Datasets:

quyanh

/

lexglue-cot-dpo-test

like 0

Consider the following statement: States v. lalor, 996 f.2d 1578 (4th cir.1993). see opinion 2 ("the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit has stated that 'residential searches have been upheld only where some information links the criminal activity to the defendant’s residence.' ” (quoting lalor, 996 f.2d at 1583)). in lalor, we concluded that a search warrant for the defendant’s residence was not supported by probable cause. see 996 f.2d at 1583. in so doing, however, we distinguished lalor’s case from prior ones, including suarez and williams, wherein the nexus between criminal activity and the targeted premises was based on evidence of the suspect’s drug traf ficking activities combined with the reasonable inference that drug-related evidence would be found in the suspect’s home. see id. at 1582-83 (<holding>); id. at 1583 (observing that, in williams, 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 person at anothers residence solely for the purpose of engaging in drug related activity has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the residence B. 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 C. holding that the affidavit gave absolutely no indication that the fruits of criminal activity would probably be found at that location rendering the officers belief in probable cause based solely on the affidavit objectively unreasonable D. recognizing that in suarez residential search upheld based on officers reasoned belief that evidence of drug activity would be found at residence E. holding that a warrant authorizing the search of a residence vehicles at the residence and all persons found in the residence was not overly broad given that search was limited to places were drugs or weapons might be found. Answer:

D. recognizing that in suarez residential search upheld based on officers reasoned belief that evidence of drug activity would be found at residence

Consider the following statement: Resulted from a good-faith, but erroneous, interpretation of section 6103. therefore, the united states can have no liability to plaintiffs. 26 u.s.c. § 7431(b). as to the second issue, i find and conclude that the united states has returned to plaintiffs all the property seized. accordingly, pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure 52(a), i now issue the findings of fact and conclusions of law that have informed my decision. i. a. procedural history this case has a complex procedural history. a brief description of that history will provide a meaningful context for the discussion to come. when this case was assigned to united states district judge warren k. urbom, he granted a motion to dismiss by private individuals named as defendants and dismissed counts iv and vi. see filing 22 (<holding>). among other things, the result of judge 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 wrongfuldisclosure allegations of count iv did not state a claim against private individuals and further holding that conspiracy allegations of count vi did not state a claim B. holding that similar allegations were insufficient to state a due process claim C. holding that because the allegations purportedly suppressed by the government were not material an evidentiary hearing further exploring the allegations themselves and the governments knowledge of the allegations is unnecessary D. holding district court dismissal of plaintiffs present action did not constitute prior action and thus did not count as third strike E. holding that allegations against nondiverse defendants must be factual not conclusory because conclusory allegations do not state a claim. Answer:

A. holding that wrongfuldisclosure allegations of count iv did not state a claim against private individuals and further holding that conspiracy allegations of count vi did not state a claim

Consider the following statement: Only after a responsible agency official assesses whether “the public interest in confidentiality outweighs the public interest in disclosure”—was met. see pac. gas, 70 fed.cl. at 144 (quoting marriott, 437 f.3d at 1307). next, kansas contends that the government has not sufficiently “identified or described” the documents by stating with particularity what information is subject to the privilege. having reviewed the government’s privilege logs (both initial and supplemental), the court concludes that the government’s descriptions were sufficient to enable the court to determine whether the privilege was applicable, and that, in any event, the court has now conducted an in camera review of the documents withheld. see cencast servs., l.p. v. united states, 91 fed.cl. 496, 503 (2010) (<holding>). accordingly, the court concludes 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 documents reflecting the department of educations review of a universitys compliance with title iv were covered by the privilege and rejecting the argument that a specific policy judgment is necessary for the privilege to apply because the privilege servesto protect the processes by which governmental decisions as well as policies are formulated B. holding that defendants privilege login combination with the in camera review requested by plaintiffsis adequate to determine whether the elements of the privilege have been established C. recognizing privilege D. holding that production of documents without a claim of privilege waives the right to later claim that privilege E. holding that a complete prohibition against an opponents use of in camera review to establish the applicability of the crimefraud exception to the attorneyclient privilege is inconsistent with the policies underlying the privilege. Answer:

B. holding that defendants privilege login combination with the in camera review requested by plaintiffsis adequate to determine whether the elements of the privilege have been established

Consider the following statement: 10, 2008 temporary orders inappropriately modify the 1996 oklahoma custody order. we further conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering bradshaw to pay the amicus attorney for any work performed pertaining to the habeas corpus matter. we also hold that judge rynd did not abuse his discretion by denying bradshaw’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and request for attorney fees related to prosecution of the petition. accordingly, we conditionally grant brad ates: notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, the court may render an appropriate temporary order if there is a serious immediate question concerning the welfare of the child. tex. fam.code ann. § 157.374. 4 . see brown v. dixon, 776 s.w.2d 599, 602 (tex.app.-tyler 1989, orig. proceeding) (<holding>); lundell v. clawson, 697 s.w.2d 836, 840 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 could permit grandparent or other person having substantial past contact with child to intervene in pending sapcr even though original suit requesting possessory conservatorship could not be filed by grandparent or other person and further holding that stepgrandmother had standing to intervene to seek managing conservatorship of child under section 102004b and section 1020039 where natural mother abandoned child after birth parents were divorced natural father remarried father had custody of child after father died child lived first with stepmother then with stepgrandmother and mother first sought custody when child was eleven years old B. holding subjective belief of maternal grandparents and their witnesses that child was better off with them and would be emotionally upset if made to go with father did not raise existence of unexpected crises or dire emergency demanding immediate action to protect child C. holding that maternal grandmother had standing to intervene in pending sapcr to seek managing conservatorship of child pursuant to former section 102004b and section 102004a where she had substantial past contact with child there was evidence of abuse and neglect of child by mother and mother had been arrested and had subsequently engaged in bizarre and dangerous behavior towards child had attacked grandmother with frying pan and hedge clippers and had been involuntarily committed to psychiatric center all of which established serious and immediate concern for welfare of child D. holding that a child was not barred by a former statute of limitations applicable to actions to establish the existence of a father and child relationship when the current action was to establish the nonexistence of a father and child relationship and the presumed father no longer persisted in maintaining paternity E. holding child is entitled to know and be supported financially and emotionally by his or her biological father. Answer:

B. holding subjective belief of maternal grandparents and their witnesses that child was better off with them and would be emotionally upset if made to go with father did not raise existence of unexpected crises or dire emergency demanding immediate action to protect child

Consider the following statement: Of the lease, if the options were not exercised. crossland’s right to the payments now at issue thus was contingent upon exercise of the options, exactly as was the case in plumbing industry. 8 . in some of the cases, the tenant had an option to extend the lease. in others, there was no such option. but this affected the courts’ analysis not at all. as the decisions made clear, under florida law, renewal and extension mean the same thing. and this is so whether there is or is not an express option to renew or extend the lease. see, e.g., strano, 534 so.2d at 1215 n. 2 (addressing lease not containing option); woodard tire, 596 so.2d at 1116 & n. 2 (applying same analysis to lease containing option). 9 . see also cushman & wakefield, inc. v. williams, 551 so.2d 1251 (fla. 2d dca 1989) (<holding>). 10 . see also supra note 5. 11 . crossland is 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 burden is on the landlord in a lease dispute to establish that the lease contract had been breached and that such breach entitled the landlord to the possession of the property in question B. holding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to present testimony that they were induced to enter an automobile lease by promises that they could disregard terms 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 jury should have received evidence from parties lease negotiations to determine intended meaning of term bookstore in the lease E. 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. Answer:

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

Consider the following statement: In the definition of "felony violation” under § 1028a). 10 . in this regard, count two charges defendant with knowingly possessing] and us[ing], without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person, to wit, a passport bearing the name, birth date, and alien registration receipt number of sandy garcia, a native of the dominican republic and a lawful permanent resident of the united states, during and in relation to a violation of title 8, united states code, section 1326(a), to wit, unlawful reentry after deportation. 11 . the montejo decision is currently on appeal to the fourth circuit, with oral argument recently heard on october 28, 2005. see united states v. montejo, no. 05-4143 (4th cir.2005). 12 . see united states v. simmons, 247 f.3d 118, 122 (4th cir.2001) (<holding>); united states v. horton, 321 f.3d 476, 479 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 courts may look beyond the statutory text to determine legislative intent only when the statute is ambiguous B. recognizing that when interpreting a statute a courts inquiry begins with the text C. recognizing that the absurdity of the result is a factor to consider when interpreting a statute D. holding courts must adhere to legislative intent when interpreting a statute E. holding that courts must give effect to every word when interpreting a statute. Answer:

B. recognizing that when interpreting a statute a courts inquiry begins with the text

Consider the following statement: Held that prostok’s claims do not collaterally attack the confirmation order because they are based on conduct extrinsic to the confirmation order. 112 s.w.3d 876, 905. this court has held that when a party does not seek to set aside a prior judgment, but instead brings suit based on extrinsic fraud, the action is not a collateral attack. state v. durham, 860 s.w.2d 63, 67 (tex.1993) (recognizing, in a suit brought by the state for fraud in obtaining court approval for an oil and gas lease, that the state had not sought to set aside the judgment but had “alleged fraud extrinsic to the judgment, and invoke[d] the equity powers of the court to impose a constructive trust”); cf. spera v. fleming, hovenkamp & grayson, p.c., 25 s.w.3d 863, 871 (tex.app.— houston [14th distj 2000, no pet.) (<holding>). in contrast, the underlying issues resolved 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 debtors have no right to jury trial on malpractice claims against their attorneys B. holding that extrinsic conduct that formed the basis of claims for attorney malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty were not a collateral attack on trial courts order apportioning attorneys fees C. holding breach of fiduciary duty claim is essentially a negligence or professional malpractice claim D. holding that there would be no exception to american rule on attorney fees for legal malpractice claims E. holding that attorneys fees and costs expended as a result of an attorneys alleged malpractice constitute legallycognizable damages for purposes of stating a claim for such malpractice. Answer:

B. holding that extrinsic conduct that formed the basis of claims for attorney malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty were not a collateral attack on trial courts order apportioning attorneys fees

Consider the following statement: To “plead[] factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged); glenfed, 42 f.3d at 1546^17 (observing that where no heightened pleading standard is required, a plaintiff need not plead fraudulent intent with particularity). under these requirements, allstate has adequately alleged a violation of §§ 25400 and 25500. according to allstate, stern willfully participated in the conveyance of misleading information to investors through its involvement in investigating, drafting, and reviewing the data set forth in the official statements. given that role, stern had a duty to disclose any known information necessary to prevent the official statements from being false or misleading. see howard, 228 f.3d at 1061 (<holding>). allstate has further alleged that stern 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 defendant may be convicted of mail fraud if he knowingly and willfully participates in a fraudulent scheme created and set in motion by others B. holding that no judgment can be rendered against defendant who cannot be held liable C. holding that a person violates the bank fraud statute when he knowingly executes a scheme to obtain money from a financial institution by means of false or fraudulent representations if a defendant knowingly provided materially false information in order to induce the loan the crime is complete and it is irrelevant whether or not he intended to repay or was capable of repaying it D. holding that a defendant can be held liable when it knowingly participates in the creation of a false or misleading statement E. holding that the elements of a claim under 3729a2 are 1 that the defendant made used or caused to be made or used a record or statement to get a claim against the united states paid or approved 2 the record or statement and the claim were false or fraudulent and 3 the defendant knew that the record or statement and the claim were false or fraudulent emphasis added. Answer:

D. holding that a defendant can be held liable when it knowingly participates in the creation of a false or misleading statement

Consider the following statement: (104 sct 2052, 80 le2d 674) (1984). 67 chapman v. state, 273 ga. 348, 349-50 (2) (541 se2d 634) (2001); see strickland, 466 u. s. at 687 (iii); ashmid v. state, 316 ga. app. 550, 556 (3) (730 se2d 37) (2012). 68 chapman, 273 ga. at 350 (2);see cammer v. walker, 290 ga. 251, 255 (1) (719 se2d 437) (2011) (“a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is judged by whether counsel rendered reasonably effective assistance, not by a standard of errorless counsel or by hindsight.” (punctuation omitted)). 69 sowell v. state, 327 ga. app. 532, 539 (4) (759 se2d 602) (2014). 70 maurer v. state, 320 ga. app. 585, 595 (6) (g) (740 se2d 318) (2013) (punctuation omitted). 71 state v. mobley, 296 ga. 876, 881 (770 se2d 1) (2015). 72 maurer, 320 ga. app. at 595 (6) (g); see mobley, 296 ga. at 881 (<holding>); state v. reynolds, 332 ga. app. 818, 822-23 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 trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by positing mutual combat defense as an alternative in murder case even if doing so might have impaired principal defense of justification B. holding that the appropriate vehicle for claims alleging that defense counsel violated a defendants right to testify is a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel C. holding that the erroneous omission of a justification defense was harmless where counsel did not invoke the defense during either voir dire or opening statements and where the defense did not appear to be the primary focus of the defensive theory at trial D. recognizing an innocent possession defense though the defense in that case is more properly considered a justification defense as life and limb were arguably at stake E. holding that defense counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for presenting a diminished capacity defense as opposed to a defense of legal insanity. Answer:

A. holding that trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by positing mutual combat defense as an alternative in murder case even if doing so might have impaired principal defense of justification

Consider the following statement: (2) core proceedings include, but are not limited to... (f) proceedings to determine, avoid, or recover preferences;” 28 u.s.c. § 157. the united states bankruptcy court for the southern district of new york stated that an avoidance proceeding to recover assets of a debtor is within the bankruptcy courts' core jurisdiction. official comm. of unsecured creditors v. transpacific corp., ltd. (in re commodore int’l, ltd.), 242 b.r. 243, 261 (bankr.s.d.n.y.1999). see also, braunstein v. branch group, inc. (in re mass. gas & elec. light supply co., inc.), 200 b.r. 471, 472 (bankr.d.mass.1996) (finding that an action under section 549(a) for avoidance of a set-off as an unauthorized post-petition transfer to be core); n. parent, inc. v. cotter & co. (in re n. parent, inc.), 221 b.r. 609, 628 (<holding>). 15 . the united states court of appeals for 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 an action for postpetition breach of an agreement to purchase property to be a core proceeding B. holding that a proceeding under section 547 is a core proceeding C. holding that an adversary proceeding is a core proceeding under 28 usc 157b2 even though the laundry list of core proceedings under 157b2 does not specifically name this particular circumstance D. holding that a lawsuit by a third party creditor against the estate is a core proceeding E. holding that a workers compensation proceeding is a legal proceeding. Answer:

B. holding that a proceeding under section 547 is a core proceeding

Consider the following statement: Itself. we find equally unfounded the argument that any agreements jones may have had in his superior court cases “don’t have anything to do with this case.” def.app., tab e at 42. defendant’s whole point was that jones may have planted the gun in this case in order to “work off’ obligations that arose in those superior court cases. hence, agreements in the other cases have everything to do with this case. nor does it matter that agreements in other cases may have involved other prosecutors. the united states attorney’s office for the district of columbia prosecutes cases in both the federal district court and the local superior court, and the prosecutor is responsible (at a minimum) for all brady information in the possession of that office. see giglio, 405 u.s. at 154, 92 s.ct. 763 (<holding>). for a similar reason, we reject as irrelevant 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 promise to make a loan is not covered by 1823e because a promise is not an asset B. holding there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the defendant did not intend to perform when the promise was made C. holding a duty to act is created by reliance not by the person to whom the aid is to be rendered but by another who as a result of the promise refrains from acting on that persons behalf D. holding that ignorance by one prosecutor of promise made by another is irrelevant since the prosecutors office is an entity and a promise made by one attorney must be attributed for these purposes to the government E. recognizing that a unilateral contract can be formed when only one promise is illusory because the nonillusory promise can serve as an offer which the promisor who made the illusory promise can accept by performance. Answer:

D. holding that ignorance by one prosecutor of promise made by another is irrelevant since the prosecutors office is an entity and a promise made by one attorney must be attributed for these purposes to the government

Consider the following statement: With disapproval by the fifth circuit.” see wilson v. hibu inc., no. 3:13-cv-2012-l, 2013 wl 5803816, at *6 (n.d. tex. oct. 28, 2013) (similarly denying remand where plaintiff pleaded monetary relief below jurisdictional threshold but faile mktg., inc., no. ep-12-cv-00340-dcg, 2012 wl 5287043, at *3 (w.d. tex. oct. 23, 2012) (similarly holding that the statements in the plaintiff’s petition and binding stipulation/sworn affidavit attached to her petition asserting that the amount in controversy was less than or equal to $74,999.00 and that the plaintiff would not accept damages greater than $74,999.00 was sufficient to bind her and defeat diversity jurisdiction); wright v. normandy terrace healthcare and rehabilitation ctr., no. sa-12-ca-0622-xr, 2012 wl 2979040, at *2 (w.d.tex. 2012) (<holding>). 3 . plaintiffs argue that "rule 47, when all 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 stipulation included in the plaintiffs petitionthat the maximum amount of damages sought or that would be accepted wpuld not exceed 75000 exclusive of costs and interest bound the plaintiff and was sufficient to defeat diversity jurisdiction B. holding that where plaintiff has set forth in the complaint a specific request for damages and attorneys fees that on its face is an amount less than the jurisdictional minimum the defendant must prove to a legal certainty that plaintiffs claim must exceed 75000 C. holding that the district court erred in not determining whether the amount in controversy necessary to create diversity jurisdiction was met at the time of removal D. holding that defendants claim that the cost of injunctive relief would exceed 75000 was too speculative E. recognizing that powerex abrogated rogers but ultimately denied remand since the plaintiffs failed to rebut defendants claim that the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeded 75000 and also refused to stipulate to a lesser amount of damages. Answer:

A. holding that the stipulation included in the plaintiffs petitionthat the maximum amount of damages sought or that would be accepted wpuld not exceed 75000 exclusive of costs and interest bound the plaintiff and was sufficient to defeat diversity jurisdiction

Consider the following statement: Gained by looking beyond the allegations of the complaint. see, e.g., american motorists ins. co. v. general host corp., no. 88-1503, — f.2d - (10th cir. march 21, 1991) (westlaw 35967) (concluding, based on “extensive findings of fact in [an underlying case] indicating that the pollution at issue ... was intended by defendants,” that the pollution was not “accidental” and granting insurer’s motion for summary judgment that it did not have a duty to defend or indemnify); great lakes container corp. v. national union fire ins. co. of pittsburgh, pennsylvania, 727 f.2d 30 (1st cir. 1984) (“under new hampshire law, the complaint and the policy alone may be sufficient for a determination of no coverage. independent evidence, of course, may be needed if the compl 72, 240 n.w.2d 310 (1976) (<holding>); transamerica ins. co. v. sunnes, 77 or.app. 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 insurer had a continuing duty to defend B. holding that under new york law for an insurer to have no duty to defend the court must find as a matter of law that based on the pleadings there was no possible factual or legal basis on which the insurer might eventually be held obligated to indemnify the insured C. holding based on deposition which revealed that defective materials were used and construction was contrary to workmanship standards that insurer had no duty to defend because damages should have been expected by the insured D. holding that a cgl policy such as the one at issue here does not insure against claims for defective or negligent workmanship or construction because defective workmanship does not constitute an accident and therefore claims for defective or negligent workmanship do not constitute an occurrence under the policy E. holding that an insurer had a duty to defend the insured until it could establish that those claims were not supported by the facts. Answer:

C. holding based on deposition which revealed that defective materials were used and construction was contrary to workmanship standards that insurer had no duty to defend because damages should have been expected by the insured

Consider the following statement: United states v. hutzell, 217 f.3d 966, 968-69 (8th cir.2000) (”[a]n individual’s domestic violence conviction should itself put that person on notice that subsequent possession of a gun might well be the subject of regulation.... although an individual’s right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, the possession of a gun, especially by anyone who has been convicted of a violent crime, is nevertheless a highly regulated activity, and everyone knows it.”) (citation 'otnitted); united states v. meade, 175 f.3d 215, 226 (1st cir.1999) ("[a] person who is subject to [an anti-harassment or anti-stalking restraining] order would not be sanguine about the legal consequences of possessing a firearm[.]”). 65 . see, e.g,, united states v. hester, 589 f.3d 86, 91-93 (2d cir.2009) (<holding>); united states v. gould, 568 f.3d 459, 468 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 even though the defendant had not been given actual notice of his registration obligations under sorna his prosecution under that statute did not violate his due process rights under lambert where he was on notice that state law required sex offenders to register B. holding failure to give putative father notice of adoption proceedings did not violate due process where he had never established a substantial relationship with his child C. holding that a creditor who had received actual notice of a bankruptcy proceeding through his counsel did not suffer a due process violation because he had notice in time to file a complaint or at least to file a timely motion for an extension of time D. holding that due process rights were not violated when alien claimed a lack of actual notice but his attorney received notice E. holding that even though defendant stated he did not read and discuss psr with his counsel he could not show any error that affected his substantial rights. Answer:

A. holding that even though the defendant had not been given actual notice of his registration obligations under sorna his prosecution under that statute did not violate his due process rights under lambert where he was on notice that state law required sex offenders to register

Consider the following statement: Years to life for a first conviction and a penalty of 20 years to life for a second or subsequent conviction”; subsection (b) sets forth what “could properly [be] characterized as an ‘aggravated’ continuing criminal enterprise,” carrying a mandatory life term, and requiring additional “elements” to be proven. montalvo argues that his “illegal mandatory life sentence must be corrected to a term authorized by the facts reflected in the basic verdict for a continuing criminal enterprise.” it appears that montalvo argues that he was convicted of a “basic” continuing criminal enterprise pursuant to section 848(a), but sentenced for an “aggravated” continuing criminal enterprise pursuant to section 848(b). so construed, this argument is cognizable under rule 35(a). fowler, 794 f.2d at 1449 (<holding>). however, montalvo’s challenge fails 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 rule 35a can be used to challenge sentences that are not authorized by the judgment of conviction B. holding that a juvenile adjudication may be used as a prior conviction for apprendi purposes C. holding that affidavits that are conclusory and based on hearsay can not be used to oppose motion for summary judgment D. recognizing that the phrases can be used interchangeably E. holding the petitioners challenge of his conviction is not rendered moot by the expiration of the underlying sentence because collateral consequences flowing from the conviction give the petitioner a substantial stake in the judgment of conviction which survives the satisfaction of the sentence imposed on him. Answer:

A. holding that rule 35a can be used to challenge sentences that are not authorized by the judgment of conviction

Consider the following statement: Those responses as such, as indicated in his 1999 letter to the president of the university. the fact that he held out hope that the president would intercede on his behalf does not change the accrual date for the statute of limitations because that date is measured by the standard of when a person, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of his injury. see stewart, 2006 wl 626921, at *4 (statute of limitations under the ada accrues “when the plaintiff knew or had reason to know of the injury serving as the basis for his claim.”); see also fox v. desoto, 489 f.3d 227, 233 (6th cir.2007) (“under federal law, the limitations period begins to run when a plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury that forms the basis of his claim.”); soignier, 92 f.3d at 551 (<holding>) (emphasis in original). plaintiff contends 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 of limitations begins to run on the date the alleged malpractice is discovered B. holding that the statute of limitations begins to run under federal law when plaintiffs knew or should have known of the injury which forms the basis of their claims C. holding that under the ada discovery of the original act of discrimination not future confirmation of the injury or determination that the injury is unlawful is when the statute of limitations begins to run D. holding that the statute of limitations period begins to run when the allegedly discriminatory pension plan is applied to the plaintiffs and leaving determination of the actual date the statute begins to run on each claim to the district court E. holding that georgias statute of limitations for personal injury actions should be applied to discrimination claims brought under the rehabilitation act and title ii of the ada. Answer:

C. holding that under the ada discovery of the original act of discrimination not future confirmation of the injury or determination that the injury is unlawful is when the statute of limitations begins to run

Consider the following statement: Implies more than intent as volition or intent as awareness of consequences.”). policymakers may act with an awareness of race — unaccompanied by a facial racial classification or a discriminatory purpose — without thereby subjecting the resultant policies to the rigors of strict constitutional scrutiny. the supreme court has specified that “race may be considered in certain circumstances and in a proper fashion .... [m]ere awareness of race in attempting to solve the problems facing inner cities does not doom that endeavor [to foster diversity and combat racial isolation] at the outset.” tex. dep’t hous. & cmty. affairs v. inclusive cmties. project, — u.s. -, 135 s.ct. 2507, 2525, 192 l.ed.2d 514 (2015); see shaw v. reno, 509 u.s. 630, 646, 113 s.ct. 2816, 125 l.ed.2d 511 (1993) (<holding>); parents involved, 551 u.s. at 789, 127 s.ct. 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 a violation of 1981 requires purposeful race discrimination C. holding that more favorable treatment of similarly situated employees outside the race classification is required to make a prima facie race discrimination case D. recognizing that certain forms of race consciousness do not lead inevitably to impermissible race discrimination E. holding race and gender discrimination claim barred. Answer:

D. recognizing that certain forms of race consciousness do not lead inevitably to impermissible race discrimination

Consider the following statement: That? (tr. at 152.) carter argues the quote is a misstatement of the law, and improperly persuaded the jury to be receptive to the state's case. the state indicates the prosecutor was "verifying that the jurors could go outside what might be called the typical paradigm of a robbery ease." (appellee's br. at 11.) as we find the statement extremely difficult to understand, we cannot say it could have improperly persuaded the jury to be receptive to the state's case or otherwise prejudiced the jury against carter. even if the statement could be understood to misstate the law, it did not make a fair trial impossible, as the jury was instructed multiple times thereafter regarding the elements of the charges against carter. see benefield v. state, 904 n.e.2d 239, 247 n. 4 (ind.ct.app.2009) (<holding>), trans. denied. there was no prose-cutorial 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 almost any improper argument may be cured by an instruction to disregard B. holding improper admission of extrinsic evidence may be cured by adequate limiting instruction C. holding an error re garding the element of a crime may be cured through further instruction to the jury D. holding that a jury instruction directing the verdict on one element deprived defendant of the right to a jury determination on every element of the charged offense and thus constituted structural error E. holding omission in the jury instruction of element of offense requires a new trial. Answer:

C. holding an error re garding the element of a crime may be cured through further instruction to the jury

Consider the following statement: By using the policy’s cash value or “paid up” provisions. the court’s opinion makes no reference to a 31-day grace period as an “extended coverage” for purposes of section 234(1) and we reject plaintiffs assertions that such a conclusion may be inferred from the opinion’s language. moreover, as defendant notes, the court’s interpretation of section 234(1) was dicta, as the insured in first national bank died long after the six-month period ended. first national bank, 122 ill. 2d at 118, 121-22. for these reasons, first national bank does not govern the facts before us. indeed, our research has uncovered no case holding that a 31-day grace period operates as an extension of coverage. see generally estate of blakely v. federal kemper life assurance co., 267 ill. app. 3d 100, 110 (1994) (<holding>); see also hall v. metropolitan life insurance 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 because a disclaimer relates back to the decedents death the status of parties in the chain of succession are established as of the time of death regardless of when the disclaimer is made B. holding that decedents overpayment of premiums during the policys first year extended coverage so that the policy would not have lapsed at the time of his death C. holding that policy limits are not a defense to coverage and that policy limits define the amount of coverage D. holding that if there are multiple causes of action and one would potentially constitute a claim within the scope of the policys coverage the insurer would have a duty to defend until it could confine the claim to a recovery excluded from the policy internal quotation marks and citation omitted E. holding that policy coverage is triggered in each year that the plaintiff inhaled asbestos. Answer:

B. holding that decedents overpayment of premiums during the policys first year extended coverage so that the policy would not have lapsed at the time of his death

Consider the following statement: Proximity to a suspected drug location is insufficient to create reasonable suspicion on the part of police.”), when combined with other factors, the high crime nature of an area may support a stop. see united states v. brown, 159 f.3d at 149-50. in this ease, the area around seventh and jefferson streets, although considered a high crime area, is also a residential neighborhood. officer prado admitted that the area is a residential neighborhood in his testimony. in fact, mccray’s grandmother lived very near the scene of the stop. in addition, although 10:45 p.m. is late, it is not unheard of for neighbors in a community to stand outside and talk late on a summer evening. but see united states v. dover, crim a. no. 96-181,1996 u.s. dist. lexis 17415, at *11 (e.d.pa. nov. 26, 1996) (<holding>). it is certainly not suspicious conduct for 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 group of men standing with known drug traffickers who fled when officers approached established reasonable suspicion B. holding that an officers observation of a man holding his hand out with a group of other men looking down at his open palm in an high drug trafficking area late at night constituted reasonable suspicion C. holding that the police officer had reasonable suspicion when he saw a vehicle moving with its lights off in the parking lot of a closed business in a rural area at 300 am D. holding that the fact that a group of men surrounding a car parked in a marked bus stop dispersed upon the approach of investigating officers was relevant to a reasonable suspicion determination E. holding that police officers had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity after observing a group of men huddled around a closed store at 2 am. Answer:

E. holding that police officers had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity after observing a group of men huddled around a closed store at 2 am

Consider the following statement: Rejecting djigo’s explanations. see majidi v. gonzales, 430 f.3d 77, 80 (2d cir.2005). because the only evidence of a threat to djigo’s life or freedom depended upon his credibility, his failure to exhaust precludes success on his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and cat relief where all three claims were based on the same factual predicate. see paul v. gonzales, 444 f.3d 148, 156 (2d cir.2006). for the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is denied. 2 . djigo challenges the ij's adverse credibility finding in his brief to this court, but did not do so before the bia. we nonetheless address the adverse credibility determination because the government does not argue that the issue is unexhausted. see lin zhong v. u.s. dep’t of justice, 461 f.3d 101, 119-20 (2d cir.2006) 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 exhaustion of issues is waived if not raised by the government B. holding that exhaustion of issues is jurisdictional C. holding that issue exhaustion is not jurisdictional and thus waived if not raised by the government D. holding issues not raised in appellate brief are waived E. holding that issues not raised before a district court are waived on appeal. Answer:

A. holding that exhaustion of issues is waived if not raised by the government

Consider the following statement: Met their burden, and that inquiry into the deliberative process is precluded by rule 606(b) of the federal rules of evidence. this court agrees that the koenigs waived any claim of juror bias by not advising the court of these allegations at a time when the court could have done something about them. this court conducted voir dire to find out whether any member of the jury panel recognized any of the defendants or had provided goods or services to coastal. one member of the panel was excused due to his familiarity with the defendants. none of the jurors acknowledged any relationship or familiarity before they were empaneled. waiver has been found where juror misconduct was only alleged, as in the koenigs’ case. see, e.g., united states v. dean, 667 f.2d 729, 730, 734 (8th cir.1982) (<holding>). waiver has also been found where there was 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 possible juror misconduct is brought to the trial judges attention he or she has a duty to investigate and to determine whether there may have been a violation of the sixth amendment B. holding that it was not constitutionally permissible for the state to respond to defendants invocation of his statutory right to appeal by bringing a more serious charge against him prior to the trial de novo C. holding that litigants have a duty to disclose their objection to a prospective juror by promptly bringing the matter to the attention of the trial court D. holding that although this court affords broad discretion to the district court in determining the type of investigation necessary to determine juror bias the district court must provide the defendant a meaningful opportunity to prove the same E. holding that the defendant by not bringing his knowledge of possible juror bias to the attention of the district court prior to verdict waived his right to a new trial. Answer:

E. holding that the defendant by not bringing his knowledge of possible juror bias to the attention of the district court prior to verdict waived his right to a new trial

Consider the following statement: To alleviate the confusion. 239 ga. at 128-129. 8 see, e.g., city of columbus v. myszka, 246 ga. 571, 572 (272 se2d 302) (1980) (distinguishing a continuing, abatable nuisance from a permanent nuisance); brand v. montega corp., 233 ga. 32, 33 (209 se2d 581) (1974) (“in a surface-water invasion case, the continuing invasions amount to a continuing trespass which is the equivalent of a continuing nuisance.”); city of gainesville v. waters, 258 ga. app. 555, 558 (574 se2d 638) (2002) (“where a nuisance is not permanent in its character, but is one which can and should be abated by the person erecting or maintaining it, every continuance of the nuisance is a fresh nuisance for which a fresh action will lie.”); city council of augusta v. boyd, 70 ga. app. 686, 688 (29 se2d 437) (1944) (<holding>). 9 this court in hibbs v. city of riverdale, 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. recognizing that subject matter jurisdiction can be questioned at any time and with respect to any claim B. holding that it is not C. holding standing cannot be waived and may thus be raised at any time D. holding that the nuisance is not permanent because it can be abated at any time E. holding that the relevant time is the time of the employment decision. Answer:

D. holding that the nuisance is not permanent because it can be abated at any time

Consider the following statement: 381 f.3d 965 (9th cir.2004) (en banc); weitzel v. division of occupational and professional licensing of the dep’t of commerce, 240 f.3d 871 (10th cir.2001); kirschner v. klemons, 225 f.3d 227, 238 (2d cir.2000); yamaha motor corp., u.s.a. v. stroud, 179 f.3d 598, 603-04 (8th cir.1999); carroll v. city of mount clemens, 139 f.3d 1072, 1076 (6th cir.1998); simpson v. rowan, 73 f.3d 134, 137-39 & nn. 5-6 (7th cir.1995); kyricopoulos v. town of orleans, 967 f.2d 14, 15 n. 1 (1st cir.1992); traverso v. penn, 874 f.2d 209, 213 (4th cir.1989); williams v. hepting, 844 f.2d 138, 144-45 (3d cir.), cert. denied, 488 u.s. 851, 109 s.ct. 135, 102 l.ed.2d 107 (1988). the fifth circuit has provided conflicting opinions on this issue. compare alexander v. ieyoub, 62 f.3d 709, 713 (5th cir.1995) (<holding>); allen v. louisiana state bd. of dentistry, 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 no retroactive application B. holding that when plaintiff has proven injury but has failed to prove the amount of damages the plaintiff is only entitled to nominal damages C. holding that because there was no distinction between the damages caused by actions of defendants in a prior case and actions of the defendant in this case the plaintiff suffered a single indivisible injury allowing for one cause of action D. holding that younger has no application in actions seeking only damages E. holding that the period for seeking judicial review of denial of con application not expressly ruled upon by the conrb begins to run at the time that application has been denied by operation of law. Answer:

D. holding that younger has no application in actions seeking only damages

Consider the following statement: Rights of a contracting entity and the united states regarding any contract executed pursuant to federal reclamation law. the united states, when a party to any suit, shall be deemed to have waived any right to plead that it is not amenable thereto by reason of its sovereignty, and shall be subject to judgments, orders, and decrees of the court having jurisdiction, and may obtain review thereof, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances. 43 u.s.c. § 390uu. we conclude that this statutory provision waives sovereign immunity in this case, where appellants are seeking injunctive and declaratory relief under the westlands and san benito contracts. accord sumner peck ranch, inc. v. bureau of reclamation, 823 f.supp. 715, 748 (e.d.cal.1993) (<holding>). id. at 673-74 (footnote in original). 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 390uu waives sovereign immunity from contract claims for injunctive relief and specific performance B. holding that plaintiffs claim was not barred by sovereign immunity because he sought specific relief against a government official C. holding that immunity from suit precluded claim for breach of contract for sale of county property and request for specific performance of contract D. holding that the tucker acts waiver of sovereign immunity for contract claims does not extend to claims for contracts implied in law E. holding city waives immunity by entering into contract. Answer:

A. holding that 390uu waives sovereign immunity from contract claims for injunctive relief and specific performance

Consider the following statement: Investigator/handler of an accelerant detection canine was introduced. see id. at 850. the investigator concluded that accelerants had been used “based on his own personal investigation and observations.” id. no ac-celerants were found on a sample taken from the fire scene. see id. the court concluded that the testimony was based on “scientific principle ... sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the field of arson investigation.” id. thus, the “use of dogs to detect accelerates [was] not a new or novel scientific principle.” id. ¶ 24 similarly, we conclude that the use of canines to help detect the presence of accelerants as an investigative tool is generally accepted within the fire investigation community. see fitts v. state, 982 s.w.2d 175, 183 (tex.app.1998) (<holding>); see also nfpa 921: guide for fire and 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 product rule method of dna statistical evidence is now generally accepted in the relevant scientific community B. holding that expert opinion based on scientific technique is inadmissible unless technique is generally accepted as reliable in relevant scientific community C. holding that calculations done by applying product rule were generally accepted in relevant scientific community D. recognizing that training and technique for canine accelerant detection is accepted by arson investigation community E. holding that ems training lieutenants position met criteria because the lieutenants developed coordinated implemented and conducted ems training programs prepared lesson plans and training aids supervised delivery of training and tests and evaluated new equipment. Answer:

D. recognizing that training and technique for canine accelerant detection is accepted by arson investigation community

Consider the following statement: The website looked like heather. but in analyzing a judicial deception claim, we need not scrutinize police investigative tactics in this fashion. 10 . as discussed above, the materiality of an omission is an issue for the court. 11 . the ewings quote shirk's testimony from prater and memory's trial, but the officers obviously did not have this information at the time they prepared the warrant affidavit. the ewings also fault the officers for not asking shirk more questions, such as whether he had been drinking, how long he looked at the female, whether her helmet face shield was up or down, and what the lighting conditions were. but judicial deception claims do not require an inquiry into the quality of the police investigation. see generally gates, 462 u.s. at 235-36, 103 s.ct. 2317 (<holding>). 12 . after the ewings' arrest, contreras did 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 allegations in a pro se complaint are to be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers B. holding that the complaint submitted by a pro se plaintiff must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers C. holding that the allegations in a pro se complaint are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers D. recognizing that because affidavits are typically drafted in the midst and haste of a criminal investigation by nonlawyers they must be read with an understanding of that context and accordingly held to a lower standard of scrutiny than that applied to pleadings filed in more formal proceedings E. holding that affidavits for search warrants must be interpreted in a commonsense and realistic fashion because they are normally drafted by nonlawyers in the midst and haste of a criminal investigation. Answer:

D. recognizing that because affidavits are typically drafted in the midst and haste of a criminal investigation by nonlawyers they must be read with an understanding of that context and accordingly held to a lower standard of scrutiny than that applied to pleadings filed in more formal proceedings

Consider the following statement: Treatment that resulted from the injuries and that the charges are reasonable. 136 the gorostietas claim it was error for the trial court not to allow marie gorostieta to read or testify as to the contents of the medical bills she received as evidence of their reasonableness. parkinson argues that any testimony offered by marie gorostieta regarding the medical bills would have been hearsay. we find it unnecessary to address whether this evidence would have been hearsay because this court has already ruled that under the best evidence rule, a witness may not testify as to material contained in exhibits that have been previously denied admission. see intermountain farmers ass'n v. fitzgerald, 574 p.2d 1162, 1165 (utah 1978); see also state v. ross, 573 p.2d 1288, 1289-90 (utah 1978) (<holding>). to allow a witness to so testify would 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 trial court erred in allowing police officer to testify to contents of telephone records that were not introduced into evidence B. holding that trial court erred by not allowing the plaintiff to introduce evidence of prior dealings with the defendant C. holding that records relating to a student court were not education records D. holding trial court erred in finding violations based only on officers testimony based on review of probation records where states failure to admit records into evidence rendered officers testimony hearsay E. holding that the trial court erred in allowing an equitable reduction in the amount required to redeem the subject property. Answer:

A. holding that trial court erred in allowing police officer to testify to contents of telephone records that were not introduced into evidence

Consider the following statement: Or by failing to grant his motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for an extension of time. {91} we uphold the constitutionality of the capital felony sentencing act. the evidence supports the jury’s findings of the aggravating factors charged. the evidence also supports the jury’s findings that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances. the facts of clark’s case support the conclusion that the jury did not impose his death sentence under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor. taking clark, the circumstances of the crime, and other similar new mexico cases into consideration, clark’s sentence of death was neither excessive nor disproportionate. we affirm clark’s sentence. finally, we conclude tha 91) (per curiam) (<holding>). 3 . see state v. dodd, 120 wash.2d 1, 838 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 court lacked jurisdiction where the defendant failed to file a notice of appeal on the attorneys fee issue because a supplemental notice of appeal is required for us to have jurisdiction over an attorneys fees issue that becomes final subsequent to the initial notice of appeal B. holding that an express waiver of the right to appeal the sentence was invalid because the trial court had failed properly to advise the defendant and that the defendant therefore did not waive his right to appeal the legality of his sentence C. holding that a notice of appeal filed in an adversary proceeding could not appeal the main proceeding D. holding that a capital defendant must receive a meaningful appeal with the benefit of an adversary proceeding with diligent appellate advocacy addressed to both the judgment and the sentence but allowing the defendant to file a pro se supplemental brief setting forth his personal positions and interests with regard to the subject matter of this appeal E. holding defendants pro se motion to reduce sentence was not properly before the trial court when defendant was represented by counsel since defendant may not proceed both by counsel and pro se. Answer:

D. holding that a capital defendant must receive a meaningful appeal with the benefit of an adversary proceeding with diligent appellate advocacy addressed to both the judgment and the sentence but allowing the defendant to file a pro se supplemental brief setting forth his personal positions and interests with regard to the subject matter of this appeal

Consider the following statement: With a significant portion of the proceeds from the sale of the ambassador building. cox’s and trahan’s testimony that thad had check cashing privileges at a casino and that he gambled the day before filing for bankruptcy was merely cumulative evidence of thad’s gambling proclivities. given the substantial non-gambling evidence supporting thad and theresa’s convictions (discussed below), and the cumulative nature of cox’s and trahan’s testimony, there is not a “significant possibility’ that the evidence had a substantial impact on the jury’s verdict. see sanchez-sotelo, 8 f.3d at 210; see also united states v. hall, 500 f.3d 439, 444 (5th cir.2007) (“the erroneous introduction of cumulative evidence was harmless error.”); united states v. mortazavi, 702 f.2d 526, 529 (5th cir.1983) (<holding>). any error in admitting cox’s and trahan’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 error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt B. holding improperly admitted evidence was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt C. holding that the trial courts erroneous admission of an experts opinion that the defendant was guilty was harmless where the prosecution produced overwhelming evidence of guilt D. holding that the admission of a family photo was harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence in support of the conviction E. holding that any error in admission of demonstrative aid was harmless because evidence of defendants guilt was overwhelming. Answer:

A. holding that error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt

Consider the following statement: Or prospective bidders or offerors whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of the contract or by failure to award the contract.” id. at 1302 (emphasis added). in the case of pre-award protests, we have repeatedly limited standing under § 1491 to those bidders who have a “substantial chance” of securing the award and who have been disadvantaged by the government procurement decision they challenge. in rex service corp. v. united states, we held that a contractor did not have standing because it did not “establish that it had a ‘substantial chance’ of receiving the contract” and thus “prove a direct economic interest as a putative prospective bidder.” 448 f.3d 1305, 1308 (fed.cir.2006); see also statistica, inc. v. christopher, 102 f.3d 1577, 1582 (fed.cir.1996) (<holding>). in caci field services, inc. v. united 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 must show reasonable probability that but for the error he would not have entered the plea B. holding that a protester must show only that there was a substantial chance it would have received the contract award but for that error C. recognizing under plain error review that the burden to show that substantial rights have been prejudiced is on the party that failed to raise the issue below and for an error to have affected substantial rights the error must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings D. holding that a contractor failed to show a substantial chance it would have received the contract award but for agency error E. holding that a protester is not required to show that but for the alleged error the protester would have been awarded the contract instead a protester must show there was a substantial chance it would have received the contract but for the alleged error. Answer:

D. holding that a contractor failed to show a substantial chance it would have received the contract award but for agency error

Consider the following statement: 1988 or 1990, he was pushed and heard shots fired; this is the only harm he endured in mexico and it does not amount to persecution. see jian qiu liu v. holder, 632 f.3d 820, 822 (2d cir.2011) (finding no error in bia’s conclusion that an applicant who was beaten and detained for two days did not establish persecution because the injuries “required no formal medical attention and had no lasting physical effect”). while cardonar-contreras argues that the murders of his father and grandfather contribute to the cumulative harm he suffered, which amounts to persecution, those deaths both occurred before he was born. accordingly, the murders of his father and grandfather were not acts intended to harm or threaten cardona-contreras. cf. jiang v. gonzales, 500 f.3d 137, 142 (2d cir.2007) (<holding>). in the absence of past persecution, 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. 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 B. holding that no wellfounded fear was established where the attacks on family members failed to show a pattern of persecution tied to the petitioners C. 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 D. 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 E. holding that absent a pattern of persecution linked to the applicant persecution of family members is insufficient to demonstrate a wellfounded fear of persecution. Answer:

A. 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

Consider the following statement: Treatment program and was specifically told by the trial court that if he failed to admit his offense his probation would be revoked. when he failed to make the required admissions, his probation was revoked. this is precisely the situation proscribed by our supreme court in morrow and the united states supreme court in murphy. in morrow, the court noted revocation of probation is a penalty that cannot be imposed for exercising the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. 590 n.w.2d at 793. similarly, in murphy, the supreme court acknowledged a state may not revoke probation “because a probationer refused to make nonimmunized disclosures concerning his own criminal conduct.” 465 u.s. at 439, 104 s.ct. at 1148; see also mace v. amestoy, 765 f.supp. 847, 852 (d.vt.1991) (<holding>); people v. elsbach, 934 p.2d 877, 881 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 state failed to rebut the defendants testimony that he was forced to leave his approved residence and could not reach the probation officer to inform him of his move B. holding a person in a probation setting can not be forced to incriminate himself without the state granting him immunity first C. holding that testimony of probation officer that landlord told him probationer moved from approved residence was hearsay and could not support revocation of probation without additional nonhearsay evidence D. holding that under statutes in effect at the time a court may not by revocation and granting a second period of probation extend the total time on probation beyond five years as the statutes do not speak of terms of probation but speak in plain language of the total time which may be spent on probation for a felony E. holding that probation is not a sentence. Answer:

B. holding a person in a probation setting can not be forced to incriminate himself without the state granting him immunity first

Consider the following statement: ” citing united states v. johnson, 909 f.2d 1517, 1519 (d.c.cir. 1990). (emphasis added.) in united states v. woods, 568 f.2d 509 (6th cir. 1978), the sixth circuit court of appeals stated, regarding heroin possession: “[a]s long as the statute does not graduate the gravity of the crime of possession of heroin by the quantity possessed, we see no indication that congress intended to permit a multiplication of the offenses of possession at any given time by a defendant upon evidence that the heroin may merely have been separately packaged or stashed. woods, 568 f.2d at 513 (emphasis added.). woods also explains that the sentencing potentialities permit one conviction to accommodate an inclusive possession conviction. see also, united states v. williams, 480 f.2d 1204 (6th cir. 1973), (<holding>). further, the cases the majority cites as 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 30 pallets were the cogsa packages where the bill of lading stated that there were 30 packages B. holding that statutory maximum is twenty years when drug quantity is not charged as element of offense and found by jury beyond a reasonable doubt C. holding separate convictions for drug transactions occurring four or five days apart were properly counted as separate convictions D. holding that prior drug convictions that were four ten and eleven years old were not so remote from the charged drug offenses as to render them inadmissible E. holding that only one offense should have been charged when four separate packages of the same drug were found. Answer:

E. holding that only one offense should have been charged when four separate packages of the same drug were found

Consider the following statement: Employment. consequently, miller was required to comply with k.s.a. 12-105b(d)’s notice requirements, which she failed to do, and the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against flores was dismissed. 916 f. supp.1101. garcia raises state law claims against the police department and the officers acting within the scope of their employment. we agree with the district court that garcia’s claims could give rise to a number of actions whereby the appellees could be hable in kansas, namely assault, battery, false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, and damages for racial profiling. all of these types of claims are covered by k.s.a. 2010 supp. 12-105b(d)’s notice requirement. see knorp v. albert, 29 kan. app. 2d 509, 513, 28 p.3d 1024, rev. denied 272 kan. 1418 (2001) (<holding>); king v. pimentel, 20 kan. app. 2d 579, 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 in age discrimination case under adea that same considerations are pertinent when deciding single employer issue for public entities as for private entities and applying nlrb test to resolve the question noting that where government entities are concerned court also must keep constitutional separation of powers issues in mind B. holding that public entities may be held vicariously hable for the negligent acts of their individual employees C. holding that notice statute applies to both municipal entities and employees of municipal entities acting within the scope of their employment D. holding that discrimination against a municipal employee could trigger municipal liability under 1983 through official policy or custom E. holding that although municipalities are persons within the meaning of 42 usc 1983 no municipal liability lies under that statute unless action pursuant to official municipal policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort. Answer:

C. holding that notice statute applies to both municipal entities and employees of municipal entities acting within the scope of their employment

Consider the following statement: Concur in the result. although i agree with much of the substan tive analysis presented by the majority in its treatment of various of appellant’s claims, i have sufficient differences with various elaborations that i am unable to supply a full joinder. in particular, as pertains to part ii of the majority opinion — which addresses appellant’s claim of deficient stewardship by virtue of his attorneys’ failure to seek suppression — i agree with appellant that the pcra court erred in its conclusion that an anonymous 911 report of a domestic disturbance, coupled with a responding officer’s “gut feeling,” meets the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement so as to justify entry by police into a residence. accord kerman v. city of new york, 261 f.3d 229, 232-36 (2d cir.2001) (<holding>). the majority references no decision which is 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 911 call reporting domestic dispute and child telling officer that a man with a gun was inside fighting with her mom constituted exigent circumstances that justified warrantless entry into home B. holding the fourth amendment prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspects home in order to make a routine felony arrest C. holding in an impliedconsent case that a warrantless police entry was unlawful in part because the police did not request entry D. holding that a warrantless entry by police into an apartment based on an uncorroborated anonymous 911 report of a mentally ill man acting crazy and possibly in possession of a gun violated the fourth amendment E. holding that warrantless arrest based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment. Answer:

D. holding that a warrantless entry by police into an apartment based on an uncorroborated anonymous 911 report of a mentally ill man acting crazy and possibly in possession of a gun violated the fourth amendment

Consider the following statement: Been very emphatic that, except in cases where only one inference can be drawn from the facts, negligence, proximate cause, and foreseeability are questions of fact for the jury. see st. clair v. denny, 245 kan. 414, 781 p.2d 1043, 1047 (1989); baker v. city of garden city, 240 kan. 554, 731 p.2d 278, 281 (1987); gard, 400 p.2d at 1000, 1002; rowell, 176 p.2d at 595. as might be expected in an area of the law in which so much depends on the factual scenario of the particular case, the holdings of the kansas cases that address causation are not clearly dispositive of the issue. however, we find that those cases whose facts most closely approximate those of the instant case support the conclusion that the district court improperly granted summary judgment. see steele, 327 p.2d at 1065 (<holding>); rowell, 176 p.2d at 597 (holding 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 in a 1983 action issue of probable cause is for the jury B. recognizing the cause of action C. recognizing the availability of a cause of action by manufacturer against supplier under consumer fraud act D. recognizing cause of action E. holding that demurrer improperly granted because dropping bottle of flammable liquid was reasonably probable such that it was not an intervening cause in action against bottle manufacturer. Answer:

E. holding that demurrer improperly granted because dropping bottle of flammable liquid was reasonably probable such that it was not an intervening cause in action against bottle manufacturer

Consider the following statement: So the fact that the mossberg shotgun was found in the apartment is not evidence that he participated in the burglary; and (2) the accomplice, do, testified that it was he who placed the shotgun in cao’s closet, not cao himself, and thus the officer’s recovery of the stolen gun from cao’s closet is insufficient corroboration of do’s testimony. we disagree. while the recovery of the stolen shotgun in cao’s apartment standing alone does not establish his guilt, it is evidence that tends to connect cao to the commission of the greenside burglary. see, e.g., herron v. state, 86 s.w.3d 621, 633 (tex.crim.app.2002) (stating that appellant’s possession of stolen property is a factor that connects appellant to offense); edwards v. state, 106 s.w.3d 833, 843 (tex.app.-dallas 2003, pet. ref'd) (<holding>). do testified that he and cao opened le’s safe 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 recovery of stolen guns from trunk of accuseds car was insufficient corroboration of testimony of accomplice who lived with accused and used his car B. holding that recovery of trash containing stolen property from outside appellants apartment is factor that tends to corroborate accomplice testimony C. holding that the value of property taken includes cash that was stolen but not transferred from stolen car to getaway car because property removed from its rightful owner is properly considered taken even if it is immediately thereafter recovered D. holding that exclusive possession of recently stolen goods warrants the inference that he stole all of the property for which the defendant is accused of taking provided all the property was stolen at the same time emphasis added E. holding that the property owners testimony alone placed the value of the stolen property above the amount necessary to constitute grand larceny. Answer:

B. holding that recovery of trash containing stolen property from outside appellants apartment is factor that tends to corroborate accomplice testimony

Consider the following statement: Protections afforded to the debtors by the bankruptcy code and the automatic stay, specifically because the adversary proceeding will determine whether the debtors were in default and thus whether bank of america is entitled to recover from the guarantors. this, the court believes, is precisely what the "unusual circumstances” exception encompasses. 10 . bank of america contends that with respect to the "unusual circumstances” exception, the debtors were required to demonstrate "unusual circumstances” as well as satisfy the standard for issuance of a preliminary injunction. the ninth circuit has interpreted the exception in a way that supports bank of america's position. see solidus networks, inc. v. excel innovations, inc. (in re excel innovations), 502 f.3d 1086, 1096 (9th cir.2007) (<holding>). contrary to the ninth circuit’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 the unusual circumstances exception was not a separate basis for staying nondebtor litigation from the traditional preliminary injunction standard B. holding that the standard for permanent injunction is the same as that for preliminary injunction with the one exception being that the plaintiff must show actual success on the merits rather than likelihood of success C. holding that when the district court applies the wrong preliminary injunction standard this court may review the record to determine whether the injunction is justified D. holding that court can consider inadmissible evidence in the context of a motion for preliminary injunction E. holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction. Answer:

A. holding that the unusual circumstances exception was not a separate basis for staying nondebtor litigation from the traditional preliminary injunction standard

Consider the following statement: Have a number of tools at their disposal in exercising their section 8(c) rights to express their views on union organizing efforts. an employer is permitted, for example, to express its views about union representation to masses of employees, in mandatory meetings, on company time, so long as such speech does not occur within 24 hours of an election. see peerless plywood co., 107 nlrb 427, 429 (1953); livingston shirt corp., 107 nlrb 400, 409 (1953). employers may dispatch supervisors to engage in one-on-one discussions during work time with employees about the negative effects of union representation, see, e.g., nlrb v. lenkurt elec. co., 438 f.2d 1102, 1107-08 (9th cir.1971), and may disseminate written anti-union materials, beverly enterprises-hawaii, inc., 326 nlrb 335, 336 (1998) (<holding>). our opinions have faithfully reiterated our 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 employees private arbitration agreement with her employer precluded her from filing suit against the employer under the adea B. holding that employees failure to comply with employers rule requiring employees to notify employer when a temporary job placement ended did not constitute gross misconduct because the violation was an isolated incident and employer did not try to show that its staffing ability had suffered serious or indeed any consequences as a result of employees unavailability C. holding that the employer did not engage in objectionable conduct when its supervisors handed out flyers even at a time when the employer was enforcing its otherwise valid nodistribution rule against employees D. holding that the employer had not demonstrated the employee was discharged for gross misconduct because the conduct was an isolated incident and the employer did not try to show that its staffing ability had suffered serious or indeed any consequences as a result of the employees conduct E. holding unconscionable an arbitration agreement requiring employees to arbitrate claims against the employer but not requiring the employer to arbitrate claims against the employees. Answer:

C. holding that the employer did not engage in objectionable conduct when its supervisors handed out flyers even at a time when the employer was enforcing its otherwise valid nodistribution rule against employees

Consider the following statement: Error in the trial court’s exercise of discretion. this assignment of error is without merit. ii. the lower court erred in the manner in which the jury was selected ¶ 7. robinson assigns error to the trial court’s method of jury selection. robinson’s only claim rests on a vague recitation of rule 4.05(2) of the uniform rules of circuit and county court without any additional argument or citation to authority in support thereof. robinson maintains a full panel of accepted jurors was not tendered to him after the state exercised its first round in the jury selection. robinson is incorrect and misinterprets the selection procedure outlined in urccc 4.05(2). under urccc 4.05(2) a full panel of jurors, meaning twelve, are tendered by the state after electing to exer , 113 l.ed.2d 411 (1991) (<holding>), neither of which are applicable to 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 generally an unsworn statement by counsel is not evidence in the context of a batson hearing B. holding that evidence of the same name and that the former conviction was in same city and same court as the present case and the fact that the defendant did not offer any testimony to rebut the prima facie evidence of identity was sufficient to establish identity C. holding that probation does not constitute a sentence D. holding that a defendants confirmation of a psrs findings does not waive a challenge on appeal where there is no conceivable strategic reason for not objecting to a sentence at a higher offense level E. holding that racial identity between the objecting defendant and the excluded jurors does not constitute a relevant precondition for a batson challenge. Answer:

E. holding that racial identity between the objecting defendant and the excluded jurors does not constitute a relevant precondition for a batson challenge

Consider the following statement: 486, or are acting pursuant to an entity’s policy, id., at 473-474. meyer also made clear that the threat of suit against an individual’s employer was not the kind of deterrence contemplated by bivens. see 510 u. s., at 485 (“if we were to imply a damages action directly against federal agencies ... there would be no reason for aggrieved parties to bring damages actions against individual officers. [t]he deterrent effects of the bivens remedy would be lost”). this case is, in every meaningful sense, the same. for if a corporate defendant is available for suit, claimants will focus their collection efforts on it, and not the individual directly responsible for the alleged injury. see, e. g., txo production corp. v. alliance resources corp., 509 u. s. 443, 464 (1993) (plurality opinion) (<holding>); id., at 490-492 (o’con-nor, j., dissenting) 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 rico enterprise may consist of individuals associated in fact with corporations B. recognizing that corporations fare much worse before juries than do individuals C. holding that a corporations principal place of business for determining diversity jurisdiction under 28 usc 1332c1 is the nerve center meaning the corporations headquarters or the place where a corporations officers direct control and coordinate the corporations activities D. recognizing that diversion of substantial corporate assets to the debtors management or to other corporations owned by management constituted mismanagement at best and fraud or dishonesty at worse E. recognizing that the confrontation clause may provide greater rights in cases tried before juries than in bench trials. Answer:

B. recognizing that corporations fare much worse before juries than do individuals

Consider the following statement: Work rules, and without proper authorization weighs strongly in favor of finding the up 9484 was not “in use” at the time of the accident. however, johnson argues the up 9484 was nevertheless “in use” for three rea sons. first, the up 9484 did not have blue flags placed on it, which johnson argues should be dispositive, applying the fifth circuit’s bright-line test from trinidad, 949 f.2d at 189, yet relying on a different dispositive factor borrowed from wright, 574 f.3d at 622. second, johnson argues the up 9484 was not located within the diesel shop and was therefore still on its “unitary journey to the point of repair,” citing brady v. terminal r.r. ass’n of st. louis, 303 u.s. 10, 58 s.ct. 426, 82 l.ed. 614 (1938), and misquoting s. ry. co. v. bryan, 375 f.2d 155 (5th cir. 1967) (<holding>). third, johnson argues his conduct necessarily 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 defective railroad vehicle is in use under the saa where hauling is in progress or in immediate contemplation because the handling of it for that purpose is a part of its unitary journey from the point of discovery of disability to the repair shop B. holding that there is no unitary business in part because there is no flow of international business C. holding that a defendant is in custody and miranda applies even when the purpose of defendants detention is unrelated to the purpose of the interrogation D. holding that the the statement of the purpose of the law in question in the committee report is not conclusive and reiterating that the question is whether the law is reasonably calculated to achieve a legitimate police power purpose E. holding that breathing is a major life activity within the contemplation of the ada. Answer:

A. holding a defective railroad vehicle is in use under the saa where hauling is in progress or in immediate contemplation because the handling of it for that purpose is a part of its unitary journey from the point of discovery of disability to the repair shop

Consider the following statement: 144 (11th ed.2005) (emphasis added). here, the song file is never returned because, according to plaintiff, pandora deletes the file upon completion of the song. see compl. ¶ 20. moreover, merely alleging that subscribers “borrow” sound recordings does not suffice to identify the particular conduct the subscriber undertakes to use the file. see iqbal, 556 u.s. at 678, 129 s.ct. 1937 (“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere eonclusory statements, do not suffice.”). plaintiff also fails to confront the fact that pandora’s terms of use, which govern a subscriber’s use of the pandora internet radio service, foreclose any borrowing or use of any temporary song file supplied by pandora. cf. apple inc. v. psystar corp., 658 f.3d 1150, 1159 (9th cir.2011) (<holding>). in particular, the terms of use plainly state 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 party seeking to compel arbitration must establish the existence of an arbitration agreement and show that the claims raised fall within the scope of that agreement B. holding misuse of copyright because of limitations imposed on licensing agreement C. recognizing a presumption that the issuance of a permit by the state engineer allowing recognized irrigation water rights to be shifted to other users works as severance of those water rights from the land D. holding that the uniform commercial code specifically encompassed a software licensing agreement E. holding that licensing agreement controlled the scope of the users rights in the software. Answer:

E. holding that licensing agreement controlled the scope of the users rights in the software

Consider the following statement: Record justifying the increase. accordingly, the increased sentence violated church's right to due process. by the court. — the decision of the court of appeals is reversed. 1 all subsequent references to the wisconsin statutes are to the 1995-1996 volumes unless otherwise indicated. 2 we initially granted the state's petition to review the court of appeals' decision regarding the multiplicity of the two child enticement charges, but later dismissed the petition as improvidently granted after the state changed its position and conceded multiplicity. see state v. church, 2000 wi 90, 236 wis. 2d 755, 613 n.w.2d 848. 3 additional cases in which the north carolina v. pearce, 395 u.s. 711 (1969), presumption has been held not to apply include: colten v. kentucky, 407 u.s. 104, 117 (1972) (<holding>); and chaffin v. stynchcombe, 412 u.s. 17 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 there is a presumption of vindictiveness when a harsher sentence is imposed after a defendant exercises his right to a de novo review B. holding that the possibility of vindictiveness does not inhere in a twotier system of appeals with the right to a de novo hearing after conviction in an inferior court C. holding that presumption of vindictiveness is inapplicable in a system which gave a convicted defendant the right to a trial de novo in another court D. recognizing de novo standard of review E. holding that the proper review for the trial courts application of the law is de novo. Answer:

C. holding that presumption of vindictiveness is inapplicable in a system which gave a convicted defendant the right to a trial de novo in another court

Consider the following statement: California court of appeal’s harmless error analysis was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of habeas relief. affirmed. 1 . we have addressed medina's other arguments in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition. 2 . a "pedicab” is a bicycle with a passenger compartment attached to the rear. 3 . the sixth circuit took the lead by following the first approach in nevers v. killinger, 169 f.3d 352, 371-72 (6th cir.1999); see also hill v. hofbauer, 337 f.3d 706, 718 (6th cir.2003). by contrast, the tenth circuit has elected to pursue the second approach. see cargle v. mullin, 317 f.3d 1196, 1220, 1224 (10th cir.2003); see also saiz v. burnett, 296 f.3d 1008, 1012-13 (10th cir.2002) (<holding>). other circuits have reserved judgment. see, 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 when presented with petitioners claim based upon state and federal law and the state court confined its analysis to state law aedpa deference does not apply B. holding that if the state court correctly applied chapman federal courts do not apply brecht unless the state courts chapman analysis violated aedpa C. holding that federal courts should apply state substantive law D. holding that where state rules of civil procedure apply to courts of the state they do not apply to adjudicatory proceedings before state agencies E. holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts. Answer:

B. holding that if the state court correctly applied chapman federal courts do not apply brecht unless the state courts chapman analysis violated aedpa

Consider the following statement: Only challenge the “collateral issue” of the “attorneys’ fees award.” in that the trial court left open for future determination the amount defendants would be taxed, defendants’ appeal of this collateral issue is interlocutory. since the trial court did not certify the attorneys’ fees award issue for immediate appellate review, defendants may challenge the attorneys’ fees award in this appeal only to the extent that the award affects a substantial right. defendants make a number of arguments in their brief challenging the attorneys’ fees award; however, their only argument based on a substantial right is their contention that the award is “in derogation of [defendants’] sovereign immunity.” see mcclennahan v. n.c. sch. of the arts, 177 n.c. app. 806, 808, 630 s.e.2d 197, 199 (2006) (<holding>), disc. review denied, 361 n.c. 220, 642 s.e.2d 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 there is no due process right to appellate review B. holding that rule 60b jurisdiction is lacking for appeals raising issues decided either explicitly or by necessary implication by this court C. holding that appellate review is limited to the issues specified in the coa D. holding that appellate court may only review issues actually presented to and considered by the trial court E. holding that appeals raising issues of governmental or sovereign immunity affect a substantial right sufficient to immediate appellate review. Answer:

E. holding that appeals raising issues of governmental or sovereign immunity affect a substantial right sufficient to immediate appellate review

Consider the following statement: This issue. gogri decl. ¶ 11. such an event would not negate the fact that plaintiff's numerous medical conditions nevertheless constitute a substantial limitation on his ability to walk. see 29 c.f.r. § 1630.2(j) (defining substantial limitation as either a total inability to perform major life activity or a significant restriction on the same). 7 . the ninth circuit has yet to rule on this issue, but courts are generally in agreement that whether barrier removal is readily achievable is an affirmative defense. see colorado cross disability coalition v. hermanson family ltd. p’ship, 264 f.3d 999, 1002-03 (10th cir.2001); gathright-dietrich v. atlanta landmarks, inc., 452 f.3d 1269, 1274 (11th cir.2006). see also lentini v. calif. ctr. for the arts, 370 f.3d 837 (9th cir.2004) (<holding>). in colorado cross, the tenth circuit 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 laches is an affirmative defense B. recognizing laches as an affirmative defense C. holding that whether an accommodation fundamentally alters a service or facility is an affirmative defense D. holding that fair use is an affirmative defense E. holding that the running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense. Answer:

C. holding that whether an accommodation fundamentally alters a service or facility is an affirmative defense

Consider the following statement: Mandatory. the trial court further explained its rationale when it denied defendant’s .request to submit instruction a: and as the court indicated, i think the instruction will be knocked down by the supreme court at some point because this is argumentative.... the trial court’s basis for refusing instruction a was not arbitrary or unreasonable, nor does it indicate a lack of careful consideration. see davis, 203 s.w.3d at 799. therefore, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion because manor 3d 310.02 (2016) was discretionary before its effective date of january 1, 2016. moreover, defendant, has failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s .refusal to give instruction- a was arbitrary and unreasonable. see, e.g., state v. casey, 517 s.w.3d 570, 574-75 (mo. app. e.d. 2016) (<holding>). point ii is denied. point iii—the trial court 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 did not abuse its discretion by tracking the statutory language in the instruction B. holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the date of filing the petition for dissolution as the valuation date for equitable distribution C. holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not submitting jury instruction maicr 3d 31002 2016 prior to its effective date D. holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding violation was willful and substantial E. holding trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling based only on affidavits. Answer:

C. holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not submitting jury instruction maicr 3d 31002 2016 prior to its effective date

Consider the following statement: Cir.1991), cert. denied, 501 u.s. 1235, 111 s.ct. 2863, 115 l.ed.2d 1030 (1991); wesson v. oglesby, 910 f.2d 278, 281 (5th cir.1990); williams v. luna, 909 f.2d 121, 123 (5th cir.1990); wilson v. lynaugh, 878 f.2d 846, 849 (5th cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 u.s. 969, 110 s.ct. 417, 107 l.ed.2d 382 (1989); and pugh v. parish of st. tammany, 875 f.2d 436, 438 (5th cir.1989). 91 . see neitzke v. williams, 490 u.s. at 327, 109 s.ct. at 1833. see also krueger v. reimer, 66 f.3d at 76-77, and boyd v. biggers, 31 f.3d at 284-85, (both upholding the dismissal as frivolous of civil rights lawsuits on the grounds that the defendants were entitled to absolute judicial and prosecutorial immunity). 92 . see neitzke v. williams, 490 u.s. at 327, 109 s.ct. at 1833; siglarv. hightower, 112 f.3d at 193, (<holding>); hicks v. gamer, 69 f.3d 22, 25 (5th 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 emotional distress requires a showing of either physical symptoms or mental illness B. holding that a state prisoner may not challenge the constitutionality of his conviction in a suit for damages under 42 usc 1983 C. holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc 1983 D. holding that under south dakota law compensation for negligent infliction of emotional distress requires manifestation of physical symptoms and intentional infliction of emotional distress requires an extreme disabling emotional response E. holding that title 42 usc 1997ee requires proof of a physical injury before a prisoner can recover for emotional or mental distress and that verbal abuse is not actionable under section 1983. Answer:

E. holding that title 42 usc 1997ee requires proof of a physical injury before a prisoner can recover for emotional or mental distress and that verbal abuse is not actionable under section 1983

Consider the following statement: § 1983 claim to the extent that she alleges a procedural due process violation. because the court cannot resolve evidentiary issues in the context of a motion to dismiss, however, ms. rhyce will be allowed to amend her complaint, but the court cautions that she should do so only if there is good cause. c. substantive due process defendants next attack ms. rhyce’s § 1983 claim that her substantive due process rights were violated. relying on mckinney v. pate, 20 f.3d 1550 (11th cir.1994), defendants argue that property interests created by state law, such as a property interest in employment, are not subject to substantive due process protection. it appears that most circuits are now of that view. see, e.g., nicholas v. pennsylvania state univ., 227 f.3d 133, 142-43 (3d cir.2000) (<holding>). however, in schaper v. city of huntsville, 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 parents custodial rights are a fundamental interest guaranteed due process protection B. holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property C. recognizing 1983 substantive due process claim D. holding a tenured state employee has a property right to continued employment and must be accorded due process before serious disciplinary sanctions E. holding that plaintiffs tenured public employment is not a fundamental property interest entitled to substantive due process protection thereby joining the great majority of courts of appeals that have addressed this issue and citing cases. Answer:

E. holding that plaintiffs tenured public employment is not a fundamental property interest entitled to substantive due process protection thereby joining the great majority of courts of appeals that have addressed this issue and citing cases

Consider the following statement: Squarely stand for the proposition that indictment clause claims are immediately appeal-able because the court may have assumed that trial would proceed according to the indictment. 4 . see also 420 u.s. at 125 n.26, 95 s.ct. at 869 n.26 (“because the probable cause determination is not a constitutional prerequisite to the charging decision, it is required only for those suspects who suffer restraints on liberty other than the condition that they appear for trial.”) (emphasis added); united states v. pickard, 207 f.2d 472, 474-75 (9th cir. 1953) (absent arrest, prosecution by information may proceed without oath or affirmation of probable cause); church v. united states, 412 f.2d 836, 838 (9th cir. 1969) (same). but cf. united states v. millican, 600 f.2d 273, 276-77 (5th cir. 1979) (<holding>), cert. denied, 445 u.s. 915, 100 s.ct. 1274, 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 there was probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant where the officers corroboration of events that occurred during the controlled buy as set forth in the affidavit provide sufficient probable cause B. holding that issuance of an order to show cause satisfied this requirement C. holding irs need not meet any standard of probable cause to obtain enforcement of a summons D. holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant E. holding that a summons is sufficient restraint to invoke probable cause requirement where failure to appear on summons may result in issuance of warrant. Answer:

E. holding that a summons is sufficient restraint to invoke probable cause requirement where failure to appear on summons may result in issuance of warrant

Consider the following statement: The record contains competent, substantial evidence to support the finding that officers gutierrez and martinez were designees of the school’s principal for purposes of section 810.097(2). a review of the record demonstrates that neither officer testified that he had received either express or implied authorization from the principal to restrict access to school grounds. although both officers testified to their positions as miami-dade county school police officers and to their jurisdictional assignments, neither officer testified further regarding his duty or authority. the testimony supporting the officers’ designee status in this case is even weaker than the testimony that we held in d.j. ii did not support a finding of the warning individual’s designee status. see 67 so.3d at 1035 (<holding>). because an essential element of the offense 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 lay testimony as to the presence of asbestos in the workplace was competent evidence to support the finding that plaintiff was exposed to asbestos B. holding that the testimony of an obligor as to amount of payments was sufficient evidence to support findings of actual support paid C. holding that security guards testimony that her job was to monitor students behavior did not amount to competent substantial evidence to support a finding that the guard was a designee of the schools principal for purposes of section 8100972 D. holding that competent substantial evidence did not support the trial courts conclusory finding that husband had the present ability to pay and noting that the presumption of section 61145a florida statutes is rebuttable E. holding that transfer rule denying eligibility to students transferring from public to private schools did not violate the students rights to due process or equal protection of the laws as provided by the fourteenth amendment. Answer:

C. holding that security guards testimony that her job was to monitor students behavior did not amount to competent substantial evidence to support a finding that the guard was a designee of the schools principal for purposes of section 8100972

Consider the following statement: Of minimal value compared to other medical opinions that squared with treatment records. molina v. astrue, 674 f.3d 1104, 1110 (9th cir.2012) (quoting valentine v. comm’r soc. sec. admin., 574 f.3d 685, 690 (9th cir.2009)). the “alj is the final arbiter with respect to resolving ambiguities in the medical evidence” such as those in the record here. tommasetti v. astrue, 533 f.3d 1035, 1041-42 (9th cir.2008). nor did the alj err in granting only minimal weight to global assessment of functioning (“gaf”) scores. the alj is not required to assign gaf scores controlling weight in the face of other conflicting record evidence. the alj was likewise justified in affording limited weight to the treating physicians’ medical opinions. see edlund v. massanari, 253 f.3d 1152, 1157 (9th cir.2001) (<holding>). the alj provided specific, cogent reasons for 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 treating physicians diagnosis could be rejected for specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in the record B. holding that the alj must make findings setting forth specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in order to reject the contradicted opinion of a treating physician C. 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 D. holding that a treating physicians opinion may be rejected if it is brief conclusory and unsupported by medical evidence E. holding that the testimony of a nonexamining medical advisor does not constitute evidence sufficient to override the treating physicians diagnosis. Answer:

A. holding that a treating physicians diagnosis could be rejected for specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in the record

Consider the following statement: A. to begin the analysis of this issue, it is helpful to place the clergy sexual conduct statute in the context of the variety of third-degree criminal sexual conduct crimes described in minn.stat. § 609.344 (2006). that section criminalizes sexual penetration that occurs in various defined situations and, most significantly, removes consent as a defense to that penetration in many situations. in this latter respect, section 609.344 is at odds with the general notion in criminal law that consenting adults have a protected right to engage in sexual contact. the united states supreme court has held that a state may not generally criminalize sexual contact between consenting adults in the privacy of their home. lawrence v. texas, 539 u.s. 558, 578, 123 s.ct. 2472, 156 l.ed.2d 508 (2003) (<holding>). the court implied that this general rule may 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 double jeopardy clause applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment B. holding the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment extends the right to jury trial to defendants in serious criminal cases in state courts C. holding the right to marry is a central part of the liberty protected by the due process clause D. holding that private sexual contact between consenting adults is a liberty right protected by the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment E. holding that any confrontation right is found in the fourteenth amendments due process clause not the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment. Answer:

D. holding that private sexual contact between consenting adults is a liberty right protected by the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment

Consider the following statement: N. 5), the court need not reach this issue. 27 . 11 del. c. § 1336(j). since, as stated above, the delaware wiretap statute is patterned after the federal wiretap statute, it is especially informative to consider the legislative history of t 276 cal.rptr. 679, 802 p.2d 169, 194 (1990), cert. denied, 502 u.s. 924, 112 s.ct. 337, 116 l.ed.2d 277, reh’g denied, 502 u.s. 1009, 112 s.ct. 650, 116 l.ed.2d 667 (1991) (reiterating that the statements found in delancie and donaldson that police may monitor conversations of pretrial detainees only to ensure security and the public’s protection, but not to discover information that may be used against such detainees at trial); donaldson v. superior court of los angeles county, cal.supr., 35 cal.3d 24, 196 cal.rptr. 704, 672 p.2d 110, 116 (1983) (<holding>); delancie v. superior court of san mateo 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 purpose of the amendment was to clarify the definition of the word maintain B. holding before the advent of the federal rules of evidence that the use of a tax return for the purpose of impeachment was proper C. holding that effect of suit rather than the purpose for which it was brought is controlling for purposes of the fifth factor D. holding that title iii only proscribes unlawful interceptions defined as listening or monitoring of telephone conversations not the recording of monitored conversations hence if monitoring is lawful recording is always lawful E. recognizing that delancie implied that secret monitoring of conversations between detainees and visitors undertaken for the purpose of gathering evidence for use in criminal proceedings rather than to maintain the security of the jail was unlawful. Answer:

E. recognizing that delancie implied that secret monitoring of conversations between detainees and visitors undertaken for the purpose of gathering evidence for use in criminal proceedings rather than to maintain the security of the jail was unlawful

Consider the following statement: ("if the intent of congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of congress.”). 11 . this circuit has already determined that the ninety-day statutory deadline for filing a motion to reopen may be tolled. see riley v. ins, 310 f.3d 1253, 1257-58 (10th cir.2002). accordingly, it is not a jurisdictional limit and should not be raised sua sponte. other circuits are in accord. see socop-gonzalez v. ins, 272 f.3d 1176, 1190-93 (9th cir.2001) (en banc); iavorski v. ins, 232 f.3d 124, 130-34 (2d cir.2000). my colleagues apparently assume that the filing deadline contained in § 1229a(c)(6)(b) is similarly not a jurisdictional restriction. cf. pervaiz v. gonzales, 405 f.3d 488, 490 (7th cir.2005) (<holding>); borges v. gonzales, 402 f.3d 398, 405-06 (3d 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 aliens departure based on an in absentia removal order does not necessarily deprive an ij of jurisdiction to decide a motion to reopen B. recognizing that orders denying motions to reopen are treated as final orders of removal C. holding that the 180day filing deadline is jurisdictional and mandatory D. holding that the 180day filing deadline applicable to motions to reopen from removal orders filed in absentia is not jurisdictional E. holding that district court had no authority to reopen appeal period when motion was filed beyond 180day limit. Answer:

D. holding that the 180day filing deadline applicable to motions to reopen from removal orders filed in absentia is not jurisdictional

Consider the following statement: Only have been escalated by less than three percent per year. further evidence that the cement contract was not overvalued came from mr. mccarthy who had offered the contract to a related company who chose not to take it for $1.58 million. aggregate industries was in a good position to value this cement in an arm’s length transaction. plaintiffs have not proved that it was improperly valued at $1.58 million. the court deemed allen’s valuation not credible. the court determined that his valuation method was “highly flawed” and that allen arbitrarily increased the value of the cement by six percent. the district court’s findings are based upon the credibility of allen’s testimony, which we do not reweigh on appeal. see surgidev corp. v. eye tech., inc., 828 f.2d 452, 456 (8th cir.1987) (<holding>). after carefully reviewing the record, we find 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 review for clear error the bankruptcy courts factual findings B. holding that findings of fact are reviewed for clear error C. holding that a determination as to a defendants credibility for a safety valve reduction is a factual finding that is reviewed for clear error D. holding that factual findings underpinning a credibility determination are virtually never clear error E. holding that factual findings in sentencing context are reviewed for clear error. Answer:

D. holding that factual findings underpinning a credibility determination are virtually never clear error

Consider the following statement: For duty exam was indeed job-related and necessary to determine if he could carry out his duties. the reasoning of several of our sister circuits is consistent with our endorsement of the plain language of the eeoc regulations. see grenier v. cyanamid plastics, inc., 70 f.3d 667, 676 (1st cir.1995) (finding that if the plaintiff were “treated as an existing employee returning from disability leave, ... the employer would be able to demand medical certification of ability to return to work”); hogan v. bangor and aroostook r.r. co., 61 f.3d 1034, 1036 (1st cir.1995) (concluding that an employee was entitled to reinstatement after suffering collapsed lung as soon as medical evidence indicated he was fit to return); pesterfield v. tennessee valley auth., 941 f.2d 437, 438 (6th cir.1991) (<holding>). we concur in the reasoning of these circuits. 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 employee who was hospitalized for psychiatric treatment was required to provide medical certification as to ability to return to work B. holding that a tortfeasor is required to pay the expenses of over treatment or unnecessary medical treatment unless such treatment was incurred by the victim in bad faith C. holding that res judicata properly barred claims based on an employers decision to terminate an employee because the termination was not a fresh act of discrimination rather it was the same decision not to allow the employee to return to work that the employee had challenged previously D. holding that an employer need not accommodate with indefinite leave an employee who is unable to return to work in any role E. holding that a state is required to provide medical care to incarcerated individuals. Answer:

A. holding that an employee who was hospitalized for psychiatric treatment was required to provide medical certification as to ability to return to work

Consider the following statement: Yagman, thomas’s attorney. see united states v. jacobs, 855 f.2d 652, 656 n.2 (9th cir. 1988) (per curiam) (citing united states v. burt, 765 f.2d 1364, 1368 (9th cir. 1985)). 2. thomas also contends that the district court erred when it dismissed the fac, which alleged constitutional claims and civil rico claims. but, thomas’s opening brief presented no argument or record citations to support his contention that the court erred when it dismissed his constitutional claims. therefore, thomas waived these claims on appeal. see nilsson, robbins, dalgarn, berliner, carson & wurst v. la. hydrolec, 854 f.2d 1538, 1548 (9th cir. 1988) (per curiam); ninth circuit rule 28—1(b); fed. r. app. p. 28(a)(8)(a); see also ashcroft v. iqbal, 556 u.s. 662, 687, 129 s.ct. 1937, 173 l.ed.2d 868 (2009) (<holding>). and, the district court did not err when it 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 mere recitation of bare elements of a cause of action is insufficient to survive dismissal B. holding that the bare assertion that a dismissal without prejudice was favorable to the plaintiff was insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss C. holding that a mere allegation of fraud is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to the pslra D. holding that mere continuity of employment is insufficient to prolong the life of a cause of action E. holding that dismissal is proper for a derivative cause of action but not for a direct cause of action. Answer:

A. holding that mere recitation of bare elements of a cause of action is insufficient to survive dismissal

Consider the following statement: Designed to impair their opportunity to seek legal redress. plaintiffs further claim that the city’s actions were arbitrary and irrational (substantive due process violation). defendants respond that the city’s decision to grant the special use permit was a rational exercise of its discretion, and plaintiffs were afforded adequate opportunity to be heard. b. jurisdiction this court has appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 1291. an appellate court reviews a grant of sum mary judgment de novo. smith v. ameritech, 129 f.3d 857 (6th cir.1997). c. procedural due process 1. a person’s right not be deprived of property without due process of law is a fundamental tenet of federal constitutional law. see boddie v. connecticut, 401 u.s. 371, 379, 91 s.ct. 780, 28 l.ed.2d 113 (1971) (<holding>). here, plaintiffs allege a number of ways 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 in order to prove a denial of due process a party must show that he was arbitrarily and capriciously deprived of a cognizable property interest rooted in state law B. holding that privileges licenses certificates and franchises qualify as property interests for purposes of procedural due process but that due process only becomes relevant where such property is deprived C. holding that an alien is not deprived of due process if he or she receives actual notice of a denial of an application to withhold deportation D. holding that although the parking citation that the plaintiff received did not indicate where and how to contest the allegation the plaintiff was not deprived of procedural due process because he received a summons to appear in court via first class mail before he was deprived of any liberty interest E. holding that the root requirement of due process is that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest. Answer:

E. holding that the root requirement of due process is that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest

Consider the following statement: Lagunas to at least ten years incarceration.” lagunas i, 214 fed.appx. at 845. thereafter, the united states sentencing commission (sentencing commission) issued amendment 706 which modified the drug quantity table in u.s.s.g. § 2dl.l(c) downward two levels for crack cocaine, effective november 1, 2007, and retroactive as of march 3, 2008. in february 2008, mr. lagunas filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 u.s.c. § 3582(c)(2) based on the changes in the drug quantity table and the resulting two-level reduction in offense levels. see lagunas ii, 309 fed.appx. at 266. following appointment of counsel for mr. lagunas and pleadings filed by the parties, the district court filed an order denying mr. lagunas’s § 3582(c) mot u.s. -, 132 s.ct. 2321, 2335, 183 l.ed.2d 250 (2012) (<holding>). in addition, the act directed the sentencing 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 minimum mandatory threemonth custodial sentence for second offenders under former dwi provisions of njsa 39450 reflects the intention to prohibit suspended sentences B. holding the revised mandatory minimum sentences in the fair sentencing act applied to preaet offenders sentenced after august 3 2010 C. holding that even if the minimum mandatory exceeds the statutory maximum the court must impose the minimum mandatory D. holding that a district court commits reversible error when it sentences a defendant to less than the statutory minimum where no exception to the mandatory minimum applies E. holding that the operative provision in determining the defendants applicable sentencing range is the statutory minimum not the crack cocaine guideline and that the defendants were still subject to the mandatory minimum upon which their substantial assistance departures and thus them ultimate sentences were based. Answer:

B. holding the revised mandatory minimum sentences in the fair sentencing act applied to preaet offenders sentenced after august 3 2010

Consider the following statement: In a given case. the establishment of these time boundaries is a legislative prerogative. that body has the right to fix reasonable periods within which an action shall be brought and, within its sound discretion, determine the limitation period.... it should not be the province or function of this court to intrude upon an area peculiarly within the channel of legislative action."). 4 . see also int'l union of operating eng'rs, local no. 3 v. utah labor relations bd., 115 utah 183, 203 p.2d 404, 408 (1949) ("[njone of the constitutional guarantees embodied in the first eight amendments to the constitution of the united states are absolute rights. all of them are subject to some regulation by the state."). 5 . see, e.g., people v. wiedemer, 852 p.2d 424, 435 (colo.1993) (en banc) (<holding>); davis v. state, 443 n.w.2d 707, 709 (iowa 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 juveniles may waive constitutional rights B. recognizing that statute of limitations questions may be resolved on a motion to dismiss C. holding constitutional challenge to void statute may be raised for first time on appeal D. recognizing that reasonable time limitations may be placed on the exercise of constitutional rights E. recognizing that rights under article i section 11 are subject to reasonable limitations. Answer:

D. recognizing that reasonable time limitations may be placed on the exercise of constitutional rights

Consider the following statement: Acquittals on others indicate that the jury was not unanimous regarding any of the counts. but even if his speculation is accurate, it-would provide no basis for interviewing the jurors because juror testimony with regard to a verdict’s validity is limited to whether “extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention; an outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror; or a mistake was made in entering the verdict on the verdict form.” fed.r.evid. 606(b). k. kennedy’s theory of a compromise verdict fits none of these exceptions. rather, it is an allegation of improper “internal influence,” which this court has held cannot provide a basis for post-verdict juror interrogation. see united states v. logan, 250 f.3d 350, 380-81 (6th cir.2001) (<holding>); helm v. bunch, no. 88-5120, 869 f.2d 1490, 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 courts in camera interviews were within its discretion because the defendant had waived his right to be present during the juror interviews B. holding that juror interviews were not permissible where the alleged jury misconduct of premature deliberations constituted internal influence C. holding that rule 606b precludes any inquiry into the validity of the verdict based on juror testimony regarding racial or ethnic comments made during the course of deliberations but that the rule against juror impeachment cannot be applied so inflexibly as to bar juror testimony in those rare and grave cases where claims of racial or ethnic bias during jury deliberations implicate a defendants right to due process and an impartial jury internal quotation marks omitted D. holding a new trial required when juror is replaced by an alternate during jury deliberations E. holding that the district courts dismissal of a juror after five weeks of deliberations violated the defendants right to a unanimous jury because the record evidence suggested the juror found the evidence insufficient for a conviction. Answer:

B. holding that juror interviews were not permissible where the alleged jury misconduct of premature deliberations constituted internal influence

Consider the following statement: Stage (pl.’s class cert. mem. at 26). individual issues, however, would predominate even before the damages stage. because plaintiff will not be able to prove class-wide, company-wide discrimination with statistical evidence alone, a jury would need to consider each putative class member’s claim individually to determine liability. to prove that an individual plaintiff suffered gender discrimination under disparate impact or disparate treatment theories of title vii or the equal pay act, an individualized inquiry into each putative plaintiffs circumstances would be necessary to determine whether employment actions taken toward a particular employee were based on gender or instead on legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. see warren v. solo cup co., 516 f.3d 627, 629-30 (7th cir., 2008) (<holding>); atanus v. perry, 520 f.3d 662, 672-73 (7th 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 same standard applies to equal pay act and title vii wage discrimination claims B. holding that if a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of wage discrimination under the equal pay act the employer may raise one of four statutory defenses attributing the difference in pay to i a seniority system ii a merit system ni a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production or iv a differential based on any other factor other than sex C. holding that if the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of age discrimination the employer must show that the discharge was based on reasonable factors other than age and if the employer meets that burden the plaintiff must show that age was a determining factor in the discharge D. holding that to establish a prima facie equal pay act claim the plaintiff must show that the jobs being compared are substantially equal E. holding that in title vii disparate treatment case in order for a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case the plaintiff must proffer evidence among other things that she performed her job according to her employers legitimate expectations if the plaintiff establishes the prima facie case the presumption shifts the burden to the employer to produce a legitimate nondiseriminatory reason for its actions. Answer:

B. holding that if a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of wage discrimination under the equal pay act the employer may raise one of four statutory defenses attributing the difference in pay to i a seniority system ii a merit system ni a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production or iv a differential based on any other factor other than sex

Consider the following statement: Cannot deny authorization of a [nonmember pcp] based on past practices.” former oar 436-015-0070(2) (2002). managed healthcare does not challenge dcbs’s general authority to adopt the rule at issue. see ors 656.726(4)(a) (providing that dcbs director may “[m]ake and declare all rules and issue orders which are reasonably required in the performance of the director’s duties”). neither does managed healthcare contend that dcbs adopted the rule without complying with the applicable rulemaking procedures. instead, and as noted above, managed healthcare argues only that dcbs exceeded its statutory authority by adopting an otherwise valid rule that conflicts with clearly stated statutory policy. see, e.g., planned parenthood assn. v. dept. of human res., 297 or 562, 573, 687 p2d 785 (1984) (<holding>). managed healthcare relies on several 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 ors 30905 did not make ors 12250 applicable to claims brought under that statute because ors 12250 applies only to limitations contained in ors chapter 12 B. recognizing that basis for challenging administrative rule under ors 1834004b C. recognizing this rule D. recognizing general rule E. recognizing rule. Answer:

B. recognizing that basis for challenging administrative rule under ors 1834004b

Consider the following statement: In the corresponding psychiatric evaluation.” mcrae i, 139 n.c. app. at 391,394, 533 s.e.2d at 560, 562. in this case, defendant’s competence has never been assessed, let alone at a relevant time. thus, it is clear that a retrospective determination of defendant’s competence would not be possible here and we do not need to remand for the trial court to make such a determination. because defendant’s competence to stand trial has never been evaluated and “[g]iven the inherent difficulties of such a nunc pro tunc determination under the most favorable circumstances, we cannot conclude that such a procedure would be adequate here.” drope, 420 u.s. at 183, 43 l.ed. 2d at 119-20 (citations omitted); see also dusky v. united states, 362 u.s. 402, 403, 4 l.ed. 2d 824, 825 (1960) (per curiam) (<holding>). accordingly, we reverse defendant’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 appellant must present some evidence of a subsequent change in competency or some new evidence in a manner analogous to newly discovered evidence in a motion for new trial to complain of a denial of a second competency hearing B. recognizing the difficulty of retrospectively determining the defendants competency as of more than a year ago and ordering a new trial and hearing as to the defendants present competence C. holding that competency standard for stand ing trial is same as standard for determining competency to waive right to counsel D. holding that the state does not have to prove a defendants competency to stand trial E. holding that a trial court must conduct sua sponte a competency hearing when the information known to the trial court at the time of the trial or plea is sufficient to raise a bona fide doubt regarding the defendants competence. Answer:

B. recognizing the difficulty of retrospectively determining the defendants competency as of more than a year ago and ordering a new trial and hearing as to the defendants present competence

Consider the following statement: Child who is incapacitated by a disability. see id. at 117; sininger v. sininger, 300 md. 604, 479 a.2d 1354, 1358 (1984) (interpreting what is now md.code ann., fam.law § 13-102(b) (1991), which requires parents to support adult children who cannot be self-supporting due to mental or physical infirmity). while parents may be under a legal obligation to support an adult child in some cases, the district of columbia courts have not addressed the question of postmajority parental recovery of expenses in such a ease, and the plaintiffs have cited no authority from other jurisdictions to support their position. they rely on martell v. boardwalk enters., 748 f.2d 740 (2nd cir.1984), but that case is inapposite because it concerned the statutory definition of majority. see id. at 754-55 (<holding>). michael a. lasley is not a minor under 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 age discrimination claim barred B. holding that as 2330155 applies the twentyone day period for payment to ppi payments C. holding that parental right to recover medical expenses extends beyond age eighteen to age twentyone because parental support obligation continues until twentyone D. holding that a statement of fact relating to the plaintiffs age was not direct evidence of age discrimination because the relevance of the comment is provided by inference E. holding that sixth amendment prejudice resulted from an unasserted error that added six to twentyone months to the defendants sentence. Answer:

C. holding that parental right to recover medical expenses extends beyond age eighteen to age twentyone because parental support obligation continues until twentyone

Consider the following statement: Possessed by the secretary of the interior by reason of the trust and restriction-so that thereafter all questions pertaining to the title were subject to examination and determination by the courts, appropriately those in nebraska, the land being there.” catawba indian tribe, 476 u.s. at 508 n. 19, 106 s.ct. 2039 (quoting larkin v. paugh, 276 u.s. 431, 439, 48 s.ct. 366, 72 l.ed. 640 (1928)). based on this language in the indian general allotment act, courts have determined that “the protections of the nonin-tercourse act do not apply to land which has been rendered freely alienable by congress, held by private parties, and subsequently acquired by an indian tribe.” cass cnty., 643 n.w.2d at 696; see also lummi indian tribe v. whatcom cnty., wash., 5 f.3d 1355, 1359 (9th cir.1993) (<holding>); mashpee tribe v. watt, 542 f.supp. 797, 803 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 county law enforcement officers lacked jurisdiction to arrest indian at ballpark located on indian trust land B. holding that the state did not have jurisdiction over crime committed on land held by the bureau of indian affairs for the use and benefit of a discrete indian community C. holding that a nevada state court had no jurisdiction to entertain a civil action filed by a nonindian against an indian for events that occurred on indian land D. holding that once congress removes restraints on alienation of indian land the protections of the nonintercourse act no longer apply E. holding that the arrest of an indian on indian land was illegal because the state had no jurisdiction over the reservation to enforce its laws including the execution of a search warrant unless congress consented to the states jurisdiction. Answer:

D. holding that once congress removes restraints on alienation of indian land the protections of the nonintercourse act no longer apply

Consider the following statement: Unlike in alvarado, guinto had no remedy available “as of right” to bring these issues before the bia. see alcaraz v. i.n.s., 384 f.3d 1150, 1160 (9th cir. 2004) (discretionary remedies such as motions to reopen or motions to supplement are not remedies available “as of right”). further, in alvarado, the allegedly foreclosed legal argument had been available at the very outset of the removal proceedings. see alvarado, 759 f.3d at 1125, 1127 (noting removal proceedings were instituted in august 2009 whereas the intervening legal authority was decided in january of that year). here, descamps was decided over a year after guinto exercised his last available administrative remedy as of right. given such circumstances, we hold the issue has been exhausted. see alcaraz, 384 f.3d at 1158-60 (<holding>). accordingly, we have jurisdiction to 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 there was no jurisdictional bar under 8 usc 1252d to reviewing legal issues that arose after arguments to the bia were made B. holding that where issues were not considered by the bia remand is appropriate C. holding that the court lacks jurisdiction to review legal arguments not raised before the bia D. holding that exhaustion of issues is jurisdictional E. holding that the bia does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to reconsider where the motion merely repeats arguments that the bia has previously rejected. Answer:

A. holding there was no jurisdictional bar under 8 usc 1252d to reviewing legal issues that arose after arguments to the bia were made

Consider the following statement: Of the state. see 457 u.s. at 842, 102 s.ct. 2764. the defendants attempt to bolster their argument by analogizing to rendell-baker, arguing that the social workers employed by lutheran, like the school teachers in rendell-baker, are not state actors. one court in the eastern district of pennsylvania, however, has recognized that foster care agencies are different from other state contractors and the school teachers in rendell-baker because they perform a function that is exclusively the prerogative of the state, namely the removal of children from their homes. see estate of earp v. doud, 1997 wl 255506 *2 (e.d.pa.1997) in estate of earp, the action was brought by the natural parents of adam earp, who was involuntarily removed from his mother’ .ill.1989) (rev’d on other grounds) (<holding>). in reaching the above conclusion, judge 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 an unborn child is not a child for purposes of criminal prosecution of mistreatment of a child B. holding an unborn child is a child for purposes of prosecuting chemical endangerment of a child C. holding that when a state obtains an order to remove a child from his home and takes the child into protective custody it is exercising affirmative state power over the child to the extent that it has a due process obligation to assume responsibility to provide for the childs basic needs D. holding that a child has a 1983 action against the state while in foster care where the state is deliberately indifferent to the likelihood that a foster home is unsafe yet places the child there or allows the child to remain there E. holding that failing to remove a child from a foster home is not an affirmative act under the statecreated danger exception even where the officials investigation revealed obvious dangers to the childs safety. Answer:

C. holding that when a state obtains an order to remove a child from his home and takes the child into protective custody it is exercising affirmative state power over the child to the extent that it has a due process obligation to assume responsibility to provide for the childs basic needs

Consider the following statement: Mills was not there. in light of mills’s continued missed appointments and the officer’s continued inability to locate him, mills was charged with first-degree escape in violation of conn. gen.stat. § 53a-169(a). on june 2, 1998, he was convicted of this crime. the psr. relied on this conviction as a predicate violent felony conviction in recommending that mills be sentenced under the acca. at a sentencing hearing held on january 22, 2007, the district court rejected mills’s objection to the classification of this offense as a violent felony for purposes of sentencing him under the acca. employing the “categorical approach,” see taylor v. united states, 495 u.s. 575, 602, 110 s.ct. 2143, 109 l.ed.2d 607 (1990), and relying on united states v. jackson, 301 f.3d 59, 63 (2d cir.2002) (<holding>), the court concluded that it was required 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 escape is categorically a violent felony under the acca B. holding that escape from secure custody is a violent felony C. holding prior to chambers that a walkaway escape is categorically a violent felony D. holding that attempted burglary as defined by florida law is a violent felony under acca E. holding fleeing police officers in a vehicle was a violent felony under the acca. Answer:

A. holding that escape is categorically a violent felony under the acca

Consider the following statement: The statutory policy of “furthering the successful pi-osecution of meritorious claims” was best served by a rule that “creates an incentive to retain counsel in every such case.” id. at 438, 111 s.ct. 1435. permitting a fee award to a pro se litigant, even one who is a lawyer, would instead “create a disincentive to employ counsel.” id. accordingly the supreme court held that pro se lawyers did not fall within the scope of the fee-shifting provision. although kay was decided pursuant to section 1988, its reasoning is not confined to that statute. indeed, both this court and other “courts of appeals have [since kay] denied attorney’s fees to pro se attorneys under a variety of fee-shifting statutes .... ” zucker v. westinghouse elec., 374 f.3d 221, 228-29 (3d cir.2004); see id. at 229 (<holding>); see also sec v. price waterhouse, 41 f.3d 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 attorneys fee award in a common fund case must be reasonable under the circumstances B. holding attorneys fees not available to pro se attorney litigant in a federal freedom of information act action C. holding that attorney fees awarded under the common fund doctrine do not constitute part of a plaintiffs claim against the defendant and cannot be considered for amountincontroversy purposes D. holding that a pro se litigant who is an attorney is not entitled to fees under 1988 E. holding that a shareholderobjector who represents himself as a pro se lawyer is not entitled to attorneys fees under the common fund doctrine. Answer:

E. holding that a shareholderobjector who represents himself as a pro se lawyer is not entitled to attorneys fees under the common fund doctrine

Consider the following statement: Cases in this circuit usually receive, at most, forty minutes of oral argument. a very limited number, including en banc cases, receive an hour. this frivolous appeal was the exception and was given about double the customary time. 3 . see r.262 (“tate’s complaint asserts that tate is not a member of any gang, much less a gang leader. but his complaint, while containing language that it is under oath, is signed not by tate, but his counsel.... therefore tate has failed to provide admissible evidence....”). the majority makes much of the fact that the magistrate judge addressed the evidentiary value of tate's complaint sua sponte, but he had the authority to do so. see celotex corp. v. catrett, 477 u.s. 317, 325, 106 s.ct. 2548, 91 l.ed.2d 265 (1986) ( f.3d 655, 667 (6th cir.2005) (<holding>); united states v. peterson, 414 f.3d 825, 827 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 decision is final when it leaves nothing more for the court to do B. holding attorneys affidavit that does nothing more than assemble properly authenticated evidence is still not admissible because it is not based on personal knowledge C. holding that it is clear that hearsay evidence is admissible in a hearing on a motion to suppress D. holding that more than notice to a defendant is required E. holding that it is not. Answer:

B. holding attorneys affidavit that does nothing more than assemble properly authenticated evidence is still not admissible because it is not based on personal knowledge

Consider the following statement: Has considered personal grooming codes prohibiting men but not women from wearing long hair has found the codes to be non-discriminatory within the meaning of title vii. see harper v. blockbuster entm’t corp., 139 f.3d 1385, 1387 (11th cir.1998); tavora v. n.y. mercantile exch., 101 f.3d 907, 908 (2d cir.1996); barker, 549 f.2d at 401; earwood v. cont’l southeastern lines, inc., 539 f.2d 1349, 1351 (4th cir.1976); longo v. carlisle decoppet & co., 537 f.2d 685, 685 (2d cir.1976); knott, 527 f.2d at 1252; willingham v. macon tel. pub. co., 507 f.2d 1084, 1092 (5th cir.1975); baker v. cal. land title co., 507 f.2d 895, 898 (9th cir.1974); dodge, 488 f.2d at 1337; fagan v. nat’l cash register co., 481 f.2d 1115, 1126 (d.c.cir.1973). we agree wit prac. dec. (cch) ¶ 37,016 (e.d.n.y.1987) (<holding>); lockhart v. louisiana-pacific corp., 102 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 relief granted under title vii is against the employer not individual employees whose actions constituted a violation of title vii emphasis in original B. holding that the doctrine of qualified immunity does not protect a government official who is sued in an official capacity under title vii because title vii does not impose personal liability C. holding that title vii prohibits discrimination based on any race including caucasian D. holding unwritten personal grooming code which allows females to wear earrings but prohibits men from wearing earrings does not constitute a violation of title vii E. holding that title vii does not include a continuing violation doctrine. Answer:

D. holding unwritten personal grooming code which allows females to wear earrings but prohibits men from wearing earrings does not constitute a violation of title vii

Consider the following statement: Tell the jury to disregard the accomplice’s testimony, see 10 minnesota practice, crimjig 3.18, it does require that corroborating evidence “affirm the truth of the accomplice’s testimony and point to the guilt of the defendant in some substantial degree.” sorg, 275 minn. at 5, 144 n.w.2d at 786. first, we consider that the requirement for the instruction is based on the fact that the “credibility of an accomplice in inherently untrustworthy.” lee, 683 n.w.2d at 316. chapman agreed to cooperate with officers and do a controlled buy in order to avoid criminal charges and jail. therefore, it is relevant that chapman was afforded leniency in exchange for his cooperation because he could have been charged with possession or second-degree manslaughter. see rodriguez, 2007 wl 1412880, at *2 (<holding>). second, the prosecutor relied heavily on 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 seconddegree manslaughter was not a crime of violence and thus was not an aggravated felony warranting an aliens removal B. holding on rehearing that the interests of justice would be better served by remanding for new trial on the offenses of seconddegree murder and voluntary manslaughter C. holding that the lower court properly charged the jury on voluntary manslaughter where defendant testified he was in fear of the threat of physical assault D. holding that erroneous manslaughter instruction that defendant intentionally caused the death of the victim did not constitute fundamental error certifying question if a jury returns a verdict finding a defendant guilty of seconddegree murder in a case where the evidence does not support a theory of culpable negligence does a trial court commit fundamental error by giving a flawed manslaughter by act instruction when it also gives an instruction on manslaughter by culpable negligence E. holding that drug user was properly charged with seconddegree manslaughter after he cooked a lethal dose of heroin for the victim. Answer:

E. holding that drug user was properly charged with seconddegree manslaughter after he cooked a lethal dose of heroin for the victim

Consider the following statement: 96 s.ct. 984. however, “[a] prosecutor’s administrative duties and those investigatory functions that do not relate to an advocate’s preparation for the initiation of a prosecution or for judicial proceedings are not entitled to absolute immunity.” buckley, 509 u.s. at 273, 113 s.ct. 2606. a defendant pleading absolute immunity bears the burden of showing that it is justified by the function in question. burns v. reed, 500 u.s. 478, 487, 111 s.ct. 1934, 114 l.ed.2d 547 (1991). the defendants’ argument that they are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity prevails only in part. they are correct that they have absolute immunity for offering the tape recording into evidence at the hearing because in doing so they were functioning as advocates. see imbler, 424 u.s. at 431, 96 s.ct. 984 (<holding>); see also butz, 438 u.s. at 516-517, 98 s.ct. 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 prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity from a civil suit for damages under 1988 in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the states case including deciding which evidence to present B. holding that prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from 1983 suits for initiating a prosecution and presenting the case at trial C. holding that state prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity for the initiation and pursuit of a criminal prosecution D. holding prosecutors immune from civil suits for initiating prosecutions and presenting cases E. holding that prosecutors have absolute immunity. Answer:

B. holding that prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from 1983 suits for initiating a prosecution and presenting the case at trial

Consider the following statement: It did not reach the question of immunity. given the conclusions we have reached, however, it is necessary for us to do so. under § 820.2, a public employee cannot be held liable for any injury resulting from “his act or omission where the act or omission was the result of the exercise of discretion vested in him, whether or not such discretion be abused.” the city correctly asserts that § 820.2 applies to county social workers engaged in investigating allegations of child abuse, and extends to other public employees whom those social workers “reasonably enlist to assist in the investigation.” newton v. county of napa, 217 cal.app.3d 1551, 266 cal.rptr. 682, 687 (cal.app.1990); alicia t. v. county of los angeles, 222 cal.app.3d 869, 271 cal.rptr. 513, 519-20 (cal.app.1990) (<holding>). this immunity provides complete protection 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 exercise discretion is abuse of discretion 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 social workers immunity is designed to protect the continu ing exercise of discretion in favor of the protection of minor children D. holding that in its review of the irs exercise of discretion the court is limited to a review of the administrative record E. holding that under mayfield the exercise of discretion based on a mistaken premise of law can be a failure to properly exercise discretion. Answer:

C. holding that social workers immunity is designed to protect the continu ing exercise of discretion in favor of the protection of minor children

Consider the following statement: Provide just punishment for the offense.... ”). we hold that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in this case. the district judge relied upon a variety of factors relevant to a sentencing determination under § 3553(a), some of which indicated that the guideline range underestimated the seriousness of mr. johnson’s crime. further, we are unable to disagree with the district judge’s determination that the § 3553(a) factors that he considered justified the variance in this case. we “must give due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” gall, 128 s.ct. at 597. although there may be other reasonable sentences that the district judge could have chosen, we uphold the district judge’s sentence. see id. (<holding>). iv. conclusion we affirm the sentence handed 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 retrial did not violate the double jeopardy clause where reversal based on trial error distinguishing reversal for insufficient evidence B. holding that the fact that the appellate court might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal C. recognizing that the mere plausibility of a different outcome is not sufficient to justify reversal D. holding that no court has the authority to substitute a different sentence for that which is required by law E. holding that the outcome of the case could have been different if the trial court had imposed the appropriate burden. Answer:

B. holding that the fact that the appellate court might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal

Consider the following statement: At 5. unlike the cases cited above, the cessation of the “collection process” here was not conditioned on the full payment of the debt, see kramsky, 00-civ-2936 at 5, and there was no demand for immediate payment that contradicted the validation notice. savino, 164 f.3d at 84. the letter that trans-continental sent to plaintiffs contained the required validation notice, and it was not overshadowed by the other language in the notice. the validation notice was printed directly beneath the request for payment in full, in the same font size, and on the same page. cf. sokolski, 53 f.supp.2d at 311 (noting that the validation notice was at the bottom of the page, in single spaced, significantly smaller typeface); unger v. nat’l revenue group ltd., no. civ. a. 99-3087, 2000 wl 1897346, *3 (<holding>). the contested statement also did not indicate 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 government was within its rights to garnish wages where there was a minimum monthly payment schedule and restitution was due in full immediately B. holding that the full payment rule literally requires full not partial payment and rejecting the argument that a partpayment remedy is necessary when a taxpayer is too poor to pay the full amount of the tax C. holding that the full payment rule is applicable to refund suits in the court of federal claims D. holding that the validation notice is overshadowed where a debt collector serves a consumer with process initiating a lawsuit during the validation period without clarifying that commencement of the lawsuit has no effect on the information conveyed in the validation notice E. holding that the validation notice was overshadowed by language that payment in full is due now that was in larger print. Answer:

E. holding that the validation notice was overshadowed by language that payment in full is due now that was in larger print

Consider the following statement: Police, 491 u.s. 58, 66, 67 n. 6, 109 s.ct. 2304, 105 l.ed.2d 45 (1989) (citing quern v. jordan, 440 u.s. 332, 99 s.ct. 1139, 59 l.ed.2d 358 (1979)). similarly, the court can find no such exception with respect to plaintiffs puerto rico law claims. courts will only find that a state has waived its own eleventh amendment immunity by legislative fiat where the same is “stated ‘by the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the text as will leave no room for any other reasonable construction.’ ” edelman v. jordan, 415 u.s. 651, 673, 94 s.ct. 1347, 39 l.ed.2d 662 (1974) (quoting murray v. wilson distilling co., 213 u.s. 151, 171, 29 s.ct. 458, 53 l.ed. 742 (1909)); see also atascadero state hosp. v. scanlon, 473 u.s. 234, 241, 105 s.ct. 3142, 87 l.ed.2d 171 (1985) (<holding>). laws 17 and 69 do include the commonwealth 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 must specify the states intention to subject itself to suit in federal court in order to constitute a waiver B. holding that the filing deadline under title vii is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in federal court but a requirement that like a statute of limitations is subject to waiver estoppel and equitable tolling C. holding that a states consent to suit in federal court must be unequivocally expressed D. holding individual defendants subject to suit E. holding in a patent case that when the plaintiff brought the suit in federal district court it submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the court with respect to all the issues embraced in the suit including those pertaining to the counterclaim of the defendants. Answer:

A. holding that the statute must specify the states intention to subject itself to suit in federal court in order to constitute a waiver

Consider the following statement: Conduct at issue); kari v. city of maplewood, 582 n.w.2d 921, 923 (minn.1998) (distinguishing discretionary from ministerial acts). the specific conduct pahnke complained of is deputy sass’s order to leave her apartment immediately despite the fact that pahnke presented him with notice of what she urges is her statutory right to a 24-hour deadline for removal. the district court found that both sass and har-grove served the notice and removed pahnke from the apartment, and officer hargrove does not contend that this finding is erroneous. it is the immediacy of pahnke’s removal by the offi y requiring officers to use red lights and siren “in a continuous manner” during vehicular pursuit imposed a ministerial duty); brown v. city of bloomington, 706 n.w.2d 519, 523-24 (minn.app.2005) (<holding>), review denied (minn. feb. 22, 2006); hyatt 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 that the relationship between fire insurance regulation and rating fire loss fire prevention and fire investigation is rational and reasonable B. holding that it was plain error for trial court to allow more than one conviction of grossly negligent operation of a vehicle where more than one person was injured C. holding that the public duty doctrine applied to claims against the town and fire chief for negligence in responding to a fire call although plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to show the special duty exception applied D. holding that more than notice to a defendant is required E. holding that officers decisions to use lesslethal ammunition and to fire more than one round were discretionary but that departments procedure for making transition from lethal to lesslethal shells when loading weapon imposed a ministerial duty. Answer:

E. holding that officers decisions to use lesslethal ammunition and to fire more than one round were discretionary but that departments procedure for making transition from lethal to lesslethal shells when loading weapon imposed a ministerial duty

Consider the following statement: Use of state court procedures, to exhaust state court remedies with regard to a particular post-conviction application.” 183 f.3d at 1006 (internal quotations omitted and emphasis added). this includes the time between the filing of valdez’s legal challenge to the constitutionality of his sentence in the state appellate courts and his factual challenge under romero in the superior court. see welch v. newland, 267 f.3d 1013 (9th cir.2001) (“[pjost-conviction review is ‘pending’ — and thus aedpa’s statute of limitations is tolled — from ‘the time the first state habeas petition is filed until the california supreme court rejects the petitioner’s final collateral challenge.’ ” (quoting nino, 183 f.3d at 1006) (emphasis in original)); saffold v. newland, 250 f.3d 1262, 1265 (9th cir.2000) (<holding>). the order in which valdez filed his state 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 limitations period is not tolled while a federal habeas petition is pending B. holding that the untimely petition in that case tolled the aedpa statute of limitations C. holding that the oneyear statute of limitations was not tolled during the pendency of petition for certiorari to the united states supreme court seeking review of denial of state postconviction relief D. holding that the aedpa statute of limitations was tolled for the entire period during which saffold pursued state habeas relief including the time between filings E. holding that the aedpa statute of limitations is not jurisdictional. Answer:

D. holding that the aedpa statute of limitations was tolled for the entire period during which saffold pursued state habeas relief including the time between filings

Consider the following statement: Period, claimed serious physical injuries to neck, arms, and shoulders). with no additional alleg l 3822220, at *14-15 (s.d.n.y. sept. 4, 2012) (granting summary judgment on tight handcuffing claim where plaintiff experienced 24 hours of swelling and went to hospital but no treatment was provided for wrists); wang, 2012 wl 119591, at *7 (granting summary judgment where plaintiff was “shrieking in pain” from tight handcuffs but plaintiff, sought no medical attention and there was no evidence that the handcuffing caused actual physical injury); abdul-rahman, 2012 wl 1077762, at *7-8 (granting motion for judgment on the pleadings where only alleged injury was numbness and marks on wrists); bender v. city of new york, no. 09-cv-3286 (bsj), 2011 wl 4344203, at *6 (s.d.n.y. sept. 14, 2011) (<holding>); richardson v. n.y.c. health & hosps., corp., 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 plan administrators decision to deny benefits was arbitrary and capricious even though an attending physician had submitted a form stating the plaintiff could sit for six hours stand for two hours and walk for two hours B. holding that extremely tight handcuffing for nearly fourteen hours that left indentations in plaintiffs arms for over six hours did not amount to excessive force C. holding that detention for three hours in a checkpoint station required probable cause D. holding that to state a claim for wage violations under the flsa plaintiffs must provide at least some approximation of the overtime hours that defendants required them to work and a time frame for when those hours were worked E. holding that seven hours was a reasonable amount of time to deliberate meaningfully about the choice. Answer:

B. holding that extremely tight handcuffing for nearly fourteen hours that left indentations in plaintiffs arms for over six hours did not amount to excessive force

Consider the following statement: Is reached, or if the agreement is revoked, rejected by the court, or withdrawn or if the judgment is later vacated or reversed, neither the plea discussion nor any resulting agreement, plea or judgment, nor statements made at a hearing on the plea, shall be admissible against the defendant in any criminal or civil action or administrative proceeding. both these rules “plainly preclude[ ] the state from using statements a defendant made during ‘the plea discussion,’ that is, statements made in a discussion that precedes the plea agreement and anything in the agreement itself, as well as statements made during a change-of-plea hearing.” state v. campoy, 220 ariz. 539, ¶¶ 13-14, 207 p.3d 792, 797-98 (app.2009); see also state v. vargas, 127 ariz. 59, 61, 618 p.2d 229, 231 (1980) (<holding>). ¶ 14 we agree that because duran’s statements 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 presumption that a plea of guilty is final and binding if the plea was made during a properly conducted hearing pursuant to rule 11 of the federal rules of criminal procedure B. holding that a courts inquiry as to disputed facts in connection with a prior conviction is limited to the terms of the charging document a plea agreement a transcript of the plea colloquy or a comparable judicial record C. holding defendant could validly waive statute of limitations in effort to prevent being indicted during the completion of plea negotiations with the prosecution D. holding that the government must be held to a promise made to a defendant during plea negotiations if that promise induced the defendants guilty plea E. holding rules 410 and 174f preclude impeaching defendant with statements made in the expectation of a plea agreement including document signed during plea negotiations. Answer:

E. holding rules 410 and 174f preclude impeaching defendant with statements made in the expectation of a plea agreement including document signed during plea negotiations

Consider the following statement: The warmth of the hood is some evidence that the accident occurred a relatively short time before police arrived on the scene. see warren v. state, 377 s.w.3d 9, 14 (tex.app.-houston [1st dist.] 2011, pet. refd) (“the warmth of the hood and cab of the truck is some evidence that the accident occurred a short time before deputy drake arrived.”) (citing rawls, 318 s.w.2d at 663). the facts that appellant smelled of alcohol and failed the field sobriety tests, there were no other pedestrians nearby who could have been involved in the crash, and there were no bars or establishments that sold alcohol in the area likewise support the trial court’s conclusion that appellant was intoxicated at the time he drove his car into the area and crashed on the median. see weems, 328 s.w.3d at 175-76 (<holding>). furthermore, appellant told police officers 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 automobile exeeption did not apply to warrantless search of vehicle where vehicle was not readily mobile because the vehicle was legally parked in parking lot occupants of vehicle were seated on a bench in the playground near the parking lot police officers surrounded the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle was handcuffed for safety purposes B. holding that evidence was sufficient to establish that appellant operated vehicle while intoxicated when vehicle was registered to appellants mother who testified that he had vehicle on night in question appellant was found fourtenths of a mile from accident scene in rural area and police and ems personnel saw no one else in area C. holding that the police officer had reasonable suspicion when he saw a vehicle moving with its lights off in the parking lot of a closed business in a rural area at 300 am D. holding that plaintiff who slipped and fell on ice while securing cars on his employers motor vehicle carrier preparing to travel was very close to the vehicle and engaged in a task related to the vehicle and therefore was an occupier of a motor vehicle E. holding the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the lessee driver of a vehicle had knowingly transported a handgun recovered from the trunk of the vehicle in question. Answer:

B. holding that evidence was sufficient to establish that appellant operated vehicle while intoxicated when vehicle was registered to appellants mother who testified that he had vehicle on night in question appellant was found fourtenths of a mile from accident scene in rural area and police and ems personnel saw no one else in area

Consider the following statement: Of death or serious bodily injury, (2) a well-grounded fear that the threat will be carried out, and (3) lack of a reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm.” united states v. moreno, 102 f.3d 994, 997 (9th cir.1996) (citing united states v. becerra, 992 f.2d 960, 964 (9th cir.1993)). duenas-gonzalez was not entitled to a new trial on his claimed brady violation or on the ground of newly discovered evidence. contrary to duenas-gonzalez’s contention, no brady violation occurred. the government offered neither false evidence nor perjured testimony. see united states v. endicott, 869 f.2d 452, 455 (9th cir.1989) (noting that the prosecution’s inadvertent use of perjured testimony can constitute a brady violation); cf. united states v. young, 17 f.3d 1201, 1204 (9th cir.1994) (<holding>). nor did the government withhold evidence 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 reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome B. holding that a new trial was warranted where there is reasonable probability that the false testimony introduced by the government influenced the outcome of the trial C. holding that there is a presumption that new evidence discovered by criminal defendant after trial is over would not change outcome of trial D. holding that petitioner failed to establish a reasonable probability that had his trial counsel interviewed renee and called her as a witness at trial the trial outcome would have been different because renees testimony wholly lacked credibility E. holding that a reasonable probability is one that in the judgment of the reviewing court is sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceeding citation omitted. Answer:

B. holding that a new trial was warranted where there is reasonable probability that the false testimony introduced by the government influenced the outcome of the trial

Consider the following statement: F.3d 65, 69 (1st cir. 2008) (once initial sanction is final, subsequent sanction would violate industrial double jeopardy principles); elkouri & elkouri, how arbitration works c. 15.3.f.vii (7th ed. 2012). we do not, however, for the reasons explained below, interpret the award to preclude appropriate remedial action required by statute, including training and coun-selling, to address ashe’s sexual harassment. general laws c. 15 ib requires an employer to take some remedial action in cases of confirmed sexual harassment. see college-town, supra at 162 (employer who is notified of sexual harassment in workplace and fails to take adequate remedial action violates g. l. c. 15ib, § 4); modern continental/obayashi v. massachusetts commn. against discrimination, 445 mass. 96, 104-108 (2005) (<holding>); trinh v. gentle communications, llc, 71 mass. 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 an employer is liable for an employees action if the employer knew or should have known about an employees acts of harassment and fails to take appropriate remedial action B. holding school board liable for studentonstudent harassment if school officials knew of harassment and intentionally failed to take proper remedial action C. holding employer may be hable for sexual harassment of employee by independent contractor D. holding school hable for sexual harassment by its employees only if the district knew or should have known and neghgently failed to take prompt effective remedial action E. holding that employer who failed to take remedial action could be held liable for sexual harassment of employee by subcontractors employees. Answer:

E. holding that employer who failed to take remedial action could be held liable for sexual harassment of employee by subcontractors employees

Consider the following statement: “use of the knife as a weapon” was not justified by his explanation and his “use of the knife ... was clearly a use of the knife as a potential weapon.” there is evidence to support these findings. [¶ 19.] when amundson opened the door to allow the agents to enter his apartment, he unquestionably possessed a knife. that possession constitutes using the knife as a potential weapon. amundson attempts to justify his use of the knife, in this manner by asserting that he was uncertain who was at the door and that he was “scared.” however, amundson had a reasonable alternative to using the knife as a potential weapon. for example, he could have insisted on identification before he opened the door or left the knife in the kitchen. see united states v. lomax, 87 f.3d 959, 962 (8th cir.1996) (<holding>). therefore, the board’s findings, 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 the trial court was not entitled to impose a threeyear mandatory minimum sentence on a defendant convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon where the jury verdict did not specifically find actual possession B. holding the defendant was a convicted felon within the purview of the federal statute prohibiting the receiving and possession of firearms by a convicted felon where the defendants prior conviction was based on an idaho state probated sentence C. holding that the enhancement applied where the defendant possessed a firearm in connection with possessing methamphetamine D. holding that the defendant a convicted felon was not legally justified in possessing a firearm because potentially effective legal options existed E. holding that dual convictions of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of ammunition by a convicted felon violated double jeopardy. Answer:

D. holding that the defendant a convicted felon was not legally justified in possessing a firearm because potentially effective legal options existed

Consider the following statement: Stated in nelson that "the required showing of severity or seriousness varies inversely with the pervasiveness or frequency of the conduct. for example, a single severe act can be enough to establish a claim[.]” nelson, 97 hawai'i at 390, 38 p.3d at 109. 12 . hrs § 707-733, entitled "sexual assault in the fourth degree,” provides in relevant part: (1) a person commits the offense of sexual assault in the fourth degree if: (a) the person knowingly subjects another person to sexual contact by compulsion or causes another person to have sexual contact with the actor by compulsion^] 13 . however, we recognize that there are situations in which name-calling or other verbal harassment constitutes "severe or pervasive” harassment. see, e.g., rizzo v. sheahan, 266 f.3d 705, 712 (7th cir.2001) (<holding>). 14 . we recognize that "[t]he courts ... must 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 teasing and offhand comments even if offensive are not actionable harassment B. holding that supervisors reactions to comments did not constitute direct evidence of age discrimination where comments were made six months prior to plaintiffs discharge and were unconnected to the discharge decision C. holding that a supervisors repeated comments to an employee that the supervisor wanted to have sex with the employees fifteenyearold daughter were extremely severe because the comments were significantly more offensive than the typical crass comments we have found to be insufficient to constitute harassment in other cases D. holding that the prosecutors repeated comments that the defendant could have denied knowledge of the drugs or rebutted the trafficking charge by testifying were so prejudicial as to constitute plain error E. holding that in order to raise prejudicial comments of trial court on appeal defendant must object to comments when made and move for a mistrial. Answer:

C. holding that a supervisors repeated comments to an employee that the supervisor wanted to have sex with the employees fifteenyearold daughter were extremely severe because the comments were significantly more offensive than the typical crass comments we have found to be insufficient to constitute harassment in other cases

Consider the following statement: Claim, for chapter 13 plan purposes, i.e. a $73,906.98 general unsecured claim for advanta for chapter 13 plan purposes, and a $43,339.19 general unsecured claim for household for chapter 13 plan purposes. section 524 does not support debtors’ request that these unsecured claims be valued at zero for chapter 13 plan purposes, due to the prior chapter 7 discharge. v. conclusion this opinion constitutes this court’s findings and fact and conclusions of law with respect to this court’s order entered this sa s or partnerships) are not eligible to receive any discharge whatsoever in chapter 7, though corporations and partnerships may be eligible to receive a discharge in chapter 11. 16 . see supra, footnotes 12 and 13. 17 . id. see also, in re thompson, 182 b.r. 140 (bankr.e.d.va.1995) (<holding>). 18 . dewsnup v. timm, 502 u.s. 410, 112 s.ct. 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 security interest or lien is avoided bankruptcy discharge has little if any impact on creditors ability to proceed in rem against property securing claim B. holding that a party cannot waive in rem jurisdiction under florida law and a court proceeding pursuant to in rem jurisdiction must actually possess in rem jurisdiction over the property that is the subject of the matter C. holding that a state tax lien was not judicial lien arising from judgment such that it could be avoided in bankruptcy by a chapter 13 debtor D. holding that if a debt or had voluntarily granted a security interest that was later avoided the debtor was not entitled to exempt the interest recovered E. holding that section 363f applies only to in rem interests which have attached to the property by way of either the debtors consent to a security interest or the creditors attachment of the property resulting in a lien. Answer:

A. holding that unless security interest or lien is avoided bankruptcy discharge has little if any impact on creditors ability to proceed in rem against property securing claim

Consider the following statement: Raises issues of bankruptcy law for a debtor in bankruptcy in rhode island, this court has jurisdiction over the named plaintiffs claim. for two reasons, however, the court has limited jurisdiction over any potential class action. usually debate about bankruptcy jurisdiction centers on whether ancillary actions impact the bankruptcy estate in such a manner that the bankruptcy court would need to resolve these ancillary actions to resolve the bankruptcy. if they do, jurisdiction is appropriate. see 28 u.s.c. § 1334(e) ; williams v. sears, roebuck & co., 244 b.r. 858, 862 (s.d.ga. 2000) (noting that for jurisdictional purposes bankruptcy class actions differ from other class actions because each has its own bankruptcy estate); mcglynn v. credit store, inc., 234 b.r. 576, 584 (d.r.i.1999) (<holding>). if the additional claims do not stem from 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 where a proposed project does not alter the status quo then it does not have a significant impact B. holding that a claim for retaliation does not lie under title ix C. holding that preemption under 1144a does not permit removal if the plaintiffs claim does not fall within the scope of 1132a D. holding that title ii does not apply to the states E. holding that a claim regarding postdischarge conduct that does not impact the bankruptcy estate in any way does not fall under title lls jurisdictional umbrella. Answer:

E. holding that a claim regarding postdischarge conduct that does not impact the bankruptcy estate in any way does not fall under title lls jurisdictional umbrella

Consider the following statement: At the bottom that each of kpmg’s member firms is a “separate and independent legal entity” and describes itself as such. (docket no. 174, app. at l). several courts have declined to treat different firms as a single entity, holding them jointly and severally liable for one another’s acts, simply because they shared an associational name and/or collaborated on certain aspects of the relevant transaction. see in re am int’l, inc. sec. litig., 606 f.supp. 600, 607 (s.d.n.y.1985) (dismissing complaint against price water-house entities outside the united states after rejecting argument that all price wa-terhouse affiliates worldwide were “in fact one entity, and acted as agents of one another”); reingold v. deloitte, haskins & sells, 599 f.supp. 1241, 1249, 1254 n. 10 (s.d.n.y.1984) (<holding>). cf. noonan v. winston co., 902 f.supp. 298, 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 where contributions to lobbying organization were generally not tax exempt exception for veterans organization was speakerbased discrimination not aimed at the suppression of ideas and satisfied rational scrutiny B. holding that imposition of government fees did not violate exempt status of religious organization C. holding an organization had standing because some of its individual members did D. holding that existence of dh s international an organization composed of a large number of affiliated accounting firms did not prove dh s was a single worldwide entity even though some brochures described dh s us as a single cohesive worldwide organization E. holding that an organization whose members are injured may represent those members even where the organization itself cannot show injury. Answer:

D. holding that existence of dh s international an organization composed of a large number of affiliated accounting firms did not prove dh s was a single worldwide entity even though some brochures described dh s us as a single cohesive worldwide organization

Consider the following statement: Claims. see 13 charles a. wright, arthur r. miller & edward h. cooper, fed. prac. & proc. (2d ed.) § 3522 (1984 & supp.2008); beneficial nat’l bank v. anderson, 539 u.s. 1, 8, 123 s.ct. 2058, 156 l.ed.2d 1 (2003) (discussing the limited categories of cases where the supreme court has found complete preemption). the only circuit court to have considered whether the pmpa triggers the complete preemption doctrine is the ninth circuit, which found that it did not. yorn v. union oil co. of calif., 952 f.2d 408 (tbl.), 1992 wl 2872 (9th cir. jan. 7, 1992) (un-pub.). in an unpublished opinion, the ninth circuit held that “[wjhile the pmpa may provide unocal with a viable pre-emption defense to yorn’s common law claims, it is for the california courts to make this determinatio .d.pa.1986) (<holding>). sunoco cites one instance where a federal 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 pmpa preempted new york statutory law governing the termination or nonrenewal of franchises but did not preempt state contract claim which did not involve the termination of the franchise relationship B. holding that fraud claim concerning nonrenewal of franchise agreement was preempted by pmpa C. holding that pmpa preempted state statute regarding the ter initiation and nonrenewal of franchises and state commonlaw claim D. holding that the plaintiffs state law claims were preempted by pmpa because they sought to impose standards more stringent than the pmpa regarding the termination or nonrenewal of his franchise E. holding state law claim premised on implied duty of good faith was preempted by the pmpa because it concerned the termination of a petroleum franchise. Answer:

C. holding that pmpa preempted state statute regarding the ter initiation and nonrenewal of franchises and state commonlaw claim

Consider the following statement: Court of appeals for the seventh circuit stated that “the presumption of reliability that serves as the premise for the public-records exception does not attach to third parties who themselves have no public duty to report.” jordan v. binns, 712 f.3d 1123, 1133 (7th cir. 2013) (refusing to admit “third-party statements contained in a police report”). see also united states v. morales, 720 f.3d 1194, 1202 (9th cir. 2013) (“in general, statements by third parties who are not government employees ... may not be admitted pursuant to the public records exception but must satisfy some other exception in order to be admitted.”). thus, the responses to the questionnaires must themselves fall within one of the exceptions to the hearsay rale. cf. in re g.y., 962 p.2d 78, 85 (utah ct. app. 1998) (<holding>). because the spa does not contend 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 the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment is not violated by the admission of hearsay statements under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule where the defendant was able to confront and crossexamine the witness who claimed that the statements at issue were made B. holding that exclusion of hearsay statements violated due process even though statements were not admissible under mississippi law which did not recognize declarations against penal interest as a exception to the rule against hearsay C. holding that factors used in determining whether hearsay statements are sufficiently reliable to satisfy hearsay exceptions also apply to whether statements have sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness under confrontation clause D. holding that thirdparty statements contained in dcfs caseworker reports constituted hearsay E. recognizing that the united states constitution may require courts to admit exculpatory hearsay statements that do not fall within any recognized hearsay exception. Answer:

D. holding that thirdparty statements contained in dcfs caseworker reports constituted hearsay

Consider the following statement: State v. leach, 296 md. 591, 463 a.2d 872 (1983), were the two court of appeals cases relied upon in taylor. in garrison, the defendant’s husband had possession of 173 glassine bags of heroin and was in the process of discarding the heroin in the toilet. the heroin was not in the plain view of the defendant, who was found in bed, in a bedroom not adjacent to the toilet where the drug was discarded. garrison, 272 md. at 126, 321 a.2d 767. in leach, the defendant, with his brother, had “joint dominion and control ... over the entire apartment 2d 495 (1972) (evidence insufficient to support conviction when defendant was merely present in an apartment in which a woman’s purse and a cigarette case containing heroin were found); puckett v. state, 13 md.app. 584, 587-88, 284 a.2d 252 (1971) (<holding>); haley v. state, 7 md.app. 18, 33-34, 253 a.2d 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 thumbprint on an easily movable cup found beside a tent that was located six to fifteen feet away from marijuana plants was insufficient to prove that the defendant was manufacturing marijuana as there was no evidence suggesting when or where the defendant touched the cup B. holding evidence of marijuana plants on premises defendant owned with his wife insufficient where marijuana plants were grown in an uncultivated area and there was a total absence of evidence of the defendants involvement C. holding that guilty plea to indictment charging distribution of 1000 marijuana plants did not establish amount of marijuana involved for sentencing purposes where defendant had specifically reserved the issue on entering his plea D. holding evidence of presence of marijuana plants on property puckett jointly owned with his wife was not sufficient to create rational inference that puckett was in possession of the marijuana E. holding evidence insufficient for conviction of possession of marijuana amphetamines and barbiturates when those drugs were not found on the person of or in the same room as the defendant but were only found on other people on the premises. Answer:

B. holding evidence of marijuana plants on premises defendant owned with his wife insufficient where marijuana plants were grown in an uncultivated area and there was a total absence of evidence of the defendants involvement

Consider the following statement: Approach to this issue, given the current split among the circuits. as might be expected, two camps have emerged following salinas. on one side, courts have found that the government need not prove a link exists. the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth circuits occupy this camp. see united states v. lipscomb, 299 f.3d 303 (5th cir.2002); united states v. suarez, 263 f.3d 468 (6th cir.2001); united states v. morgan, 230 f.3d 1067 (8th cir.2000); united states v. grossi, 143 f.3d 348 (7th cir.1998). in these decisions, courts often rely on earlier precedents, which refused to recognize any nexus requirement. some also infer that because salinas skirted the issue, rather than impose a requirement when it had the chance, that no requirement is necessary. see, e.g., dakota, 197 f.3d at 826 (<holding>); morgan, 230 f.3d at 1067 (salinas no more 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 some federal connection to the misconduct is required B. holding that no nexus is required in part because salinas left the nature of any necessary connection unanswered C. holding that no nexus was required in a determination involving a stateless vessel D. holding the connection is an element E. holding that no federal nexus is required. Answer:

B. holding that no nexus is required in part because salinas left the nature of any necessary connection unanswered

Consider the following statement: On appeal, therefore, turns on the legal question of the burden of proof. we review questions of law de novo. see housing fin. & dev. corp. v. fe cts liability § 8.04[7][b], at 8-228-27 (rev. ed.1999): as a practical matter, ... in most strict liability lawsuits, in most jurisdictions, whether or not there was a substantial change in the condition in the product is a non-issue. the product under consideration may be brand new, its very nature will obviate (mo.ct.app.1992) (affirming summary judgment because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the allegedly defective transmission had not been somehow replaced or substantially changed over the life of the automobile); humphreys v. general motors corp., 839 f.supp. 822, 827-28 & n. 6 (n.d.fla.1993), aff'd, 47 f.3d 430 (11th cir.1995) (<holding>). other courts have held that the defendant has 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 once the defendant has submitted to the control of the officer and the process of taking him or her to the police station has commenced his or her arrest is complete and he or she is in custody for the purposes of the escape statute B. holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment C. holding that for a legal malpractice claim to accrue a plaintiff need not know the precise extent of his or her damages or even have suffered all of the damages attributable to his or her attorneys negligence D. holding that plaintiff must on his or her own initiative prove that the product reached him or her without substantial change E. holding that counsel cannot raise his or her own ineffectiveness. Answer:

D. holding that plaintiff must on his or her own initiative prove that the product reached him or her without substantial change

Consider the following statement: A reasonable officer could have concluded that impoundment of the motorcycle was lawful based on the calveh. code. “if the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate”. saucier, 121 s.ct. at 2156-57 (citing malley v. briggs, 475 u.s. 335, 341, 106 s.ct. 1092, 89 l.ed.2d 271 (1986) (qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law”)). the only issue that is contested is whether officer faulk was acting out of personal animus towards plaintiff. however, this dispute is over officer faulk’s subjective intentions, which is irrelevant in determining whether qualified immunity applies. see act up!/portland v. bagley, 988 f.2d 868, 873 (1993) (<holding>). the only question the court must decide is 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 qualified immunity determination does not entail an inquiry into the officers subjective intentions merely his knowledge B. holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity C. holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit D. holding that reasonableness for qualified immunity purposes requires an objective inquiry into the totality of the circumstances E. holding that inquiry as to whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for use of excessive force is distinct from inquiry on the merits of the excessive force claim. Answer:

A. holding that the qualified immunity determination does not entail an inquiry into the officers subjective intentions merely his knowledge

Consider the following statement: That revenue sharing information was required by erisa disclosure provisions: the allegedly omitted disclosures are not required by the language of the regulations and would instead require judicial expansion of the detailed disclosure regime crafted by congress and the department of labor pursuant , to its statutory authority. ■furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that receiving this additional non-prescribed information would effectively enhance investment decisions. in assessing the likely return on an investment the fees netted against the return are certainly relevant, but knowing the subsequent distribution of those fees has no impact on the investment’s value. see in re merrill lynch investment management funds securities litigation, 434 f.supp.2d 233, 238 (s.d.n.y.2006) (<holding>). in the context of. the disclosure 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 inadmissible expert testimony that included statements that failure to disclose certain enumerated information would be a material omission under utah law that the material actually provided to investors did not meet disclosure requirements under the act and that the agreements at issue were securities under utah law B. holding that a plaintiff alleging securities fraud must show that a defendant 1 made a material misrepresentation or a material omission as to which he or she had a duty to speak 2 with scienter 3 in connection with the purchase or sale of securities C. holding that such information is not material under securities law D. holding that omission of information about shares held in corporations was material even if the securities were worthless at the time E. recognizing a duty of best execution under federal securities law. Answer:

C. holding that such information is not material under securities law