rule 41(d), which is necessarily backward-looking. rule 41(d) concerns the award of costs from a previous action. in contrast, a court's inherent power gives it the "authority to impose sanctions in order to control the litigation before it." positive software sols., inc. v. new century mortg. cotp., 619 f.3d 458, 460 (5th cir. 2010) (quotation marks and 'citation omitted) (emphasis added). this court has repeatedly vacated sanctions that punish conduct that did not occur in front of the district court: see, e.g., matter of case, 937 f.2d 1014, 1023-24 (5th cir. 1991); positive, 619 f.3d at 463 (<holding>); fdic v. maxxam, inc., 523 f.3d 566, 593-94 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that unless that power is restricted by the principal an agent under a california statutory healthcare power of attorney has the power to execute applicable admission forms including arbitration agreements B. recognizing inherent power of federal district court to sanction conduct abusive of judicial process C. holding that monetary sanction was not supportable as a compensatory civil contempt sanction because there was no proof of the amount of loss D. holding that the court had no power to sanction conduct that occurred in an arbitration E. holding that trial courts have the power to sanction parties for bad faith abuse of the judicial process not covered by rule or statute. Answer:

D. holding that the court had no power to sanction conduct that occurred in an arbitration

Consider the following statement: The trial itself only lasted two days, and was followed by two telephone conferences and two in-person hearings. on the other hand, the city heavily litigated this case, particularly after it lost at trial, requiring the church to respond in kind. the court will bear these factors in mind, as well. c. results obtained a major dispute between the parties is whether and to what extent any fee award should be reduced or enhanced. after calculating the appropriate rate and number of hours worked, “the court has the opportunity to adjust the lodestar to account for other considerations that have not yet figured into the computation, the most important being the relation of the results obtained to the work done.” dillard, 213 f.3d at 1353; see hensley, 461 u.s. at 436, 103 s.ct. 1933 (<holding>). in rare or exceptional cases, like those Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that issues not raised in the trial court may not be raised later on appeal B. holding that the transaction must be fair and equitable and in good faith C. holding claims must be raised on direct appeal or waived D. holding that defense may only be raised in context of negligent failure to warn claims E. holding that a fee application based on claims that were interrelated nonfrivolous and raised in good faith may still be excessive where the applicant achieved only partial or limited success. Answer:

E. holding that a fee application based on claims that were interrelated nonfrivolous and raised in good faith may still be excessive where the applicant achieved only partial or limited success

Consider the following statement: Court rejects the debtor’s argument that the reimbursement debt is invalid. b. constitutional defenses 1. ex post facto first, the debtor argues that the retroactive application of the 1990 aso is an ex post facto law in violation of the constitution. this argument is flawed because the ex post facto clause applies only to criminal cases or punitive legislation. see, e.g., galvan v. press, 347 u.s. 522, 531, 74 s.ct. 737, 98 l.ed. 911 (1954); bugajewitz v. adams, 228 u.s. 585, 590, 33 s.ct. 607, 57 l.ed. 978 (1913); huffman v. commonwealth, 210 va. 530, 172 s.e.2d 788, 789 (1970) (“[t]he constitutional prohibition against an ex post facto law applies to criminal proceedings and not to civil proceedings.”); see also rainey v. city of norfolk, 14 va.app. 968, 421 s.e.2d 210, 213 (1992) (<holding>). in the instant case, the debtor contends that Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that parole guidelines are subject to the ex post facto clause B. holding that because of its civil nature section 881 is not subject to the ex post facto clause C. holding that the ex post facto clause did not apply because the civil contempt citation was not punitive D. holding that the ex post facto clause has no application to deportation E. holding that the supreme courts ex post facto precedents do not clearly establish that amended section 29336 violates the ex post facto clause. Answer:

C. holding that the ex post facto clause did not apply because the civil contempt citation was not punitive

Consider the following statement: Of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, and the me or benefit need not necessarily be commercial.” zacchini v. scripps-howard broadcasting co., 47 ohio st.2d 224, ¶ 1, 351 n.e.2d 454 of syllabus (ohio 1976), rev’d on other grounds, 433 u.s. 562, 97 s.ct. 2849, 53 l.ed.2d 965 (1977) (emphasis added). thus, ohio law prohibits the publication of another’s name or likeness in a commercial use that draws from that persons “reputation, prestige, or other value associated with him, for purposes of publicity.” id. at 231, 351 n.e.2d 454. nevertheless, several exceptions exist to this common law right. first, incidental use of one’s name or likeness is permissible. see e.g., vinci v. american can company, 69 ohio app.3d 727, 591 n.e.2d 793 (ohio 1990) (<holding>) second, one’s name and appearance, in and of Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that member of a large class of health care providers available to the insured was only a potential and incidental beneficiary of the contract and thus not entitled to recover thereunder B. holding that informational blurbs about charles vinci the 1956 and 1960 weightlifting olympic gold medalist on dixie cups was merely incidental to the promotion of the dixie cups and thus permissible C. holding that service and notice in a technical sense are incidental where the main purpose of obtaining the appearance of parties and their participation is accomplished D. holding that the mention of olympic athletes names was incidental to the promotion of dixie cups and thus not a violation of ohios common law right of appropriation because the use was purely informational and there was no implication that the athletes used supported or promoted the product E. holding that an incidental beneficiary does not have standing to sue for breach of a contract. Answer:

B. holding that informational blurbs about charles vinci the 1956 and 1960 weightlifting olympic gold medalist on dixie cups was merely incidental to the promotion of the dixie cups and thus permissible

Consider the following statement: V. dobrayel (in re dobrayel), 287 b.r. 3, 12 (bankr. s.d.n.y. 2002)). as to the second criteria under section 523(a)(2)(a), false representation requires that the defendant “(1) made a false or misleading statement; (2) with the intent to deceive; and (3) in order for the plaintiff to turn over money or property to the defendant.” in re chase, 372 b.r. at 129 (citing in re dobrayel, 287 b.r. at 12). “‘[i]ntent to deceive may be established through circumstantial evidence and inferred from the totality of the evidence presented.” id. (citing h.k. deposit & guar. ltd. v. shaheen (in re shaheen), 111 b.r. 48, 53 (s.d.n.y. 1990)). the plaintiff must also establish that his reliance was justifiable. id.; see also field v. mans, 516 u.s. 59, 61, 70-72, 116 s.ct. 437, 133 l.ed.2d 351 (1995) (<holding>). whether justifiable reliance is established Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that a creditors reliance under 523a2a need only be subjectively justified and not objectively reasonable B. holding no justifiable reliance as a matter of law C. holding standard under section 523a2a is justifiable reliance D. holding that 523a2a requires justifiable but not reasonable reliance E. holding that in fraud and nondisclosure claims a plaintiff must show actual and justifiable reliance. Answer:

C. holding standard under section 523a2a is justifiable reliance

Consider the following statement: Behavior by failing to investigate or to take any remedial measures following mr. loy’s arrest. although the failure to investigate may give rise to § 1983 supervisory liability, walker v. norris, 917 f.2d 1449, 1457 (6th cir.1990) marchese v. lucas, 758 f.2d 181, 188 (6th cir.1985), no sua sponte investigation by sexton was warranted here. the reports describing the arrest, including statements by deputy elliott and the two children’s services workers, do not indicate that elliott used excessive force or unlawfully entered the loy residence. in the absence of a “strong” indication of unconstitutional conduct, sexton’s failure to conduct an investigation was reasonable and he cannot be hable as a supervisor under § 1983. see doe v. city of roseville, 296 f.3d 431, 439 (6th cir.2002) (<holding>). moreover, unlike márchese, 758 f.2d at 188, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding employer may be hable for sexual harassment of employee by independent contractor B. holding that supervisors were not hable because they possessed no information indicating a strong likelihood of unconstitutional conduct by their subordinate C. holding that supervisors are not personally hable as employers under the adea either D. holding that deliberate indifference is not the mere possibility a harm will occur rather a strong likelihood E. holding that plaintiffs necessarily demonstrated irreparable harm because they showed a substantial likelihood that their first amendment rights had been infringed. Answer:

B. holding that supervisors were not hable because they possessed no information indicating a strong likelihood of unconstitutional conduct by their subordinate

Consider the following statement: Judge byrd’s july 13, 2007 order, imposing sanctions under super. ct. dom. rel. r. 11 for his filing of the 2007 complaint for custody. the sanctions against both upson and merkle were imposed in the form of an attorney’s fee award to wallace, who proceeded pro se in both matters. we address the two appeals together because both require the resolution of a common issue: whether a trial court can impose a sanction of attorney’s fees, pursuant to the court’s inherent power or pursuant to super. ct. dom. rel. r. 11, to be awarded to an attorney appearing pro se as a litigant. we hold that it cannot. sanctions under superior court domestic relations rule 11 super. ct. dom. rel. r. 11 sanctions are available when a “pleading, motion, or other paper” that is sig 3d 1365, 1375 (fed.cir.2002) (<holding>). we are persuaded by the foregoing authorities Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. 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 B. holding that the language of fed rcivp 37 a rule that allows for sanctions regarding discovery violations does not allow a pro se lawyer to receive fees for his own time C. holding that a motion for rule 37 sanctions is dispositive D. holding that new jersey rule patterned on fed r civ p 11 precludes a pro se attorney litigant from receiving attorneys fees because such fees are not actually incurred E. holding that california rule modeled almost word for word on rule 11 of the federal rules of civil procedure does not allow a pro se attorney litigant to recover sanctions in the form of an award of attorneys fees. Answer:

B. holding that the language of fed rcivp 37 a rule that allows for sanctions regarding discovery violations does not allow a pro se lawyer to receive fees for his own time

Consider the following statement: Up and documenting the fish kill, and any future costs associated with stream restoration. having found pfbc meets the findley factors, we now address the specific question of whether pfbc, as an agency of the commonwealth of pennsylvania, has statutory authority and/or implicit power to bring a cause of action in west virginia under west virginia common law. pfbc’s authority to bring this action must be either expressly conferred by the legislature or given by necessary implication. see commonwealth v. am. ice co., 406 pa. 322, 178 a.2d 768, 773 (1962) (“only those powers within the legislative grant, either express or necessarily implied, can be exercised by the administrative body.”); see also tex. mun. power agency v. pub. util. comm’n of tex., 253 s.w.3d 184, 192 (tex.2007) (<holding>) powers expressly conferred by the legislature; Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. recognizing a state agencys powers are limited to 1 B. holding that deference is owed to state agencys interpretation of state law C. holding that judicial review of an administrative agencys decision is limited solely to whether given the relevant standard and facts the agencys decision was arbitrary illegal capricious or unreasonable D. recognizing that state agencies which are independent of the state are citizens of the state E. recognizing separation of powers doctrine. Answer:

A. recognizing a state agencys powers are limited to 1

Consider the following statement: The jury.”). this is particularly true where the arrest occurred on january 31, 2007, over four years prior to the incident which gave rise to this action. accordingly, evidence of goodman’s prior arrest to establish that she in fact engaged in acts of prostitution is excluded. in addition to using this evidence to establish truthfulness of any alleged defamatory statements, defendants also seek its admission on the question of defamation damages. although goodman’s, san diego arrest may be minimally relevant to her reputation at the time she was detained at the cosmopolitan, reputational damage is presumed in a slander per se action like this one, as explained below in the court’s discussion of goodman’s defamation claim. see branda v. sanford, 97 nev. 643, 637 p.2d 1223, 1225 (1981) (<holding>). this is because “[a]t the heart of the libel- Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. recognizing distinction between actual and per se conflicts of interest B. holding that under south carolina law slander is actionable per se where plaintiff is alleged to have committed adultery C. holding that statements that insinuated that plaintiff was an adulteress were actionable as slander per se under missouri law D. recognizing that slander per se is actionable without a showing of actual or special damages E. recognizing continued vitality of kassowitz on what is slander per se. Answer:

D. recognizing that slander per se is actionable without a showing of actual or special damages

Consider the following statement: S. kreindler et al., 15 n.y. practice series, n.y. law of torts § 12:38 (2013) (“a restaurant owner, as a landowner, has a duty to make the premises reasonably safe for persons on the property. accordingly, a restaurant owner must take appropriate measures to protect persons on the premises from foreseeable criminal acts of third persons.”). evidence of prior criminal acts sufficiently similar to the instant act can demonstrate foreseeability. see, e.g., maysonet v. kfc, nat’l mgmt. co., 906 f.2d 929, 931 (2d cir.1990); jacqueline s. v. city of new york, 81 n.y.2d 288, 295, 598 n.y.s.2d 160, 163, 614 n.e.2d 723 (1993). here, gray adduced evidence that she was physically assaulted by a group of loud and profane customers whom she asked to be quiet 584 n.y.s.2d 64, 64 (1st dep’t 1992) (<holding>). nor is it a case in which the prior assaults Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that no seizure occurred where officers boarded bus and began questioning passengers gave passengers no reason to believe that they required an answer and tjhere was no application of force no intimidating movement no overwhelming show of force no brandishing of weapons no blocking of exits no threat no command not even an authoritative tone of voice B. holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify C. holding that a plaintiff had no injury in fact and consequently no standing when it had no enforceable contract right against the defendant D. holding in a similar factual situation that the bankruptcy court had no jurisdiction because it had no actual or constructive possession of the letters of credit involved E. holding that defendant had no duty where tjhere was no evidence of a pattern of criminal activity or of even one similar incident involving different patrons. Answer:

E. holding that defendant had no duty where tjhere was no evidence of a pattern of criminal activity or of even one similar incident involving different patrons

Consider the following statement: And the substantive basis” for the claims it asserts under counts i (unconstitutional vagueness), count iii (violation of the administrative procedures act), and count iv (procedural due process violation). in salfi, the court held the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge to an eligibility statute was a claim arising under the act within the meaning of § 405(h) even though the claim also arose under the constitution. likewise, in ringer, the court held the plaintiffs’ claim that the secretary failed to comply with the rulemaking requirements of the administrative procedures act arose under the medicare act within the meaning of § 405(h). 466 u.s. at 614, 104 s.ct. at 2021. see also good samaritan medical ctr. v. secretary of health and human serv., 776 f.2d 594, 597-98 (6th cir.1985) (<holding>); livingston care ctr., 934 f.2d at 722 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding hospitals equal protection claim arises under the medicare act B. holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause C. holding that an equal protection claim was no more than a first amendment claim dressed in equal protection clothing and was thus subsumed by and coextensive with the first amendment claim D. holding that the state law violated equal protection principles E. holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection. Answer:

A. holding hospitals equal protection claim arises under the medicare act

Consider the following statement: This opinion. cayce, c.j.; holman and mccoy, jj., dissent without opinion. 1 . ford v. state, 158 s.w.3d 488, 493 (tex.crim.app.2005); carmouche v. state, 10 s.w.3d 323, 327 (tex.crim.app.2000). 2 . romero v. state, 800 s.w.2d 539, 543 (tex.crim.ap officers' information that described vehicle, including license number, contained parole violator constituted reasonable suspicion to check for warrants). 61 . see wong sun v. united states, 371 u.s. 471, 484-85, 83 s.ct. 407, 415-16, 9 l.ed.2d 441 (1963); see also tex.code crim. proc. ann. art. 38.23(a) (vernon 2005). 62 . neese v. state, 930 s.w.2d 792, 801 (tex.app.-beaumont 1996, pet. ref'd) (citing wong sun, 371 u.s. at 488, 83 s.ct. at 417). 63 . see quick v. state, 999 s.w.2d 79, 80-81 (tex.app.-houston [14th dist.] 1999, no pet.) (<holding>). 64 . see domingo v. state, 82 s.w.3d 617, 622 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that claims for false arrest and imprisonment under 1983 accrue at the time of the arrest B. holding evidence legally insufficient C. holding that evidence was legally insufficient to support statutory fraud finding because appellant was not actually aware of real estate agents misrepresentations D. holding that because appellant was not under arrest or detained at time he gave officer a false name the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction for failure to identify E. holding evidence was legally insufficient to support conviction for violation of sex offender registration requirement. Answer:

D. holding that because appellant was not under arrest or detained at time he gave officer a false name the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction for failure to identify

Consider the following statement: Issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. see fed.r.civ.p. 56(c). a court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. see matsushita elec. indus. v. zenith radio corp., 475 u.s. 574, 587, 106 s.ct. 1348, 89 l.ed.2d 538 (1986). the burden of showing an absence of a genuine issue of material fact is initially on the moving party. see celotex corp. v. catrett, 477 u.s. 3 996) (allowing a malicious prosecution claim to proceed under § 1983). while the third circuit has held that a plaintiff must have been "seized” in order to proceed with a malicious prosecution claim under section 1983, it has set a very low threshold for a finding of seizure. see gallo v. city of philadelphia, 161 f.3d 217, 222 (3d cir.1998) (<holding>). gatter’s post-indictment restrictions, which Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that postindictment restrictions on the plaintiff such as requiring him to post a bond attend all court hearings contact pretrial services on a weekly basis and prohibiting him from traveling outside of new jersey constituted seizure for the purpose of a section 1983 malicious prosecution claim B. holding the same for malicious prosecution C. holding that a 1983 due process claim that essentially contests the fairness of the plaintiffs prosecution is similar to his malicious prosecution claim and claims resembling malicious prosecution do not accrue until the prosecution has terminated in the plaintiffs favor D. holding that section 1983 claims alleging due process violations stemming from malicious prosecution are unavailable when a state malicious prosecution action exists E. holding that a plaintiffs allegations that the defendant seized him pursuant to legal process that was not supported by probable cause and that the criminal proceedings terminated in his favor are sufficient to state a 1983 malicious prosecution claim alleging a seizure that was violative of the fourth amendment. Answer:

A. holding that postindictment restrictions on the plaintiff such as requiring him to post a bond attend all court hearings contact pretrial services on a weekly basis and prohibiting him from traveling outside of new jersey constituted seizure for the purpose of a section 1983 malicious prosecution claim

Consider the following statement: Alleges that an unauthorized surgical procedure was performed, the burden is on plaintiff to prove that the operation that was performed was not authorized by him). in appellants’ view, by proving that the “contact” or “touching” was not consented to, the patient establishes that it was “offensive,” which is sufficient to make the unauthorized surgery a de facto battery. thus, they conclude, there is no need to instruct the jury on the elements of an “actual” battery. appellants further argue that the trial court’s jury charge requiring proof of the surgeon’s intent to harm is inconsistent with well-settled case law establishing that a patient may pursue a claim for lack of consent even where no physical injury resulted from the unauthorized surgery. see montgomery, 798 a.2d at 749 (<holding>). additionally, appellants point out that the Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that courts lack jurisdiction to address merits of a claim where party raising the claim is found to lack standing to maintain suit B. holding that a lack of consent claim is actionable even if the subject surgery was properly performed and the overall result is beneficial C. holding that lack of justiciable interest resulted in lack of standing to pursue claim and that lack of standing deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to act D. holding that lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent E. holding that claim for sons suicide was not actionable. Answer:

B. holding that a lack of consent claim is actionable even if the subject surgery was properly performed and the overall result is beneficial

Consider the following statement: Of columbia. see travelers indem. co., 321 a.2d at 150-51 (noting that, under maryland law, loss of consortium is deemed an injury to the marital relationship and not an independent tort); carey v. foster, 345 f.2d 772, 776 (4th cir.1965) (noting that virginia does not recognize cause of action for loss of consortium). however, no choice of law problem is presented because the law of consortium in maryland and virginia is less favorable to fetisoff’s "arising out of’ argument than district of columbia law. thus, the law of the relevant jurisdictions is not "different,” see eli lilly & co., 764 f.2d at 882, because the result reached is the same no matter which jurisdiction’s view of consortium is applied. 8 . see rollins v. district of columbia, 265 f.2d 347, 349 (d.c.cir.1959) (<holding>). 9 . 211 cal.app.3d 431, 259 cal.rptr. 382 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. recognizing that loss of consortium is a right of action separate from that of the spouse B. holding that wifes recovery for loss of consortium should not be reduced by the proportion of negligence attributable to husband because claim for loss of consortium is independent of the damages claim of the injured spouse C. holding that recovery for loss of consortium is a right separate and apart from right of injured spouse to receive compensation for personal injuries D. holding that plaintiffs claim for loss of consortium can proceed even where the injured spouse was contributorily negligent E. holding that a loss of consortium is separate and independent from the primary action. Answer:

C. holding that recovery for loss of consortium is a right separate and apart from right of injured spouse to receive compensation for personal injuries

Consider the following statement: Doggett, 663 a.2d at 517 n. 8, and we “will not question” the value fixed by the appraiser that the parties have chosen “in the absence of fraud or mistake.” id. at 515. however, when an appraiser must interpret the meaning of a legal document — a contract between parties — before he may perform his appraisal, that interpretation is subject to judicial review. a court “will defer to the appraiser’s interpretation of the lease as long as it is reasonable and does not exceed the appraiser’s authority,” doggett, 663 a.2d at 516, but the court noted in marceron that unlike the actual appraisal of value, which is accorded deference, an appraiser’s interpretation of his instructions as set forth in a contract is “clothed with no presumption of correctness.” marceron, 258 f.2d at 158 (<holding>). the interest that the parties intended the Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that the damage for tenancy at sufferance during the holdover period was the monthly rent under the lease versus the apartments fair market value because the lease contained a provision requiring lease payments beyond the lease term B. holding that the appraisers interpretation of the lease was unreasonable on its face because they had appraised the value of a single lot instead of the entire tract contrary to the language of the lease C. holding that former employees of a brokerage firm who had a contractual right to a share of any commission received by the firm upon extension of a lease were not entitled to a share of the commission received when the landlord and tenant entered an amendment to the lease which extended the duration but also added new terms this was a new lease not an extension of the prior lease D. holding that the lessors interest in the leased property was subject to liens because it was perfectly obvious that the parties knew that the improvements at issue were the pith of the lease and that except for them the lease would not have been executed and because the improvements were essential to the purpose of the lease E. recognizing that a lease providing for renewal at the termination of the lease did not require the lessee to exercise the option before the lease expired nor did it require renewal at the precise hour of termination but gave the lessee a reasonable time after the termination of the lease in which to make his election. Answer:

B. holding that the appraisers interpretation of the lease was unreasonable on its face because they had appraised the value of a single lot instead of the entire tract contrary to the language of the lease

Consider the following statement: Under the doctrine of respondeat superior.”)). ¶ 25 the liberal construction afforded workers’ compensation legislation exists because arizona’s workers’ compensation act is remedial legislation enacted to protect employees injured in the course of their employment. hopkins, 176 ariz. at 177, 859 p.2d at 800 (citing goodyear aircraft corp. v. indus. comm’n, 62 ariz. 398, 402-03, 158 p.2d 511, 513 (1945)). in fact, where doubt exists as to the proper construction, courts in workers’ compensation eases should adopt the construction that will best effectuate the purpose of compensating the claimant for his disability. id. (citing bonnin v. indus. comm’n, 6 ariz.app. 317, 320, 432 p.2d 283, 286 (1967)); see also aitken v. indus. comm’n, 183 ariz. 387, 392, 904 p.2d 456, 461 (1995) (<holding>). consequently, in workers’ compensation cases, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. recognizing that the waiver rule is procedural not jurisdictional and we may suspend it in our discretion citations omitted B. holding that the workers compensation act is to be liberally construed in the employees favor and any doubt in its construction is thus resolved in favor of the employee C. holding that where the existence of one or more of the essential elements of standing depends on the unfettered choices made by independent actors not before the courts and whose exercise of broad and legitimate discretion the courts cannot presume either to control or to predict it becomes the burden of the plaintiff to adduce facts showing that those choices have been or will be made in such manner as to produce causation and permit redressability of injury internal quotation marks and citations omitted D. recognizing that we have consistently applied workers compensation laws liberally remedially and in a manner insuring that injured employees receive maximum available benefits and the overriding theme of the system as evidenced by our constitution statutes and case law has been to preserve a claimants opportunity to be made whole to the fullest possible extentnothing more or less citations omitted E. holding that the workers compensation act is to be liberally construed and reasonable doubts as to construction are to be resolved in favor of coverage. Answer:

D. recognizing that we have consistently applied workers compensation laws liberally remedially and in a manner insuring that injured employees receive maximum available benefits and the overriding theme of the system as evidenced by our constitution statutes and case law has been to preserve a claimants opportunity to be made whole to the fullest possible extentnothing more or less citations omitted

Consider the following statement: Does not dispute that the medical reports and corresponding twcc-69 forms are privileged under the medical practice act and the right to privacy, we hold that the documents are not discoverable and thus, we need not decide whether the litigation exception applies. here, locke seeks medical reports relating to thousands of non-party claimants without their consent. he argues that the physician-patient privilege and right to privacy do not preclude him from obtaining redacted twcc-69 forms like the ones he offered below. however, “merely because a person ... has filed a claim with an insurance company does not necessarily mean the person ... has consented to making his medical records public.” see in re dolezal, 970 s.w.2d 650, 652-53 (tex.app. — corpus christi, 1998, orig. proceeding) (<holding>). likewise, to the extent that other documents, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that court was required to award an attorneys billing rate where defendant had submitted no evidence on fees B. holding attorneys testimony on all work performed sufficient to support attorneys fees award even though no time records presented C. holding that failure to produce supporting documentation regarding billing statements of counsel after an order to was a factor in denying requested attorneys fees D. holding that emtala applies to any and all patients E. holding that trial court abused its discretion in ordering chiropractor to disclose the identity of all patients that had any type of connection to the plaintiffs attorneys and to produce all billing records for services rendered to attorneys or patients. Answer:

E. holding that trial court abused its discretion in ordering chiropractor to disclose the identity of all patients that had any type of connection to the plaintiffs attorneys and to produce all billing records for services rendered to attorneys or patients

Consider the following statement: Is shown by motive of partiality, prejudice or oppres sion, or is induced by corruption. state v. loewe, 756 s.w.2d 177, 184 (mo.app.1988). similarly, a sentencing court has great discretion in applying section 558.046. section 558.046 states “the sentencing court may reduce any term of sentence or probation pronounced by the court or a term of conditional release or parole pronounced by the state board of probation and parole ...” the use of the word “may” is indicative of the amount of discretion a sentencing court has in regards to sentence reduction. under the current statute, the sentencing court is not even required to consider sentence reduction, but has a right to do so. see state v. simmons, 660 s.w.2d 319, 320 (mo.app.1983); benson v. state, 504 s.w.2d 74, 76 (mo.1974) (<holding>). in addition to a reduction of any term of Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that the trial court is required to enter sentencing order for probation violation that reflects the trial courts oral pronouncement that gives the defendant prison credit for time served on a split sentence prior to sentencing B. holding that probation is not a sentence C. holding a sentencing court is not required to grant probation D. holding that revocation of probation is merely an extension of a sentencing proceeding E. holding that upon revocation of probation a court must grant credit for time served on probation and community control towards any newly imposed term of imprisonment and probation so that the total period of control probation and imprisonment does not exceed the statutory maximum. Answer:

C. holding a sentencing court is not required to grant probation

Consider the following statement: A particular degree, license, or education. id.; leaf, 590 n.w.2d at 535 (“[n]o particular education is required; experience is sufficient to qualify a witness as an expert.”); hutchison v. am. family mut. ins. co., 514 n.w.2d 882, 886 (iowa 1994) (“although licensing carries a presumption of qualification to testify in the given field, ‘learning and experience may provide the essential elements of qualifica tion.’” (quoting ganrud v. smith, 206 n.w.2d 311, 315 (iowa 1973))). rule 5.702 does not impose a requirement for how an expert is to become qualified and does not distinguish between whether an expert is qualified or unqualified based on whether he or she belongs to a particular profession or has a particular degree. ranes, 778 n.w.2d at 689; see also hutchison, 514 n.w.2d at 888 (<holding>). moreover, the witness does not need to be a Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that refugees who have already acquired lpr status are ineligible for a 209c waiver in light of the language in that adjustment of status can be granted to an alien who has not acquired permanent resident status B. holding that no tax liens may attach to property after the fdic acquired title C. recognizing expertise acquired through experience is every bit as good as expertise acquired academically D. holding statute requiring dealers to keep records of all motor vehicles acquired as junk is lawful E. holding that equity acquired due to improving property is subject to cap. Answer:

C. recognizing expertise acquired through experience is every bit as good as expertise acquired academically

Consider the following statement: Agreement constituted a contract, through which appellants ratified a prior transaction. therefore, even if the cfa note and mortgage were in fact invalid, appellants’ argument would still fail because a ratification of a former transaction is clearly not a transfer within the meaning of the fraudulent conveyance statutes. by the time ratification occurs, the unauthorized or voidable transfer transaction has already been completed and, at that point, may only be voided or ratified. see in re best prods. co., inc., 168 b.r. 35, 57 (bankr.s.d.n.y.1994) (“a fraudulent transfer is not void, but voidable; thus, it can be ratified by a creditor who is then estopped from seeking its avoidance.”); see also cohen v. treuhold capital group, llc (in re cohen), 422 b.r. 350, 371 (e.d.n.y.2010) (<holding>). when appellants executed the agreement, any Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that a principal is bound by a contract entered into by the principals agent on her behalf if the agent had authority to bind the principal B. holding that questioning of a juvenile by a principal in presence of a police officer did not constitute an interrogation because principal was sole questioner and was not acting as an agent for police C. holding that defendant was not an agent because alleged principal did not control means by which the defendants accomplished their duties D. holding that subsequent to a judicial sale the report of the sale must be made to and ratified by the court before a deed for the property is given by the trustee to the purchaser E. holding that an unauthorized property transfer effectuated by an agent and not evidenced by a signed writing could be subsequently ratified by the principal. Answer:

E. holding that an unauthorized property transfer effectuated by an agent and not evidenced by a signed writing could be subsequently ratified by the principal

Consider the following statement: F.2d at 400. quarles also claims that the law firm seeks recovery on a sworn account under section 38.001(7) and that such recovery is not available because the law firm did not present the proper affidavit necessary for recovery under a sworn account. we need not inquire as to whether the affidavit in the record is somehow deficient so as not to satisfy tex.r.civ.p. 185, since we hold that the law firm need not seek recovery of attorneys' fees only under section 38.-001(7), as section 38.001(1) allows recovery of attorneys' fees on a claim for "rendered services," section 38.001(2) on a claim for "performed labor," and section 38.001(8) on a claim for "oral or written contract." see youngblood v. wilson & cureton, 321 s.w.2d 887, 888 (tex.civ.app.-fort worth 1959, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (<holding>). b. as stated earlier, the law firm's Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that an attorneys services were personal services rendered or labor done under the predecessor statute to section 38001 B. holding that an attorneys cause for services rendered over a period of time accrued when his services had been completely performed C. holding fees mandatory under predecessor statute of 38001 D. holding defendant could not recover attorneys fees under predecessor to statute 38001 when defendant did not present contract claim E. holding that predecessor to section 38001 codified with no changes as section 38001 et seq contained no requirement that the contract sued upon have a provision providing for attorneys fees. Answer:

A. holding that an attorneys services were personal services rendered or labor done under the predecessor statute to section 38001

Consider the following statement: Given the defendant, a foreign state to be served under section 1608(a), was insufficient to meet the requirements of the fsia. see also shen v. japan airlines, 918 f.supp. 686, 692 (s.d.n.y.1994). the seventh circuit similarly required strict compliance under section 1608(a) in alberti v. empresa nicaraguense de la carne, 705 f.2d 250, 253 (7th cir.1983). in that case, noting that section 1608(a) “delineates the ‘exclusive procedures’ for effecting service of process upon a foreign state,” the court refused to excuse the plaintiffs service on the nicaraguan ambassador in lieu of the head of the foreign affairs ministry. see also magnus elec., inc., v. royal bank of canada, 620 f.supp. 387, 389 (n.d.ill.1985), aff'd in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 830 f.2d 1396 (7th cir.1987) (<holding>). the district of columbia circuit, holding Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that noncompliance with the fsiajs literal requirements though it certainly did provide notice deprives this court of personal jurisdiction B. holding that where it was erroneous for the district court to take judicial notice it certainly cannot be said that such notice was mandatory and therefore ire 201d is inapplicable C. holding that an effective notice of appeal must be filed for this court to have jurisdiction to hear the case D. holding that at a bare minimum the district court was required to provide a pro se prisoner with fair notice of the summary judgment rule requirements E. holding that late notice of the bond did not excuse supplier from its obligation to comply with statutory notice requirements. Answer:

A. holding that noncompliance with the fsiajs literal requirements though it certainly did provide notice deprives this court of personal jurisdiction

Consider the following statement: 697, 698, 759 p.2d 335, 336 (1988) (per curiam) (“there is no authority, statutory or otherwise, that allows avoidance of the will contest limitation by designating an action as one on a claim or for a declaratory judgment based on purported invalidity of a will.”); lipsey v. lipsey, 660 s.w.2d 149, 150 (tex.app.1983) (“[w]e hold the validity of the entire will cannot be ques tioned through a declaratory judgment proceeding.”); howard hughes med. inst. v. lummis, 596 s.w.2d 171, 173 (tex.civ.app.1980) (“to allow the declaratory judgment mechanism to determine the validity of hhmi’s claim that a valid will exists would impermissibly subvert the statutory scheme and time limitations established by the probate code.”); henry v. cottingham, 253 s.c. 286, 293, 170 s.e.2d 387, 391 (1969) (<holding>); farthing v. farthing, 235 n.c. 634, 635, 70 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that an action challenging the validity of a will may not be brought under ohios declaratory judgment act B. holding that the declaratory judgment act is remedial only and the party seeking declaratory relief must have an underlying cause of action C. holding that a claim for a declaratory judgment which sought nullification of a probate courts orders is precisely the type of claim encompassed by the rookerfeldman doctrine D. holding that south carolinas declaratory judgment act is not a vehicle for the nullification of such instruments nor is it a substitute or alternate method of contesting the validity of wills E. holding that the declaratory judgment act is a procedural device. Answer:

D. holding that south carolinas declaratory judgment act is not a vehicle for the nullification of such instruments nor is it a substitute or alternate method of contesting the validity of wills

Consider the following statement: Of mccoy’s false statements in connection with the loan application, but there is no evidence that they were affected by mccoy’s perjury in the 1995 bankruptcy proceeding — much less that they were “directly and most seriously affected.” mccoy does not contend that either institution relied upon that false testimony. indeed, the sba does not appear to have participated in the bankruptcy proceeding at all, while adams national won every significant issue contested therein. see mccoy’s waste indus. & mfg., inc. v. adams nat’l bank, adv. no. 94-0096, slip op. at 1, 50-52, 1995 wl 908054 (bankr. d.c. oct. 4, 1995). it is therefore difficult to discern how either entity could have been adversely affected by mccoy’s perjury. cf. united states v. norris, 217 f.3d 262, 272 (5th cir.2000) (<holding>). the guidelines further provide that “[f]or Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding there was no assumption where neither the bankruptcy court nor the debtor exhibited any intention of assuming the contract B. holding that civil forfeitures are neither punishment nor criminal for purposes of the double jeopardy clause C. holding that fees incurred by debtor were not in the nature of support D. holding that for purposes of 18 usc 3663 creditors in bankruptcy proceeding were not victims of perjury when they neither relied on the false testimony nor incurred any losses as a consequence thereof E. holding reasonable fee in contract action included fees incurred in related bankruptcy proceeding. Answer:

D. holding that for purposes of 18 usc 3663 creditors in bankruptcy proceeding were not victims of perjury when they neither relied on the false testimony nor incurred any losses as a consequence thereof

Consider the following statement: In the case which supports it.” benik v. hatcher, 358 md. 507, 519, 750 a.2d 10 (2000); zeller v. greater baltimore medical center, 67 md.app. 75, 80, 506 a.2d 646 (1986); sergeant co. v. pickett, 285 md. 186, 194, 401 a.2d 651 (1979); levine v. rendler, 272 md. 1, 13, 320 a.2d 258 (1974). 6 . our holding is consistent with other cases that have considered this issue. see vieregger v. robertson, 9 neb.app. 193, 609 n.w.2d 409, 414 (2000)(where instruction to jury imposed burden of proof that doctor had to be the cause and not a cause of the injury to be considered a proximate cause, court ruled that “an instruction that the burden of proof is to show that a doctor's negligence was a cause is what is required.’'[(emphasis added); doe v. zedek, 255 neb. 963, 587 n.w.2d 885, 891 (1999)(<holding>)(emphasis added); bartholomee v. casey, 103 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that if a user actually knows of the danger a failure to warn cannot be a proximate cause of the injury B. holding that use of tangible property must be proximate cause of injury and that property does not cause injury if it does no more than furnish the condition that makes the injury possible C. holding that whether the negligent acts of parties combined to become the proximate cause of the injury was a question for the jury D. holding proximate cause required for claim of breach of special duty E. holding that a physicians negligence need only be a proximate cause not the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury. Answer:

E. holding that a physicians negligence need only be a proximate cause not the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury

Consider the following statement: Are you aware of whether or not eligió [saenz] has any other method of getting to a public roadway, other than through mrs. thrash’s property and through your property? a. he’s even going through my, my easement that i bought outright several times, and also through the ranch, through other places. [emphasis added] q. through what other places sir? a. through mine and bazans and manuel reyes too. he’s been using it, not right now because he locked the gates. [emphasis added] xavier reyes’ testimony raises a genuine issue of material fact on whether the saenzes have other possible legal means of access to their property and on whether access across the reyeses’ property is a necessity, as opposed to a mere convenience. see mitchell v. castellaw, 151 tex. 56, 246 s.w.2d 163, 168 (1952) (<holding>). conclusion we conclude the saenzes failed to Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding it is a question of fact B. holding that whether the defendants confession was voluntary was a mixed question of law and fact subject to de novo review C. holding that an error pertaining to a mixed question of law and fact under state law is not cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding D. holding that probable cause determination presents a mixed question of law and fact E. holding the question of necessity is one of mixed law and fact and accordingly one for the fact finder in the ordinary case. Answer:

E. holding the question of necessity is one of mixed law and fact and accordingly one for the fact finder in the ordinary case

Consider the following statement: Meant by an “unfair or discriminatory practice” based on sex. vivian, 601 n.w.2d at 874. the legislative history of the sex discrimination provision of title vii is not substantial. nevertheless, the federal courts which have examined title vii’s legislative history have found personal grooming codes that reflect customary modes of grooming having only an insignificant impact on employment opportunities do not constitute sex discrimination within the meaning of the act. see, e.g., barker v. taft broadcasting co., 549 f.2d 400, 401-02 (6th cir.1977); knott, 527 f.2d at 1252; dodge, 488 f.2d at 1337. several federal appellate courts have considered title vii in the context of personal grooming codes regulating hair length. every federal appellate court w . 593, 795 p.2d 602, 604 (1990) (<holding>). because there was no discrimination on the Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that the court may only make a facial inquiry into the validity of the certification B. recognizing that source code is speech but not reaching the object code issue C. holding that the apparent conflict between two subsections of the tax code renders the facial meaning of the statute ambiguous D. holding personal grooming code which allows females to wear jewelry but prohibits men from wearing facial jewelry was not sexually discriminatory under state statute E. holding that since limitations section in internal revenue code allows for suits against a sovereign its requirements are jurisdictional. Answer:

D. holding personal grooming code which allows females to wear jewelry but prohibits men from wearing facial jewelry was not sexually discriminatory under state statute

Consider the following statement: F.2d 294, 297-98 (9th cir. 1989) (acknowledging inherent sovereign immunity of territories); cf. davis v. knud-hansen memorial hospital, 635 f.2d 179 (3d cir. 1980) (discussing virgin islands' sovereign immunity generally). 2 that a state may voluntarily contribute to a judgment is insufficient to confer immunity on a state agency and thus is irrelevant to the alter ego question. fitchik, 873 f.2d at 661 (citing, inter alia, kovats v. rutgers, the state univ., 822 f.2d 1303, 1309 (3d cir. 1987). furthermore, that a state agency faced with a large judgment against it "might be compelled to rely on increased state subsidies" has expressly been rejected by the third circuit as insufficient to accord the agency with alter ego status. bolden, 953 f.2d at 819; see fitchik, 873 f.2d at 661 (<holding>). accordingly, the thrust of this first Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that 1983 does not override a states eleventh amendment immunity B. holding that a complaint that fails to meet the pleading requirements does not invoke the statutory waiver of sovereign immunity C. holding that 1983 does not override states eleventh amendment immunity D. holding that states appropriation to agency of funds to meet any shortfall does not trigger immunity E. holding negligence in supervision and evaluation of student in governmental units custody does not trigger waiver of immunity. Answer:

D. holding that states appropriation to agency of funds to meet any shortfall does not trigger immunity

Consider the following statement: Factors, the burnet court relied on snedigar, which had in turn relied on associated mortgage, 15 wn. app. 223. the snedigar court’s holding (with the burnet court’s deletions italicized) is as follows: we . . . hold that when a trial judge chooses one of the harsher remedies allowable under cr 37(b), the reasons for that choice should he clearly stated on the record. we further hold that when the most severe sanction of default or dismissal is ordered, it must be apparent from the record that the trial court explicitly considered whether a lesser sanction would probably have sufficed, and whether it found the associated mortgage due process factors [of willfulness and substantial prejudice] to be present. 53 wn. app. at 487 (emphasis added); associated mortgage, 15 wn. app. at 228-29 (<holding>). the burnet court also cited a line of cases Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that a trial court had the authority to impose a default judgment as a sanction for violating a rule 16 scheduling order pursuant to rule 37b2 stating we agree with the basic premise that a default sanction can under certain circumstances be an appropriate response to a violation of a rule 16 order after all the express terms of rule 37 permit a trial court to impose sanctions when a party fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery B. holding that district courts order granting motion for default judgment was erroneous because a default judgment cannot be entered until the amount of damages has been ascertained C. holding that a postjudgment contempt sanction for refusal to obey orders whether it is characterized as a civil or a criminal sanction is immediately appealable as a final order under 1291 D. recognizing that courts have discretion to exclude evidence as a sanction for violation of a discovery order E. holding that the sanction of a default judgment authorized by cr 37b2c is a harsh remedy which should only be granted where there has been a willful or deliberate refusal to obey a discovery order which refusal substantially prejudices the opponents ability to prepare for trial. Answer:

E. holding that the sanction of a default judgment authorized by cr 37b2c is a harsh remedy which should only be granted where there has been a willful or deliberate refusal to obey a discovery order which refusal substantially prejudices the opponents ability to prepare for trial

Consider the following statement: Plan. tex. fam.code §§ 7.001, 7.003; (6) seek spousal maintenance if they separate or divorce. tex. fam.code § 8.051; (7) enjoy the benefit of the “zone of privacy” that heterosexual married couples enjoy in the form of evidentiary privileges between spouses. tex.r. evid. 504; (8) enjoy succession rights under state laws of intestacy. tex. prob.code § 45; or (9) have the right to make burial or other decisions regarding the handling and disposition of one another’s remains. on october 3, 2013, plaintiffs holmes and phariss applied for a marriage license from the bexar county clerk riekhoffs office. defendant rickhoff refused to issue a license because holmes and phariss are both men. this denial establishes an article iii injury. see parker v. d.c., 478 f.3d 370, 376 (d.c.cir.2007) (<holding>); see also bishop, 962 f.supp.2d at 1273-74, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding article iii courts may not exercise executive or administrative duties of a nonjudicial nature B. holding that article iii courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists C. holding that courts have consistently treated a license or permit denial pursuant to a state or federal administrative scheme as an article iii injury D. holding that the exception applies where a state administrative agency operates pursuant to a federal legislative scheme E. holding that federal courts may not consider other issues before resolving standing an article iii jurisdictional matter. Answer:

C. holding that courts have consistently treated a license or permit denial pursuant to a state or federal administrative scheme as an article iii injury

Consider the following statement: Denied, 488 u.s. 840, 109 s.ct. 108, 102 l.ed.2d 83 (1988); jaranee v. state, 770 so.2d 644, 647-48 (ala.crim.app.1999)(argument as to variance between indictment and proof "goes to sufficiency of the evidence”); bennett v. tennessee, (tenn.crim.app.1998)(argument that there was a fatal variance between indictment and proof at trial viewed as sufficiency claim under jackson); ward, 829 s.w.2d at 796 n. 21 (stating variance between indictment allegation and proof was insufficiency of evidence problem), overruled, in part, on other grounds, riney v. state, 28 s.w.3d 561 (tex.crim.app.2000); deltenre v. state, 808 s.w.2d 97 (tex.crim.app.1991)(variance between indictment allegations and proof resulted in legally insufficient evidence); franklin v. state, 659 s.w.2d 831 (tex.crim.app.1983)(<holding>), such approach is not necessarily mainstream. Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. recognizing double jeopardy bar is inapplicable where a variance between indictment and proof necessitated prosecution under a new indictment B. holding that variation between an indictment and proof to a jury is not material where the allegations and proof substantially correspond C. recognizing that evidence may be legally insufficient where there is variance between indictment allegations and proof D. holding evidence legally insufficient E. holding variance between enhancement allegation and proof renders evidence legally insufficient only if variance is material. Answer:

C. recognizing that evidence may be legally insufficient where there is variance between indictment allegations and proof

Consider the following statement: V. johns-manville sales corp., 711 f.2d 60 (6th cir. 1983). the court in pennington, citing to hill, 122 b.r. 539, further explained that when a debtor counterclaims against the plaintiff in initial proceedings, the counterclaim is not stayed by section 362, because the proceeding is not “against” the debtor. noting that all of the authority of which it was aware held that the initial proceedings, and not the appeal, constitute the reference point for determining whether the action is one “originally brought” against the debtor, the court held that harvest foods was not entitled to a stay of its appeal because it, as the debtor, was the party who originally brought the action. see also association of st. croix condominium owners v. st. croix hotel corp., 682 f.2d 446 (3d cir. 1982) (<holding>). this court’s decision in pennington is in Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that whether a case is subject to the automatic stay must be determined at its inception and such a determination does not change depending on the particular stage of litigation at which the filing of the bankruptcy petition occurs B. holding state of the law must be determined at time of challenged action C. holding that the filing of a motion for a new trial is a critical stage of the prosecution and that an indigent defendant is constitutionally entitled to the assistance of counsel at that stage D. holding that at this stage of the proceedings review is limited to a determination of whether the circuit court afforded due process and whether the court observed the essential requirements of law E. holding that at the summary judgment stage there must be sufficient evidence on which the jury could find for the plaintiff. Answer:

A. holding that whether a case is subject to the automatic stay must be determined at its inception and such a determination does not change depending on the particular stage of litigation at which the filing of the bankruptcy petition occurs

Consider the following statement: For an alleged work-related injury through a board-approved settlement. see ocga § 34-9-15. the interplay of ocga §§ 34-9-11 (a) and 34-9-15 (b), which this court has not previously addressed, is informed by how we and the court of appeals have interpreted the interplay between the exclusive remedy provision and subsection (a) of ocga§ 34-9-15. (b) it is well established that a settlement under ocga § 34-9-15 (a) which requires an employer to compensate its employee for an alleged injury bars a subsequent tort suit by the employee against anyone protected by the exclusive remedy provision, regardless of the actual circumstances of the employee’s injury and the amount of compensation to which the parties agreed. see haygood v. home transp. co., 244 ga. 165, 166-167 (259 se2d 429) (1979) (<holding>); thorn v. phillips, 164 ga. app. 47, 48 (296 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that an administrative agency or a state courts finding that an employer had just cause to terminate a plaintiff is not preclusive with regard to the plaintiffs discrimination claim against the employer B. holding that glc 152 15 provides that the only party immune from suit under the statute is the direct employer a special employer is not immune because the special employer is not liable for the payment of workers compensation and there was no agreement between the direct employer and the special employer that the special employer would be liable for the payment of such compensation C. recognizing that an appellants tort claim was barred by the doctrine of election of remedies where the appellant had previously pursued and recovered workers compensation benefits for the same injury D. holding that an employer who commits an intentional tort against his employee cannot claim that the act was accidental so that workers compensation is the employees exclusive remedy E. holdingthat the exclusive remedy provision barred a tort lawsuit against the plaintiffs employer because the plaintiff had previously entered a boardapproved settlement with the employer for the same injury. Answer:

E. holdingthat the exclusive remedy provision barred a tort lawsuit against the plaintiffs employer because the plaintiff had previously entered a boardapproved settlement with the employer for the same injury

Consider the following statement: And intent of the zoning procedure ordinance. finally, the court acknowledges that the appeals board heard neighbor testimony that the proposed use would be incompatible with the neighborhood. however, to the extent the board relied on this testimony to support its finding of lack of compatibility, the board failed to identify how the testimony factually substantiated its conclusion that the proposed unusual use “would not be compatible with the area and its development.” moreover, the neighbor testimony, while sincere, was largely opinion based and, therefore, lacked sufficient factual content to support the appeals board’s decision. cellular tel. co. v. town of oyster bay, 166 f.3d 490, 493 (2d cir.1999); city of apopka v. orange county, 299 so.2d 657, 659 (fla. 4th dca 1974) (<holding>). in sum, nextel presented substantial Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that the findings of fact conclusions of law and decision signed by the school board president constituted the decision of the board B. holding that public hearings should not be held for the purpose of polling the neighborhood but to present facts to assist a board with its decision C. holding that a reviewing court is not to substitute its decision for that of the board D. holding where secretary breached the duty to assist veteran in ensuring examination report was as complete and thorough as possible remand was required to enable the board to assist claimant in developing the facts of his case E. holding due process requires that 1 the board be presented with a full statement of the facts and all supporting data bearing upon the disputes and 2 the parties may be heard either in person by counsel or by other representatives and the board shall give due notice of all hearings to the employee . Answer:

B. holding that public hearings should not be held for the purpose of polling the neighborhood but to present facts to assist a board with its decision

Consider the following statement: May well result in a different social recognition of social groups opposed to gang violence, even if the gang in question is the same. 8 . the third and seventh circuits invalidated the pre w-g-r-/m-ev-g- "particularity” and "social visibility” requirements on the ground that they were inconsistent with prior bia precedent and therefore were not entitled to chevron deference. see valdiviezo-galdamez v. att'y gen. of u.s., 663 f.3d 582, 604 (3d cir.2011) ("since the ‘social visibility' requirement is inconsistent with past bia decisions, we conclude that it is an unreasonable addition to the requirements for establishing refugee status where that status turns upon persecution on account of membership in a particular social group.”); gatimi v. holder, 578 f.3d 611, 615 (7th cir.2009) (<holding>). 9 . the ij failed to grant pirir-boc relief Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that deference is owed to an agencys interpretation of its own categorical exclusion regulations so long as that interpretation is not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation B. holding interpretation may not be inconsistent with regulation C. holding that the interpretation of social visibility is inconsistent with previous decisions and makes no sense D. holding erisa plan interpretation is simply one of contract interpretation E. holding that the defendants ability to give directions and make decisions on a course of action for himself was inconsistent with the intoxication defense. Answer:

C. holding that the interpretation of social visibility is inconsistent with previous decisions and makes no sense

Consider the following statement: Work a manifest injustice.’ ” christianson v. colt industries operating corp., 486 u.s. 800, 817, 108 s.ct. 2166, 100 l.ed.2d 811 (1988) (quoting arizona, 460 u.s. at 618 n. 8, 103 s.ct. 1382). there is no reason to deviate from — and good reason to follow — judge berman’s prior decision deeming the respondent’s attorney’s rate of $345 per hour reasonable. counsel’s billing rates are strong evidence of prevailing market rates. see farbotko, 433 f.3d at 209-10; tatum v. city of new york, no. 06 civ. 4290, 2010 wl 334975, at *4 (s.d.n.y. jan. 28, 2010); rozell v. ross-holst, 576 f.supp.2d 527, 544 (s.d.n.y.2008). furthermore, courts in this district and in neighboring districts have found similar rates to be reasonable for attorneys with similar experience. see coe, 714 f.supp.2d at 450 (<holding>); wise v. kelly, 620 f.supp.2d 435, 446 — 47 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding 325 per hour reasonable for partner litigating paca case B. recognizing that 90 per hour is a reasonable rate for a paralegal C. holding 350 per hour reasonable for civil rights federal court litigation D. holding that evidence was insufficient to support conviction for vehicular homicide where the defendant was driving 60 miles per hour in a 30 mile per hour zone before the collision and a minimum of 50 miles per hour at the time of impact E. holding that speed alone will not support a conviction but that other factors supported the vehicular homicide conviction where defendant was speeding at 50 to 60 miles per hour in a 30 mile per hour residential area with slowchildren playing sign. Answer:

C. holding 350 per hour reasonable for civil rights federal court litigation

Consider the following statement: Objection was based on his claim that the changes were substantive and that he was prejudiced thereby. 9 . we recognize that a member of this panel concurred in fields v. state. after reading and considering the analysis in ramon, which was handed down the same day as fields, that member finds ramon more persuasive. 10 . we also note that this amendment added thirty-nine additional charges. brown, however, was not tried on these additional charges and does not challenge the amendment in this regard on appeal. 11 . the state also amended the references to the file names relating specific images to each charge, pp.2004) ("the sale of four videotapes to a detective ... surely constituted but one act of distribution of obscene matter."); am. film distribs., inc. v. state, 471 n.e.2d 3 (<holding>); porter v. state, 440 n.e.2d 690 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that the defendants acquiescence to a mistrial constituted implicit consent precluding a later claim of double jeopardy B. holding that the showing of four pornographic films on one occasion constituted but one exhibition and thus defendants multiple convictions violated double jeopardy C. holding that a bargainedfor plea waives the right to attack multiple convictions on double jeopardy grounds D. holding that convictions for the crimes of conspiracy and continuing criminal enterprise violate double jeopardy E. holding that convictions for two counts of possession of one quantity of cocaine constituted double jeopardy and fundamental error reversing one possession conviction and remanding for resentencing. Answer:

B. holding that the showing of four pornographic films on one occasion constituted but one exhibition and thus defendants multiple convictions violated double jeopardy

Consider the following statement: Investor. {32} “the number of victims has been a particularly significant indicator in determining whether acts are distinct” and “a strong indicator of legislative intent to punish distinct conduct that can only be overcome by other factors.” bernal, 2006-nmsc-050, ¶ 18, 140 n.m. 644, 146 p.3d 289. in the present case, each unlicensed transaction and each sale of an unregistered security were distinct and separate in time, resulting in distinct and separate harm to different victims. see degraff, 2006-nmsc-011, ¶ 33, 139 n.m. 211, 131 p.3d 61 (reading the holding in morro to be based on each act occurring at a distinct time and place each time a gravestone was smashed or defaced and on the fact that there were different victims for each act of vandalism at a diff m. 78, 183 p.3d 963 (<holding>), cert. denied, 2008-nmcert-003, 143 n.m. 682, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that defendant was not in custody during search of his residence B. holding that the evidence supported two separate convictions and punishments for two attempted robberies of two different victims who suffered separate and distinct harms C. holding that there was sufficient probable cause to search a defendants residence after evidence of drug dealing was found in his car during a traffic stop that was conducted when the defendant was coming from his residence and noting that under such circumstances a practical commonsense conclusion could be made that the drugs and money had been at the defendants residence a short time before the stop D. holding that the evidence supported eight separate convictions and punishments for contributing to the delinquency of different minors during a party at the defendants residence E. holding that the evidence supported separate convictions and punishments for sales of securities namely renewal notes to different victiminvestors. Answer:

D. holding that the evidence supported eight separate convictions and punishments for contributing to the delinquency of different minors during a party at the defendants residence

Consider the following statement: See, e.g., louisiana v. texas, 176 u.s. 1, 19, 20 s.ct. 251, 44 l.ed. 347 (1900). here, the navajo nation has no standing to assert the rights of the grandparents, nor do the grandparents have any rights under state or federal law. a. navajo nation lacks standing when acting solely in a representative capacity, a tribe’s standing is based exclusively upon the standing of its individual members: the tribe simply raises claims that its members could raise individually, and essentially stands in the same position as they would had they brought the action collectively. the governmental entity must raise claims which affect all its members, not just a select few. see alabama and coushatta tribes of texas v. trustees of the big sandy indep. school dist., 817 f.supp. 1319, 1328 (e.d.tex.1993) (<holding>). nothing in the pleadings and little in the Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that the term indian tribe under the ada is broad enough to encompass a school board a nonprofit state corporation where the tribe used the board to manage a tribal school B. holding that a tribes bare interest in the safety of its members cannot satisfy the second exception C. holding tribes were not suing in its parens patriae capacity when they challenged the school district because tribe was not representing interests of all its members in challenging restriction D. holding that the district court may exercise jurisdiction over an indian tribe when the tribe is engaged in activity off of the reservation as an unincorporated association registered and authorized to do business in this state and is sued in that capacity for breach of a written contract E. holding that waiver in a sue and be sued clause is limited to actions involving the corporate activities of the tribe and does not extend to actions of the tribe in its capacity as a political governing body. Answer:

C. holding tribes were not suing in its parens patriae capacity when they challenged the school district because tribe was not representing interests of all its members in challenging restriction

Consider the following statement: They present no argument that we have not already addressed. 41 . the class-certification order’s certification of the rule 42(b)(1)(a) class also mandates notice and sets forth opt-out provisions, 42 . to the extent lsrc’s fifth issue contains other one-sentence complaints that we have not addressed elsewhere, these- complaints are waived. see tex. r. app. p. 38.1(i) (requiring appellant’s brief to "contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record”); fredonia state bank v. gen. am. life ins. co., 881 s.w.2d 279, 284-85 (tex. 1994) (recognizing long-standing rule that error may be waived through inadequate briefing); magana v. citibank, n.a., 454 s.w.3d 667, 680-81 (tex. app.—houston [14th dist.] 2014, no pet.) (<holding>), abrogated on other grounds by kinsel v. Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding party failing to adequately brief complaint waived issue on appeal B. holding that appellant waived issue by failing to raise it in opening brief C. holding that where a party does not adequately brief an argument we need not address it on appeal D. holding that defendant waived his blakely claim as issue on appeal by failing to raise it in his initial brief E. holding that party waived argument by failing to brief it on appeal. Answer:

A. holding party failing to adequately brief complaint waived issue on appeal

Consider the following statement: Class members nationwide would predominate over common ones, given the lack of a national market or a nationwide conspiracy. appellants contend that they should not have been required to prove national market or nationwide conspiracy at the class certification stage because these are not required elements of their antitrust claims. recovery under § 4 of the clayton act, however, requires proof of antitrust impact, which in turn requires proof of the relevant market. ala. v. blue bird body co., inc., 573 f.2d 309, 328 (5th cir.1978) (“we do not understand how the plaintiffs can make this proof [of anti-trust impact] without examining the relevant school bus market where each individual plaintiff is located”); see heerwagen v. clear channel comms., 435 f.3d 219, 229 (2d cir.2006) (<holding>); republic tobacco co. v. n. atl. trading co., Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that market participant socal edison is in privity with the california power exchange corporation not with other market participants B. holding that proof of relevant market is essential under 2 C. recognizing implied duty to market D. holding that a plaintiff claiming monopolization is obligated to establish the relevant market because the power to control prices or exclude competition only makes sense with reference to a particular market E. holding that to pose a threat to monopolization one firm alone must have the power to control market output and exclude competition. Answer:

D. holding that a plaintiff claiming monopolization is obligated to establish the relevant market because the power to control prices or exclude competition only makes sense with reference to a particular market

Consider the following statement: The debtor and for the description of the collateral, which identifies eai of nc as the debtor and put[s] third parties on inquiry notice to read the attached security agreement.” plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in the bankruptcy court, 4-5. {¶ 16} plaintiff further contended that “[i]n this case, any third party inquiring as to liens against the eai entity intended would be ‘fairly put on notice that there might be an outstanding lien’ against eai of nc as a result of the financing statements listing eai as the debtor and referring to the attached security agreement for the signature of the debtor and the description of the collateral, clearly setting forth eai of nc as the debtor.” (plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in bankruptcy 96), 194 b.r. 23, 29 ucc rep.serv.2d 617 (<holding>); and in re platt (e.d.pa.1966), 257 f.supp. Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding a financing statement which incorrectly listed mines company inc as opposed to mines tire company inc to be sufficient B. holding statement of points in notice of appeal sufficient C. holding a company which is responsible for tendering into the market a drug which it knows or should know is so dangerous that it should not be taken by anyone can be said to have violated its duty of care either in design or marketing D. holding that where the appellants listed challenges in the statement of issues but failed to brief them the challenges were waived E. holding an issue listed in statement of issues on appeal but not addressed in brief is abandoned. Answer:

A. holding a financing statement which incorrectly listed mines company inc as opposed to mines tire company inc to be sufficient