prompt
stringlengths 1.1k
3.78k
| chosen
stringlengths 26
783
|
|---|---|
Consider the following statement:
That rutherford was not prejudiced by the district’s lack of notice because he received all of the benefits he otherwise would have received had the leave been designated. defi’s mem. supp. 31; dunn dep. 37 (dunn stated that while rutherford was not given fmla forms, he “was given all the rights and benefits as if [he] had been.”) this argument misses the mark in addressing rutherford’s real concern: that he was not returned to work once he had proven himself fit to do so. pl.’s mem. 32. simply put, the district’s failure to follow the fmla notice rules, and thereby prolonging rutherford’s reinstatement process, prejudiced rutherford because it kept him from returning to work despite the fact that he wanted to, was fit to do so, and was entitled to do so. cf. ridings, 537 f.3d at 762 (<holding>). even though rutherford was not 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 an employer was justified in demoting plaintiff after she returned from maternity leave because plaintiff could not rebut the employers evidence that she was having performance problems before she went on leave and that additional performance problems were discovered while she was on leave
B. holding in the only seventh circuit case addressing prejudice in the context of failure to notice that an employee was not prejudiced because she benefitted from a reduced schedule of leave for more than a yeara schedule she wanted to keep
C. holding that defendants decision to change the office schedule without allowing plaintiff leave to alter his personal schedule did not constitute an adverse action although plaintiff alleged that because of the schedule revisions he was forced to come in two hours early for his shift a mere inconvenience is not sufficiently adverse to sustain a prima facie case
D. holding that a change in work schedule and request that an employee perform two additional tasks did not rise to the level of an adverse employment action
E. holding that defendant adequately indicated to officers that she sought assistance of counsel when she stated that she wanted to call her lawyer and officer testified that request was unambiguous.
Answer: | B. holding in the only seventh circuit case addressing prejudice in the context of failure to notice that an employee was not prejudiced because she benefitted from a reduced schedule of leave for more than a yeara schedule she wanted to keep |
Consider the following statement:
By tus-chner was reasonable in law. according to the district court, although our court ultimately disagreed with the conclusion that tuschner controlled zahareas, “the sec’s legal position was at least a colorable, reasonable attempt at defining an otherwise undefined phrase.” (id. at 12.) third, relying on the undisputed communications and dealings between tuschner and za-hareas, the district court found that the sec’s factual basis was reasonable. the fact that the district court and our court found for the sec at various stages in the litigation does not automatically grant the government immunity from eaja liability. see herman v. schwent, 177 f.3d 1063 (8th cir.1999) (reversing district court and granting attorney’s fees); friends of the boundary waters wilderness, 53 f.3d at 885 (<holding>). instead, we must fully analyze the facts 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. recognizing that an advisory opinion is one that offers an opinion on a moot issue
B. recognizing ajlthough presiding judge mccormicks opinion in davis is labeled a concurring opinion it was joined by a majority of the court and may be regarded as an opinion for the court
C. holding that an administrative agencys decision may not be based upon inadmissible expert opinion
D. holding a medical opinion to be not significantly probative where the opinion was contrary to other substantial record evidence
E. holding that the district court erred in denying fees by relying too heavily upon its original opinion and judge magills dissent from our decision reversing that opinion.
Answer: | E. holding that the district court erred in denying fees by relying too heavily upon its original opinion and judge magills dissent from our decision reversing that opinion |
Consider the following statement:
Of the government’s bargaining power and the fact that the defendant waives his constitutional rights. nolan-cooper, 155 f.3d at 236. when considering an alleged breach of a plea agreement, we first identify the terms of the agreement. we then determine whether there has been a breach. if so, we fashion a remedy. id. at 235. in miller’s case, the government filed a written 5k1.1 motion, which requested a downward departure of “ ‘3 levels from the parties’ stipulated offense level of 26,’ to ‘offense level 23.’ ” br. for appellee 27 (quoting app. 360). miller asserts that he reasonably understood this to be- a term of the plea agreement and, therefore, that the government was bound to recommend offense level 23 at sentencing. cf. united states v. baird, 218 f.3d 221, 230 (3d cir. 2000) (<holding>). we will assume for the sake of argument 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 federal court is not bound by terms of plea agreement between defendant and state authorities
B. holding that the government is no longer bound by its obligations under a plea agreement when a defendant commits a material breach
C. holding that objecting to guidelines calculations as specifically reserved in the plea agreement is not a breach of the plea agreement even if the objection is overruled and thus government is not released from obligation under the agreement to move for acceptance of responsibility
D. holding that when a court accepts a fixed plea agreement it is bound by the agreements terms
E. holding that the government was bound by an agreement it treated as binding although it preceded the formal plea agreement.
Answer: | E. holding that the government was bound by an agreement it treated as binding although it preceded the formal plea agreement |
Consider the following statement:
They completely terminated their physician and patient relationship. generally, the negligent conduct of a physician causes at least some immediate damage to the patient, but the statute of limitations, nonetheless, commences running at termination of the course of treatment, sometime after the initial damage occurs. see schmit, 183 minn, at 359, 236 n.w. at 625 (adopting the termination of treatment rule despite the general rule that a statute of limitations action in tort begins to run at the time of the negligent act which coincides with the injury). zagaros claims the termination of treatment rule is inapplicable in her case because no immediate damage coincided with erickson’s allegedly negligent misdiagnosis. see peterson v. st. cloud hosp., 460 n.w.2d 635, 639 (minn.app.1990) (<holding>). she argues she was not injured by any lack of
Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given.
A. holding that plaintiffs could not sue attorneys for legal malpractice so long as underlying medical malpractice action out of which legal malpractice claim arose was still pending on appeal
B. holding that the occurrence of damages determines when a medical malpractice action accrues
C. recognizing that even when a prisoner files suit under section 1983 alleging medical malpractice against prison medical officials medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner
D. holding that absent a contrary mandate from congress the discovery rule determines when a cause of action accrues in a federal question case
E. holding cause of action accrues when some compensable damage occurs.
Answer: | B. holding that the occurrence of damages determines when a medical malpractice action accrues |
Consider the following statement:
It’s a rather unusual circumstance, but i’ve heard it before. obviously, it’s not unusual for participants in a trial to watch the jury, but we want to be sure that the jury is not made uncomfortable. so if i’m correct that the regular attendees have been members of the family or friends of the defendants, i would appreciate counsel commenting to them when and as appropriate that we don’t want to make the jurors uncomfortable, and what’s actually a lot more interesting about a trial is what goes on in the well of the court and from the witness stand as opposed to the jury. so i share that with you just so you can convey the court’s mild concern that the jurors not be made uncomfortable. it’s nothing more than that. okay? j.a. 915-16. there was no evidence that the judge had ir.1994) (<holding>), and united states v. grubbs, 585 f.3d 793,
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 multiple sentences for offenses under 18 usc 924c are appropriate when multiple separate acts of firearm use have occurred even if they are related to the same underlying offense
B. holding that consecutive sentences were warranted because of the multiple separate and distinct criminal acts
C. holding that in relation to is an element of 18 usc 924c
D. holding that consecutive fixedterm sentences for juveniles who committed multiple nonhomicide offenses are not clearly unconstitutional under graham even when they amount to the practical equivalent of life without parole
E. holding that multiple convictions under 924c cannot be based on offenses forming a single unit of prosecution.
Answer: | A. holding that multiple sentences for offenses under 18 usc 924c are appropriate when multiple separate acts of firearm use have occurred even if they are related to the same underlying offense |
Consider the following statement:
The confidentiality protections afforded by the mediation order. a. the defendants have not established a special need for mediation communications under the first prong of the teli-gent test, a movant seeking to modify a protective order must establish “improvidence in the grant of the order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need.” teligent, 640 f.3d at 59 (quoting sec v. thestreet.com, 273 f.3d 222, 229 (2d cir.2001)); see iridium india telecom ltd. v. motorola, inc., 165 fed.appx. 878, 880 (2d cir.2005) (affirming denial of motion to modify protective order on the” basis that movant “had not shown a compelling need or extraordinary circumstances necessary to modify the protective order”); martindell v. int’l tel. & tel. corp., 594 f.2d 291, 296 (2d cir.1979) (<holding>); see also dandong, 2012 wl 4793870, at *5
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 has the right to an order permitting him to inspect his own written or recorded statements absent a basis for a protective order
B. holding that a protective order under rule 26c to stay discovery pending determination of a dispositive motion is an appropriate exercise of the courts discretion
C. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it modified a protective order after settlement to permit public access to pretrial materials in spite of a protective order to the contrary which it viewed as having had been initially justified
D. holding that the public records act does not mandate disclosure of documents sealed by a protective order entered pursuant to the tennessee rules of civil procedure
E. holding that a protective order granted pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure 26c should not be modified absent a showing of improvidence in the grant of the order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need.
Answer: | E. holding that a protective order granted pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure 26c should not be modified absent a showing of improvidence in the grant of the order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need |
Consider the following statement:
That the “catchall has to be understood within the context of the limitations” enumerated in the first eight factors). 9 . although the coalition's briefs appear to pose its specificity challenge as an attack on epa's interpretation of rcra, it might also have intended to argue that the asserted vagueness of § 270.10(z) renders the regulation arbitrary and capricious. but such an argument would also fail because, as was true in animal legal defense fund, "[t]he explanation that renders the [agency’s] interpretation of the statute rea th respect to a jurisdictional provision analogous to rcra, that agency action is reviewable if it "binds private parties or the agency itself with the 'force of law’ ”), with mclouth steel prods. corp. v. thomas, 838 f.2d 1317, 1320 (d.c.cir.1988) (<holding>). indeed, our jurisdictional cases routinely
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 the agency reopens a proceeding for any reason and after reconsideration issues a new and final order setting forth the rights and obligations of the parties that order even if it merely reaffirms the rights and obligations set forth in the original order is reviewable on its merits
B. holding that it is not
C. holding that an agency pronouncement is a policy statement exempt from apa notice and comment if it first does not have a presentday binding effect that is it does not impose any rights and obligations and second genuinely leaves the agency and its decisionmakers free to exercise discretion quoting community nutrition inst v young 818 f2d 943 946 n 4 dccir1987
D. holding that the court reviews noncompliance with an agency pronouncement only if it actually has the force and effect of law
E. holding that ftc issuance of a complaint meets the apa definition of order and therefore is agency action even if not final agency action.
Answer: | C. holding that an agency pronouncement is a policy statement exempt from apa notice and comment if it first does not have a presentday binding effect that is it does not impose any rights and obligations and second genuinely leaves the agency and its decisionmakers free to exercise discretion quoting community nutrition inst v young 818 f2d 943 946 n 4 dccir1987 |
Consider the following statement:
Applicable here, and supports our conclusion that the language of the ballot title and summary do not constitute political or emotional rhetoric. moreover, the common definition of the term “protect” is “to maintain the status or integrity of.” merriam webster’s collegiate dictionary 938 (10th ed.1998). this common definition, when read in context and conjunction with the rest of the language contained in the ballot title and summary accurately portrays the chief purpose of the amendment — preserving the current concept of marriage in florida as the legal union of one man and one woman. based on the foregoing, we hold that the ballot summary and title in the instant proposal are not impermissibly misleading, nor are they “clearly and conclusively defective.” askew, 421 so.2d at 154 (<holding>). review of financial impact statement article
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 language in a citizen initiative must be clearly and conclusively defective to justify removal of the measure from the ballot
B. holding that the defendants filing of a notice of removal before being served by plaintiffs did not render removal defective
C. holding that the plain language of the diversity jurisdiction statute permitted a workmens compensation claim to be filed as an original action in federal court even though congress clearly intended to prohibit the removal of such claims congress used language specifically barring removal of such cases from state to federal courts and at the same time left unchanged the old language which just as specifically permits civil suits to be filed in federal courts in cases where there are both diversity of citizenship and the prescribed jurisdictional amount in this situation we must take the intent of congress with regard to the filing of diversity cases in federal district courts to be that which its language clearly sets forth congress could very easily have used language to bar filing of workmens compensation suits by the insurer as well as removal of such suits and it could easily do so still
D. holding that notice of removal was defective on its face because it failed to contain a copy of the process as required by the removal statute
E. holding that any defect in removal procedure must be cured within the 30day removal period or it is fatal to the removal and defendants failure to attach exhibits to the notice of removal within that time required remand.
Answer: | A. holding that language in a citizen initiative must be clearly and conclusively defective to justify removal of the measure from the ballot |
Consider the following statement:
Rather, as noted above, it is clear that the idea provides for reimbursement only if (1) the school district fails to provide a fape and (2) the parental placement is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.” carter, 950 f.2d at 163 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also burlington, 471 u.s. at 369, 105 s.ct. 1996. these two findings lie at the heart of the statute. in this regard, we note that the hearing officer and district court made findings that lindamood-bell had fallen short in several significant respects, namely in the failure to provide the life skills and vocational training and the group interaction needed by m.s. for his instruction. we accord great deference to such findings under our precedent. see mm ex rel. dm, 303 f.3d at 531 (<holding>). whether the identified shortcomings of
Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given.
A. holding that we review for clear error the bankruptcy courts factual findings
B. holding that findings of fact from a bench trial are reviewed for clear error
C. holding that findings of fact made in administrative proceedings are considered to be prima facie correct and that where a district court has heard and considered additional evidence we review its findings of fact for clear error
D. holding that findings of fact are reviewed for clear error
E. holding the findings of fact required to support an alimony award are sufficient if findings of fact have been made on the ultimate facts at issue in the case and the findings of fact show the trial court properly applied the law in the case.
Answer: | C. holding that findings of fact made in administrative proceedings are considered to be prima facie correct and that where a district court has heard and considered additional evidence we review its findings of fact for clear error |
Consider the following statement:
Due process claim was proper because it was subsumed by his fourth amendment claim. see armendariz v. penman, 75 f.3d 1311, 1320 (9th cir.1996) (citation omitted). summary judgment was proper on mckinney’s first amendment claim because mckinney failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the officers acted with intent to deny mckinney his first amendment rights. cf. sloman v. tadlock, 21 f.3d 1462, 1469 (9th cir.1994). summary judgment on mckinney’s claim alleging the seized property was never returned to him was proper because mckinney admitted at deposition that he did not follow california state law procedures for recovering property pursuant to cal.penal code § 1536. see city of west covina v. perkins, 525 u.s. 234, 241, 119 s.ct. 678, 142 l.ed.2d 636 (1999) (<holding>). summary judgment on mckinney’s pendent 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 california postdeprivation recovery procedures satisfy due process despite lack of notice to claimant of recovery procedures
B. holding that the irs has notice of plaintiffs alternate ground of recovery because it had considered and evaluated the applicability of the code provision under which the plaintiff sought recovery
C. holding that its flexible approach to due process taking account of private interests the potential for reducing erroneous deprivations and the costs of procedures needed to reduce errors applies to evaluations of notice as well as the procedures at a hearing
D. holding that notice and postdeprivation grievance procedures are sufficient process to freeze an inmates prison trust account until the prisoner pays for medical expenses he has incurred
E. holding that the avoidance powers provide for recovery only if the recovery is for the benefit of the estate.
Answer: | A. holding california postdeprivation recovery procedures satisfy due process despite lack of notice to claimant of recovery procedures |
Consider the following statement:
Crosby v. paulk, 187 f.3d 1339, 1352 (11th cir.1999) (quoting roche v. john hancock mut. life ins. co., 81 f.3d 249, 257 (1st cir.1996)). under the circumstances at hand, where the case was originally filed in state court and subsequently removed to federal court, precedent dictates that the district court should have remanded the remaining claims to state court. see, e.g., cook v. sheriff of monroe county, 402 f.3d 1092, 1123 (11th cir.2005) (explaining “[bjeeause this case was originally filed in state court and removed to federal court pursuant to 28 u.s.c § 1441, if the district court declines to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, [plaintiffs] remaining claim should be remanded to state court”); lewis v. city of st. petersburg, 260 f.3d 1260, 1267 (11th cir.2001) (<holding>). accordingly, we find that the district 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 district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related statelaw claims once it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction
B. holding that district courts dismissal of state law claims was proper where the district court had properly dismissed all of the federal questions that gave it original jurisdiction
C. holding that if the federal claims are dismissed before trial the state claims should be dismissed as well
D. holding that when all federal claims have been dismissed the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims
E. holding that after all federal claims had been dismissed if the district court does decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction these state claims shall be remanded to state court rather than dismissed because this case was originally filed in state court and removed to federal court.
Answer: | E. holding that after all federal claims had been dismissed if the district court does decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction these state claims shall be remanded to state court rather than dismissed because this case was originally filed in state court and removed to federal court |
Consider the following statement:
In accordance with another provision of this code. see act of may 10, 2001, 77th leg., r.s., ch. 290, § 1, 2001 tex. gen. laws 548, 548-51 (repealed and recodified 2003) (current version at tex. ins. code ann. §§ 541.051-.061). 9 . see, e.g., benchmark bank v. crowder, 919 s.w.2d 657, 663 (tex.1996); goswami v. metro. sav. & loan ass'n, 751 s.w.2d 487, 491 n. 1 (tex.1988); in a of tex. v. bryant, 686 s.w.2d 614, 615 (tex.1985); conte v. ditta, no. 14-02-00482-cv, 2003 wl 21191296, at *4 n. 5 (tex.app.-houston [14th dist.] may 22, 2003, no pet.) (mem.op.) (presuming that trial court did not consider a late-filed affidavit where the record showed only that the trial court considered the response). but see durbin v. culberson county, 132 s.w.3d 650, 656 (tex.app.-el paso 2004, no pet.) (<holding>); alaniz v. hoyt, 105 s.w.3d 330, 339-40
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 fourteenth amendment does not apply to the actions of the federal government
B. holding that in ruling on a summaryjudgment motion record evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to nonmovant
C. holding that the confrontation clause does not apply to the sentencing hearing
D. holding that the sevenday limit before submission in which a nonmovant may submit summaryjudgment evidence does not apply to the movants reply
E. holding that title ii does not apply to the states.
Answer: | D. holding that the sevenday limit before submission in which a nonmovant may submit summaryjudgment evidence does not apply to the movants reply |
Consider the following statement:
To deitz's complaint, palaigos was acting as the husband's attorney throughout that litigation. 3 . the other defendants later joined in this motion. 4 . although we reach the same result as the trial court, we do so taking a different route. "ordinarily, an appellate court will not affirm a summary judgment by ruling on a ground not ruled upon by the trial court.” thomas v. city of annapolis, 113 md.app. 440, 450, 688 a.2d 448 (1997); see also gresser v. anne arundel county,-md.-, -, -a.2d - (no. 20, sept. term, 1997, slip op. at 9, filed jan. 28, 1998). "if the alternative ground is one as to which the trial court had no discretion, however, summary judgment may be affirmed.” thomas, 113 md.app. at 450, 688 a.2d 448; see also maryland cas. co., 100 md.app. at 357-58, 641 a.2d 924 (<holding>). in this case, the trial judge would have had
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 an appellate court affirms trial courts grant of summary judgment on a particular ground the appellate court need not discuss the remaining grounds
B. holding that an appellate court may affirm a grant of summary judgment on any ground appearing in the record even if the circuit court did not rely on it
C. holding that the trial court may not grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the motion
D. holding that if the trial court would have had no discretion to deny summary judgment on an alternative ground the appellate court can on that alternative ground sustain the order granting summary judgment
E. holding that trial court may not grant summary judgment on ground not presented by movant in writing.
Answer: | D. holding that if the trial court would have had no discretion to deny summary judgment on an alternative ground the appellate court can on that alternative ground sustain the order granting summary judgment |
Consider the following statement:
The army argues that the two jobs are not identical and nealon failed to present “comparable worth” evidence below. however, it is for the district court to determine on the merits whether the two jobs are sufficiently similar to find an epa violation; nealon. was never permitted to offer evidence on the merits because her suit was dismissed before trial, on the army’s motion. b. finally, nealon argues that the fact that her favorable eeoc i decision was issued during the limitations period, in october 1987, warrants equitable tolling of the statute of limitations period. we agree. as a general matter, statutory time limits in suits against the government are subject to equitable tolling principles. see irwin v. veterans administration, — u.s. -, 111 s.ct. 453, 112 l.ed.2d 435 (1990) (<holding>). loe v. heckler, 768 f.2d 409 (d.c.cir.1985),
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 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
B. holding claims based on title vii subject to arbitration
C. holding as subject to equitable tolling title vii statute authorizing suit brought within 90 days of receipt of right to sue notice
D. holding title vii subject to equitable tolling
E. holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling.
Answer: | D. holding title vii subject to equitable tolling |
Consider the following statement:
(1st cir.1985) (applying mass. law). utah requires proof under its consumer fraud act of either intent to deceive or knowledge of the falsity of defendant’s affirmative misrepresentations, while south dakota requires proof of both knowledge and intent under its consumer fraud statute. utah code ann § 13-11-4(2); pace v. parrish, 122 utah 141, 247 p.2d 273 (1952); iadanza v. mather, 820 f.supp. 1371, 1381 (d.utah 1993); s.d.code ann. § 37-24-6; stene v. state farm mut. auto. ins. co., 583 n.w.2d 399, 404 (s.d.1998). california and pennsylvania require proof under their consumer fraud acts of justifiable reliance by plaintiff on defendant’s deceptive acts. occidental land, inc. v. superior court of orange county (fahnestock), 18 cal.3d 355, 134 cal.rptr. 388, 556 p.2d 750, 755 (1976); (<holding>); weinberg v. sun company, inc., supra., 777
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 justifiable reliance as a matter of law
B. holding that plaintiff failed to prove reasonable reliance on a false statement
C. holding that each class member was not required to prove justifiable reliance when an inference of reliance arises if a materially false representation was made to persons whose acts thereafter were consistent with reliance upon the representations
D. holding in the context of a non 212c iirira retroactivity challenge that if reliance were required we would insist at most upon objectively reasonable reliance and not subjective reliance
E. holding that where material misrepresentations are made to class members an inference of reliance arises to the entire class.
Answer: | C. holding that each class member was not required to prove justifiable reliance when an inference of reliance arises if a materially false representation was made to persons whose acts thereafter were consistent with reliance upon the representations |
Consider the following statement:
892, 895 (fla. 3d dca 1998)). accordingly, a trial court has the authority to impose sanctions on a party that perpetrates a fraud on the court, which includes striking that party’s pleadings and entering a. default judgment against that party. see faddis, 121 so.3d at 1135. however, and importantly for our purposes, the power of the court to impose sanctions under these circumstances “should be exercised with .great restraint” and should be used ‘“only upon the most blatant showing of fraud, pretense, collusion, or other similar wrongdoing.’ ” e.i. dupont de nemours &■ co. v. sidran, 140 so.3d 620, 623 (fla. 3d dca 2014). see also celebrity cruises, inc. v. fernandes, 149 so.3d 744, 751 (fla. 3d dca 2014) (noting that “striking a party’s pleadings and entry of a default ... is 7) (<holding>). we reverse and remand to the trial court 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 district court erred in dismissing the indictment based on sufficiency of evidence
B. holding that fraud on the court must be supported by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence
C. holding that district court acted prematurely by dismissing case on the pleadings
D. holding appeal from an order dismissing action without prejudice was properly before this court
E. holding court must have evidence to support dismissal before dismissing a case for fraud on the court.
Answer: | E. holding court must have evidence to support dismissal before dismissing a case for fraud on the court |
Consider the following statement:
Claim is the agreement, plaintiffs have not identified any other contract to which these allegations could refer. plaintiffs argue that their claims relate to disclosures on highbeam’s website, not in the agreement. however, as already mentioned, plaintiffs admit that some disclosures were made in the agreement. (id. ¶ 46(f).) even if this were not the case, the first circuit’s decision in huffington defeats plaintiffs’ argument. in huffington, the plaintiff argued that his tort and statutory fraudulent misrepresentation claims did not relate to his contract with the defendant because the misrepresentations “would be actionable regardless of whether the parties executed a contract.” 637 f.3d at 22. however, as the first circu . a. 97-12283-rgs, 1998 wl 518187 (d.mass. aug. 5, 1998) (<holding>). c. unresolved factual disputes. there remain
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 forum selection clause at issue encompassed both contract and tort claims
B. holding that a permissive forum selection clause containing a waiver of any claims of forum non conveniens amounts to a mandatory forum selection clause at least where the plaintiff chose the designated forum
C. holding that a forum selection clause was not enforceable against defendants that were not parties to the contract
D. holding that claims were not related to a license agreement which contained a forum selection clause in part because the bulk of the claims were against a defendant who was not a party to the agreement for breaches of employment contracts which did not contain forum selection clauses and for disclosure of trade secrets
E. holding enforceable forum selection clauses in arbitration agreements.
Answer: | D. holding that claims were not related to a license agreement which contained a forum selection clause in part because the bulk of the claims were against a defendant who was not a party to the agreement for breaches of employment contracts which did not contain forum selection clauses and for disclosure of trade secrets |
Consider the following statement:
Below the 50 percent mark, but such mathematical uncertainty is not fatal to the guideline’s validity, and we have previously concluded that criminal provisions featuring the “substantial” language survive facial challenge. see doctor john’s, inc. v. city of roy, 465 f.3d 1150, 1159 (10th cir.2006) (ordinance requiring licensing of store selling “ ‘significant or substantial’ ” amount of sexually oriented merchandise was not void for vagueness); see also vip of berlin, llc v. town of berlin, 593 f.3d 179, 187-88 (2d cir.2010) (language of zoning ordinance defining sexually oriented business as establishment with “substantial or significant portion” of goods in adult merchandise not unconstitutionally vague); ilq invs., inc. v. city of rochester, 25 f.3d 1413, 1418-19 (8th cir.1994) (<holding>). moreover, we cannot say the sentencing 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 safety standards regarding the safe design and use of trampolines including astm standards were admissible on the issue of the defendants negligence even though the defendants were unaware of the standards
B. holding that determining legislative intent is a question of law
C. holding that the title of legislation is relevant to legislative intent
D. holding that legislative consent to suit must be by clear and unambiguous language in either a statute or by other express legislative permission
E. holding that substantial or significant is not devoid of meaningful legislative standards .
Answer: | E. holding that substantial or significant is not devoid of meaningful legislative standards |
Consider the following statement:
Sex offenders, bender, 566 f.3d at 752, whereas the district court here imposed the ban on pornography after a discussion of demers’s background and characteristics, including his prior child pornography arrests and domestic battery offenses, citing “the need to curb any tendency you might have to further engage in child pornography efforts or abuses.” moreover, even were we to find that the district court erred in not conducting a sufficiently individualized determination, that error likely would not “affect[ ] substantial rights,” davis, 452 f.3d at 994, since demers’s offense and history, including his prior conviction for sexual abuse, make it unlikely that he could carry his burden of showing that the condition would not have been imposed in any event. cf. curry, 627 f.3d at 315 (<holding>). demers also argues that special condition 7
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 condition banning pornography prejudiced the defendant because there was a reasonable probability that the condition would not have been imposed had the district court conducted a sufficiently individualized determination given that the defendants conviction was for a registration offense not a sexual exploitation offense
B. holding that a defendant must show reasonable probability that but for the error he would not have entered the plea
C. holding that that the trial court erred when it determined that firstdegree sexual offense was an aggravated offense
D. holding that counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a charge on the lesserincluded offense when the evidence showed either the commission of the completed offense as charged or the commission of no offense such that the defendant was not entitled to a charge on the lesser offense
E. recognizing that before a special condition of probation may be imposed there must be an oral pronouncement of the condition at sentencing.
Answer: | A. holding that a condition banning pornography prejudiced the defendant because there was a reasonable probability that the condition would not have been imposed had the district court conducted a sufficiently individualized determination given that the defendants conviction was for a registration offense not a sexual exploitation offense |
Consider the following statement:
Was appropriate. 23 . accord valentine v. smith, 654 f.2d 503 (8th cir.1980); united states v. city of miami, fla., supra at note 19. 24 . see trans world airlines v. hardison, 432 u.s. 63, 73 n. 8, 97 s.ct. 2264, 2271 n. 8, 53 l.ed.2d 113 (1977) citing neil v. biggers, 409 u.s. 188, 192, 93 s.ct. 375, 378, 34 l.ed.2d 401 (1972) (judgment entered by an equally divided court is not entitled to precedential weight); berlin v. f.c. publications, 329 f.2d 541 (2d cir.1964) (affirmance by an equally divided court is, between the parties, conclusive determination, but the principles of law involved, having not gained the assent of a majority of the court, prevents the case from being authority for other cases); but see marks v. united states, 430 u.s. 188, 97 s.ct. 990, 51 l.ed.2d 260 (1976) (<holding>). 25 . in fullilove, the court was faced with
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 of fragmented court may be viewed as that position taken by those members who concurred in the judgment on the narrowest grounds
B. recognizing that this court may affirm summary judgment on grounds other than those relied upon by the motion justice
C. holding where movant asserts several grounds in support of its summary judgment motion and the trial court does not specify the grounds on which judgment was granted the reviewing court can affirm the judgment if any of the grounds are meritorious
D. holding that when a fragmented court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five justices the holding of the court may be viewed as that position taking by those members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds
E. holding of the court is the position taken by member who concurs in the judgment on the narrowest grounds.
Answer: | A. holding of fragmented court may be viewed as that position taken by those members who concurred in the judgment on the narrowest grounds |
Consider the following statement:
Had robbed six businesses that purchased supplies from other states, and/or had employees or customers from other states. 328 f.3d at 711-12. we underscored that “ ‘the cumulative result of many hobbs act violations is a substantial effect upon interstate commerce,’ and that substantial effect empowers congress to regulate pursuant to the commerce clause.” id. at 711 (quoting united states v. robinson, 119 f.3d 1205, 1215 (5th cir.1997)). on this record, there was sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that jeanette was running a business that had the requisite nexus to interstate commerce. although the speakeasy was not a licensed bar, it was selling alcohol and the people playing cards at the time of the robbery were its c (2d cir.1999) (<holding>). there was also evidence here from which a
Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given.
A. holding that the single transaction rule protects a purchaser of stolen goods who by definition must know the goods to be stolen from being made party to the original theft via conspiracy
B. holding that a buyer who purchases goods subject to an express warranty that the goods are free from all liens takes free of any unperfected security interest
C. holding that a creditors pmsi in goods sold to debtors did not survive consolidation of the original installment contract with a later contract for the purchase of additional goods
D. holding that the hobbs act jurisdictional nexus was met by the robbery of a delicatessen that sold goods produced out of state without mentioning whether the goods were purchased from outofstate or instate suppliers
E. holding that a statement of conditional sale of goods can be filed with the state auditor before the delivery of goods where statute says the statement must be filed within ten days of delivery of goods.
Answer: | D. holding that the hobbs act jurisdictional nexus was met by the robbery of a delicatessen that sold goods produced out of state without mentioning whether the goods were purchased from outofstate or instate suppliers |
Consider the following statement:
Trial, all of his pretrial motions had not yet been heard and the state had failed to provide him a complete list of witnesses. the motion for continuance was granted in part and denied in part. wilson claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion for continuance because his trial counsel’s scheduling conflict prevented counsel from adequately preparing wilson’s case. additionally, wilson argues that the continuance should have been granted because the state designated new experts, shortly before trial, denying trial counsel the opportunity to investigate the experts. furthermore, the state failed to provide a complete witness list and the trial court failed to rule on his motion filed in accordance with ake v. oklahoma, 470 u.s. 68, 83, 105 s.ct. 1087, 84 l.ed.2d 53 (1985) (<holding>). wilson argues that the trial court should
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 not only has a right to be examined by an expert but also has the right to have an expert appointed to assist him in his defense
B. holding that an expert that had provided consulting services to the defendant relating to the litigation was not precluded from serving as an expert for the plaintiff
C. holding that prior to engaging in custodial interrogation police must warn a suspect that he has a right to remain silent that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney either retained or appointed
D. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiffs expert witness to testify when it also allowed defendants expert witness who disputed the methodology used by plaintiffs expert to testify
E. holding that the defendant validly waived right to conflictfree representation where the defendant knew a conflict existed its effect on his defense and his right to have other counsel appointed.
Answer: | A. holding that a defendant not only has a right to be examined by an expert but also has the right to have an expert appointed to assist him in his defense |
Consider the following statement:
Protected under the doctrine of intergovernmental immunities”); pollock v. farmers’ loan & trust co., 157 u.s. 429, 583-86, 15 s.ct. 673, 39 l.ed. 759 (1895), modified, 158 u.s. 601, 15 s.ct. 912, 39 l.ed. 1108 (1895), overruled in part by u.s. const. amend. xvi, south carolina v. baker, 485 u.s. 505, 515-27, 108 s.ct. 1355, 99 l.ed.2d 592 (1988). 9 . from 1938 until the modern code’s enactment, state authorization was required for plan confirmation. see act of aug. 16, 1937, pub.l. no. 302, ch. 657, sec. 83(e)(6), 50 stat. . 653, 658 (codified at 11 u.s.c. § 403(e)(6) (1937) (conditioning confirmation of a plan on, inter alia, petitioner being "authorized by law to take all action necessary to be taken by it to carry out the plan”)); bekins, 304 u.s. at 49, 58 s.ct. 811 (<holding>); accord 11 u.s.c. § 404 (1976). puerto rico'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 law in 403e6 refers to state law
B. holding state law irrelevant
C. holding that even though 24 only refers to actions in state court it applies to state claims brought in federal court
D. holding that federal courts presiding over causes of action created by state law should apply state substantive law but federal procedural law
E. holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law.
Answer: | A. holding that law in 403e6 refers to state law |
Consider the following statement:
To reward appellant for his past commendable service, while at the same time, adding incentive for appellant to remain with the company in order to exercise such options. yet, in the unfortunate circumstance of appellant’s death, the option period would have remained open to appellant’s estate for one year. similarly, if appellant became disabled, such options would then vest. notwithstanding the lack of value, such options that were gained prior to the filing of the dissolution petition do represent assets that were accumulated during the marriage and are, thhs, subject to equitable distribution. we also find support for our holding in the majority of other state courts that have addressed this issue. in fisher v. fisher, the pennsylvania supreme court, reversing both .ct.app.1987) (<holding>); pascale v. pascale, 140 n.j. 583, 660 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 the trial court properly determined that unvested stock options have marital aspect
B. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allocating the husbands unvested stock options as marital property
C. holding that unexercised stock options were not marital property
D. holding that unvested stock options are a form of compensation and constituted marital property that could be distributed through use of a constructive trust
E. holding that unvested stock options subject to the contingency of debtors future employment are property of the bankruptcy estate.
Answer: | A. holding that the trial court properly determined that unvested stock options have marital aspect |
Consider the following statement:
Of self-defense, and a person is just as capable of defending himself with a marked firearm as with an unmarked firearm. with or without a serial number, a pistol is still a pistol. furthermore, it cannot be the case that possession of a firearm in the home for self-defense is a protected form of possession under all circumstances. by this rationale, any type of firearm possessed in the home would be protected merely because it could be used for self-defense. possession of machine guns or short-barreled shotguns — or any other dangerous and unusual weapon' — so long as they were kept in the home, would then fall within the second amendment. but the supreme court has made clear the second amendment does not protect those types of weapons. see miller, 307 u.s. at 178, 59 s.ct. 816 (<holding>); see also united states v. fincher, 538 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 when regulations are intended to have different purposes and are not dependent on each other they are not intertwined
B. holding that shortbarreled shotguns are unprotected
C. holding that arguments which are not sufficiently developed are waived
D. holding that arguments that are not raised or that are not accompanied by factual and legal support are deemed waived
E. holding that possession of a shortbarreled shotgun is a violent felony under the accas residual clause because sawedoff shotguns are inherently dangerous and lack usefulness except for violent and criminal purposes internal quotation marks omitted.
Answer: | B. holding that shortbarreled shotguns are unprotected |
Consider the following statement:
Guideone elite ins. co. v. fielder road baptist church, 197 s.w.3d 305, 310 (tex.2006) (the duty to defend is created by the terms of the insurance policy); 2 allan d. wlndt, insurance claims and disputes: representation of insurance companies and insureds § 11:31 (5th ed.2007) (“the difference between a self-insured retention and a deductible is usually that, under polices containing a self-insured retention, the insured assumes the obligation of providing itself a defense until the retention is exhausted.”). if ltc itself had funded the defenses or settlements of the underlying claims, it would have no claim against u.s. fire under the policy for amounts within the sirs. see generally h.e. butt grocery co. v. nat’l union fire ins. co. of pittsburgh, pa., 150 f.3d 526 (5th cir.1998) (<holding>). accordingly, u.s. fire’s refusal to defend or
Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given.
A. holding that when the district court disposed of the adea claims the pendent claims became subject to dismissal for want of subject matter jurisdiction
B. holding that a common question of causation was a predominate issue central to each of plaintiffs claims and subject to generalize proof notwithstanding need to review each plaintiffs individual account
C. holding that insureds settlements of two claims were each subject to the sir provisions of the policy
D. recognizing that a contract is to be construed to give reasonable effect to each of its provisions
E. holding that the hearing provisions of the ina supersede the provisions of the apa.
Answer: | C. holding that insureds settlements of two claims were each subject to the sir provisions of the policy |
Consider the following statement:
These prior holdings, corus argues that fundamental structural changes to the u.s. antidumping statute, as implemented in the uruguay round agreements act (“uraa”), render zeroing inherently unreasonable, citing recent wto decisions for further support that zeroing is no longer reasonable. see supra note 1. the federal circuit, however, in addressing arguments similar to the ones corus now presents before the court, (1) expressly affirmed the reasonableness of commerce’s use of zeroing in an antidumping administrative review, and (2) accorded no deference to corus’s cited wto cases, again concluding that wto decisions are not binding on the u.s. and cannot trump domestic legislation. see corus staal bv v. dep’t of commerce, 395 f.3d 1343, 1346 — 49 (fed.cir.2005) (“corus staal ii”) (<holding>). while it is highly debatable whether 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 district courts apa review of a sba size decision was not entitled to deference but that the agencys interpretation and application of its own regulations did merit deference
B. holding that 1 our decision in timken addressed commerces interpretation of section 167735 and 2 we give commerce substantial deference in its administration of the statute because of the foreign policy implications of a dumping determination
C. holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference
D. holding that 19 usc 167735 is ambiguous and that zeroing is a reasonable interpretation
E. holding that we review for clear error a district courts factual determination as to whether prior cases were consolidated for sentencing under ussg 4a12a2 and that we give the court due deference in its application of the guidelines to that determination.
Answer: | B. holding that 1 our decision in timken addressed commerces interpretation of section 167735 and 2 we give commerce substantial deference in its administration of the statute because of the foreign policy implications of a dumping determination |
Consider the following statement:
States v. comstock, 551 f.3d 274 (4th cir.2009) (“comstock i”). in 2007, a district court in this circuit struck down the commitment scheme of § 4248 on two constitutional grounds: that (1) congress lacked the authority to enact § 4248; and (2) § 4248’s clear and convincing burden of proof contravened the due process clause of the fifth amendment. see united states v. comstock, 507 f.supp.2d 522 (e.d.n.c.2007). on appeal, we agreed with the district court that enactment of § 4248 exceeded congressional authority, without reaching the due process issue. see comstock i, 551 f.3d at 276. in may 2010, the supreme court reversed our comstock i decision, holding that article i of the constitution conferred sufficient authority for congress to enact § 4248. see comstock, 130 s.ct. at 1954 (<holding>). the court remanded for an assessment of the
Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given.
A. recognizing that constitution grants authority for congress to enact 4248 as necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the constitution internal quotation marks omitted
B. holding that congress may impose its will on the states as long as it is acting within the powers granted by the constitution
C. recognizing that provisions of the colorado constitution should be construed in the context of the constitution as a whole
D. recognizing that conflict preemption precludes laws that under the circumstances of a particular case stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of congress omission alteration internal quotation marks and citation omitted
E. recognizing that a tax enactment will not be invalidated unless it clearly palpably and plainly violates the constitution internal quotation marks and citation omitted.
Answer: | A. recognizing that constitution grants authority for congress to enact 4248 as necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the constitution internal quotation marks omitted |
Consider the following statement:
Citations omitted). “considering whether ‘questions of law or fact common to class members predominate’ begins, of course, with the elements of the underlying cause of action.” halliburton, 131 s.ct. at 2184. in the 30-page m&r adopted by the district court, the magistrate judge correctly began the predominance and superiority analysis by laying out the elements of appellants’ claims and what must be shown to prove antitrust liability in a class action context. the magistrate judge continued his rule 23(b)(3) analysis by finding that appellants failed to present class-wide proof of the various elements of their private antitrust claims. ultimately, the magistrate judge concluded that individualized issues affecting each of the roughly one million c., 381 f.3d 717, 737 (7th cir.2004) (<holding>). because appellants brought this case as a
Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given.
A. holding that the relevant geographic market or appropriate section of the country is the area in which the acquired firm is an actual competitor
B. holding that a contract for an exclusive agency to market a product contains an implied promise to use all reasonable efforts to market the product
C. holding that economic analysis in antitrust context is virtually meaningless if it is entirely unmoored from at least a rough definition of a product and geographic market
D. holding that changes in the baseball card market between 1965 and 1980 foreclosed any argument that a definition of the relevant market by the federal trade commission could preclude relitigation of the market definition issue
E. holding district court erred by incorporating issue of anticompetitive market effect into its standing analysis confusing antitrust injury with an element of a claim under section 1 of the sherman act and stating district courts approach may have been result of the similar antitrust injury label applied to injury component of antitrust standing analysis and to marketplace harm element under section 1.
Answer: | C. holding that economic analysis in antitrust context is virtually meaningless if it is entirely unmoored from at least a rough definition of a product and geographic market |
Consider the following statement:
The arbitration clause, we further conclude that ms. chapman’s decision to accept arbitration bound ms. barron to arbitrate future disputes with betty dare. unlike the parties in mcmillan, dearmond, and lisanti, the record indicates that ms. chapman voluntarily and knowingly chose arbitration of future disputes. the resolution of legal disputes form clearly stated that agreeing to arbitrate legal disputes indicated a waiver of a right to sue or go to trial in a court of law. to the extent that plaintiff argues on appeal that ms. chapman did not fully understand the implications of the arbitration clause, we find this argument unavailing. parties to an agreement are presumed to know and understand the terms of the agreement. see ballard v. chavez, 117 n.m. 1, 3, 868 p.2d 646, 648 (1994) (<holding>). furthermore, plaintiff did not develop any
Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given.
A. holding a party to a contract who is himself in default cannot maintain a suit for its breach
B. holding that an arbitration agreement enforceable against party who signed the agreement even where the other party did not sign it because generally it is enough that the party against whom the contract is sought to be enforced signs it
C. holding that a party may not contract away the protection that a statute is intended to afford him nor may the other party to the contract exempt itself from its duty to comply with such statute
D. recognizing that a contract is to be construed to give reasonable effect to each of its provisions
E. recognizing that each party to a contract has a duty to read and familiarize himself with its contents and generally is presumed to know the terms of the agreement.
Answer: | E. recognizing that each party to a contract has a duty to read and familiarize himself with its contents and generally is presumed to know the terms of the agreement |
Consider the following statement:
Injures, interferes with, or intimidates the provider or recipient of reproductive health care or speech that amounts to a threat of force that obstructs, injures, intimidates, or interferes with the provider or recipient of reproductive health care. the regulation of neither the former conduct, nor the latter speech, is violative of the first amendment. see wisconsin v. mitchell, 508 u.s. 476, 484, 113 s.ct. 2194, 2199, 124 l.ed.2d 436 (1993) (“[a] physical assault is not ... expressive conduct protected by the first amendment.”); r.a.v. v. city of st. paul, minn., 505 u.s. 377, 388, 112 s.ct. 2538, 2546, 120 l.ed.2d 305 (1992) (noting that “threats of violence are outside the first amendment”); new york v. ferber, 458 u.s. 747, 769-73, 102 s.ct. 3348, 3361-63, 73 l.ed.2d 1113 (1982) (<holding>); cameron v. johnson, 390 u.s. 611, 616-17, 88
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 new yorks disclosure law unconstitutionally overbroad
B. holding portions of the online solicitation of a minor statute unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the first amendment
C. holding the improper photography or visual recording statute unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the first amendment
D. holding that washingtons harassment statute was unconstitutionally overbroad because it covered constitutionally protected speech
E. holding that a statute must burden a substantial amount of protected speech to be unconstitutionally overbroad.
Answer: | E. holding that a statute must burden a substantial amount of protected speech to be unconstitutionally overbroad |
Consider the following statement:
The crime scene while he was a juror, [w.h.] answered yes. [w.h.] said he saw where the baby was .burned and that the trailer was ‘burned pretty bad.’ in cross-examination, however, [w.h.] indicated that he thought say the least, this court cannot find that dunaway has met his burden of proving this allegation of juror misconduct by a preponderance of the evidence as required by rule 32.3, ala. r.crim. p. “moreover, even assuming [w.h.] improperly visited the crime .2d 822, 826 (ala.crim.app.1998) (finding that juror misconduct did not warrant a new trial because ‘[t]he jurors in the present case all stated that they were basing their decision on the officers’ testimony rather than any statements of allegations coming from the investigating juror’); ex parte dawson, 710 so.2d at 476 (<holding>). ■ “even if this court were to and duna-way
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 bjecause dawson failed to show that the jurors viewing of the crime scene resulted in the introduction of facts that might have unlawfully influenced the jurys verdict a new trial is not warranted
B. holding that the unobjected to statements made by the prosecutor did not indicate an intent on the part of the prosecuting attorney to inflame the minds of the jurors or to arouse passion or prejudice against the defendant nor were they so inflammatory that the jurors might be influenced to determine guilt on factors outside the evidence and thus there was no misconduct
C. holding that bjecause the defendant in this case has failed to show that the experiment conducted by a juror resulted in the introduction of facts that might have unlawfully influenced the verdict rendered we find that the jurors action does not warrant a new trial
D. 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
E. holding that where the meaning of the jurys verdict was not clear in light of the trial courts jury instructions the court of appeals erred in directing entry of judgment for respondent the case should have been remanded to the trial judge who was in the best position to pass upon the question of a new trial in light of the evidence his charge to the jury and the jurys verdict.
Answer: | A. holding bjecause dawson failed to show that the jurors viewing of the crime scene resulted in the introduction of facts that might have unlawfully influenced the jurys verdict a new trial is not warranted |
Consider the following statement:
So, the court noted congress’s recognition of this principle in enacting the mccarran-ferguson act. the earlier cases cited in todd shipyards included allgeyer v. louisiana, 165 u.s. 578, 17 s.ct. 427, 41 l.ed. 832 (1897), st. louis cotton compress co. v. arkansas, 260 u.s. 346, 43 s.ct. 125, 67 l.ed. 297 (1922), and connecticut general life ins. co. v. johnson, 303 u.s. 77, 58 s.ct. 436, 82 l.ed. 673 (1938). 5 . indeed, the commissioner apparently has conceded that no florida court would have personal jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ german affiliates in a case arising under the german insurance contracts now at issue. see transcript of summary judgment hearing (document 38) at 56. 6 . see, e.g., john hancock mutual life ins. co. v. yates, 299 u.s. 178, 57 s.ct. 129, 81 l.ed. 106 (1936) (<holding>), cited with approval in allstate ins. co. 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 under georgia law a holder of a master insurance policy is an agent of the insurance company and not the insurer
B. holding change of beneficiary effective where city employee listed a new beneficiary for his group life insurance policy in an employee personal data form next to the words designated beneficiary even though this did not comply with the policy terms
C. holding a georgia law requiring a plaintiff in a direct action against an insurance company to attach a copy of the insurance policy to his complaint inapplicable because it conflicts with rule 8
D. holding that insureds widow as beneficiary of life insurance policy had standing as an injured person under the insurance code
E. holding that application of georgia law to dispute arising under life insurance policy issued by massachusetts insurer to new york resident violated due process clause where only georgia contact was that beneficiary moved there.
Answer: | E. holding that application of georgia law to dispute arising under life insurance policy issued by massachusetts insurer to new york resident violated due process clause where only georgia contact was that beneficiary moved there |
Consider the following statement:
Shall be subject to the same trusts as the lands producing the same. a separate fund shall be established for each of the several objects for which the said grants are hereby made or confirmed, and whenever any moneys shall be in any manner derived from any of said land the same shall be deposited by the state treasurer in the fund coiresponding to the grant under which the particular land producing such moneys was by this act conveyed or confirmed. no moneys shall ever be taken from one fund for deposit in any other, or for any object other than that for which the land producing the same was granted or confirmed. (emphasis added.) congress deleted the italicized portion in 1957. 71 stat. 457-58. 8 . cf. fain land & cattle co. v. hassell, 163 ariz. 587, 596, 790 p.2d 242, 251 (1990) (<holding>). 9 . the commissioner points out that the
Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given.
A. holding that article 10 section 8 of the arizona constitution did not create greater restrictions than the enabling act on exchanges of trust lands because section 8 provided that every disposition of or contract concerning trust lands would be null and void if not made in substantial conformity with the provisions of the enabling act
B. holding that the beneficiary of a trust was not the real party in interest regarding rights owned by the trust
C. holding that a state can require firebreaks around housing on trust property adjacent to forest lands
D. holding that the state has no special sovereign interest in managing lands held in trust
E. holding that billboard was not structure within meaning of the zoning enabling act g l c 40 25.
Answer: | A. holding that article 10 section 8 of the arizona constitution did not create greater restrictions than the enabling act on exchanges of trust lands because section 8 provided that every disposition of or contract concerning trust lands would be null and void if not made in substantial conformity with the provisions of the enabling act |
Consider the following statement:
Well as “[s]uch other factors as are necessary to consider the equities for the parents and child.” code § 20-108.1(b)(15). see also code § 20-108.1(b) (“the court’s decision in any such proceeding shall be rendered upon the evidence relevant to each individual case.”). further, although the trial court must consider each of the statutory factors for which evidence is presented, the weight, if any, to give any particular factor in the overall decision lies within the trial court’s sound discretion. robbins, 48 va.app. at 481, 632 s.e.2d at 622. thus, we do not hold that the trial court must deviate from the presumptive guidelines because of the income imputed to father. rather, we hold that the trial court erred in failing to first consider recent past earnings .2d 148, 152-53 (1996) (<holding>). it is only when considering all the facts of
Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given.
A. holding that where husband had strong familial ties to richmond he was not voluntarily underemployed based on his refusal of a job opportunity requiring him to relocate to a different state
B. holding that a qualified or conditional consent is tantamount to a refusal except where a driver qualifies a refusal on his having an opportunity to contact an attorney
C. holding that plaintiff could not show that he was disabled because he conceded that he could do his job despite his impairment
D. holding that the defendants due process rights were violated by refusal to allow him to contact counsel after he was given misleading information on consequences of refusal to take bloodalcohol test
E. holding that witness whose life had been threatened forcing him to relocate was not required to disclose true name address or telephone number.
Answer: | A. holding that where husband had strong familial ties to richmond he was not voluntarily underemployed based on his refusal of a job opportunity requiring him to relocate to a different state |
Consider the following statement:
For first degree murder and when the judgment has become final in the trial court, the defendant shall have the right of direct appeal from the trial court to the court of criminal appeals. the affirmance of the conviction and the sentence of death shall be automatically reviewed by the tennessee supreme court.”). 7 . application of this pre 1989 version of the (i)(5) aggravating circumstance is proper as the offense was committed in 1987. see state v. brimmer, 876 s.w.2d 75, 82 (tenn.1994). 8 . the trial court correctly deleted "torture” from the instruction, as both parties concede that the evidence does not support a finding that the murder involved torture. see state v. van tran, 864 s.w.2d 465, 478-79 (tenn.1993) (citing state v. pritchett, 621 s.w.2d 127, 139-40 (tenn.1981) (<holding>)). 9 . in houston v. dutton, the whole
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 did not err in refusing to give charge because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his requested charge was tailored to the evidence
B. recognizing trial court should not weigh evidence
C. holding that trial court may charge on involuntary manslaughter only where evidence exists to support such a verdict
D. holding that without transcript of trial proceedings appellate court cannot review underlying evidence so as to conclude that trial courts judgment is not supported by evidence
E. holding that a trial court should charge only those aspects of an aggravating circumstance supported by the evidence in a case.
Answer: | E. holding that a trial court should charge only those aspects of an aggravating circumstance supported by the evidence in a case |
Consider the following statement:
That the acquisition of a new claim of homestead defeats and discharges a previously-filed claim of homestead. the court agreed with citizens, holding that the plain language of § 2 meant that garran’s § 1a declaration and corresponding homestead exemption was defeated and discharged by his wife’s subsequent § 1 declaration. we agree that this is the proper reading of the statutory language. garran’s wife filed a declaration of homestead under § 1 on february 21, 2001. the declaration of homestead under § 1 is an acquisition of a homestead “for the benefit of [the] family.” id. § 1. therefore, by his wife’s filing of a § 1 declaration, garran, as her spouse and member of her family, “acquired” a homestead on february 21, 2001. see in re roberts, 280 b.r. 540, 547 (bankr.d.mass. 2001) (<holding>). section 2 states that “the acquisition of 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 the eighth amendment protects individuals from a lingering death
B. holding debtor could include property because the bank accepted payments directly from the debtor and had previously allowed the debtor to cure default
C. holding that the fourth amendment protects people not places
D. recognizing that a declaration filed under subsection 1 protects even the nonfiling debtor
E. recognizing that no private right of action exists for subsection a violations.
Answer: | D. recognizing that a declaration filed under subsection 1 protects even the nonfiling debtor |
Consider the following statement:
The investigation request form prepared by kathryn siegel alerted elmer to the fact that petitioner had stated that a man named charles mitchell had seen petitioner “totally loaded” and “running down the street,” and petitioner himself told elmer both before and during trial that charles mitchell could corroborate his account of the events preceding his entry into the gonzalez home. once he was made aware that charles mitchell was a witness to these events, elmer was obligated to follow up with him to determine what he would say and whether he could give credible testimony in support of the defense. see, e.g., riley, 352 f.3d at 1319. of course, the sixth amendment does not require counsel to interview every possible witness. see lagrand v. stewart, 133 f.3d 1253, 1274 (9th cir.1998) (<holding>). judicial scrutiny “must be highly
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 trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel
B. holding that ineffective assistance of counsel constitutes cause for procedural default only if counsels performance was constitutionally ineffective
C. holding counsel will be held ineffective if he made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed the defendant by the sixth amendment and such performance prejudiced the defense
D. holding performance not ineffective where trial counsel reviewed transcripts of interviews conducted by others
E. holding that reversal required where trial court did not attach portions of the transcripts to refute claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to improper closing argument.
Answer: | D. holding performance not ineffective where trial counsel reviewed transcripts of interviews conducted by others |
Consider the following statement:
Memorandum of law in opposition to motion to dismiss ("pi. mem.'') at 18. 64 . see complaint ¶¶ 34-35. 65 . see commercial union ins. co., 347 f.3d at 462 (citations omitted) (citing restatement (second) of agency §§ 15, 26) (finding that an agency relationship is established when there are facts sufficient to demonstrate both that the principal intended to grant authority to the agent and the agent assented). see also kirschner v. kpmg llp, 15 n.y.3d 446, 483, 912 n.y.s.2d 508, 938 n.e.2d 941 (2010) ("whether apparent authority exists is a fact-based determination requiring inquiry into the conduct of the principal.”). 66 . see complaint ¶ 36. 67 . see id. ¶ 20. 68 . see id. ¶ 33. 69 . see contractual obligation prods., llc, 2006 wl 6217754, at *19 (citing weiss, 69 f.supp.2d at 462) (<holding>). 70 . see complaint ¶¶ 22, 43; spa at 30. 71 .
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 anonymous statement was admissible as a statement by a partys agent under rule 801d2d and noting that a district court should be presented with sufficient evidence to conclude that the person who is alleged to have made the damaging statement is in fact a party or an agent of that party
B. holding that plain error analysis is the proper standard for review of forfeited error in the rule 11 context
C. holding plain error analysis is the proper standard for review of forfeited error in the rule 11 context
D. holding that the courts review is conducted under the plain error standard
E. holding that under the rule 8 standard a short plain statement is sufficient.
Answer: | E. holding that under the rule 8 standard a short plain statement is sufficient |
Consider the following statement:
That the insured consciously desires the result of his or her act and the term ‘expect’ requires that the insured knows with substantial certainty that l 130 (ind. ct. app. 2000) (“an injury is expected if the insured was consciously aware that the injury was practically certain to occur.”); james graham brown foundation, inc. v. st. paul fire & marine ins. co., 814 s.w.2d 273, 278 (ky. 1991) (“the ‘expected or intended’ exception is inapplicable unless the insured specifically and subjectively intends the injury giving rise to the claim.”); great american ins. co. v. gaspard, 608 so. 2d 981, 985 (la. 1992) (noting that “[t]he subjective intent of the insured . . . will determine whether an act is intentional”); maine mut. fire ins. co. v. gervais, 1998 me 197, ¶ 11, 715 a.2d 938 (<holding>) (quotations omitted); auto-owners ins. co. 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 policy language expected or intended by an insured person is unambiguous and requires a subjective intent on behalf of the insured
B. holding that the exclusion is triggered when the insured subjectively expects or intends that bodily injury will occur
C. holding that where policies exclude coverage for injuries that are intended or expected the exclusion is applicable if the insured acts with the intent or expectation that bodily injury will result even though the bodily injury that does result is different either in character or magnitude from the injury that was intended
D. holding that the inclusion of the phrase by the insured indicates that its application is triggered when the insured subjectively expects or intends that bodily injury will occur and not merely when an ordinary reasonable person would be able to foresee injury occurring as a result of his acts
E. holding that the standard policy exclusion of injuries expected or intended by the insured refers only to bodily injury that the insured in fact subjectively wanted intended to be a result of his conduct or in fact subjectively foresaw as practically certain expected to be a result of his conduct.
Answer: | E. holding that the standard policy exclusion of injuries expected or intended by the insured refers only to bodily injury that the insured in fact subjectively wanted intended to be a result of his conduct or in fact subjectively foresaw as practically certain expected to be a result of his conduct |
Consider the following statement:
Plaintiff does not allege any facts regarding whether the psd adequately investigated that incident, the alleged facts concerning the harper incident along with the broader allegations concerning routine failure to investigate excessive force claims permit a reasonable inference that the psd failed to adequately investigate the harper incident. further, plaintiff alleges that the psd “in the period before and since this event, has unfounded other complaints of excessive force by law enforcement.” compl. ¶ 72. though that allegation is somewhat ambiguous, it further suggests, at least implicitly, that the psd has failed to adequately investigate claims of the use of excessive force. cf. owens v. baltimore city state’s attorneys office, 767 f.3d 379, 403 (4th cir.2014) (published) (<holding>). accordingly, through the factual allegations
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 conduct complained of must be an unlawful employment practice under title vii
B. holding that evidence of specific uncharged drug trafficking offenses were not extrinsic to prosecution for conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine where the events occurred within the time period of the alleged conspiracy and were demonstrative of the conspirators conduct
C. holding that allegations of reported and unreported cases from the period of time before and during the events complained of establishing that the defendant had a custom policy or practice of knowingly and repeatedly violating constitutional rights were nonconclusory
D. holding the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing inapplicable when a witness had been deported during the period of time the defendant had been a fugitive
E. holding that the plaintiff had the burden of establishing that he properly served an agent of the defendant.
Answer: | C. holding that allegations of reported and unreported cases from the period of time before and during the events complained of establishing that the defendant had a custom policy or practice of knowingly and repeatedly violating constitutional rights were nonconclusory |
Consider the following statement:
526 u.s. at 281-82, 119 s.ct. 1239. 2. thus, whether venue was proper for the section 924(c) violation charged in count seven depends on whether an overt act occurred in maryland. babb and moore argue that the conspiracy had been terminated by the arrests of moore, babb, and bush at the time the weapons were seized. however, because there was no termination of the conspiracy and an overt act occurred in maryland, venue was proper there. a conspiracy is not terminated merely because its participants are arrested. united states v. urrego-linares, 879 f.2d 1234, 1240 (4th cir.1989). even if substantial time has passed between the formation of the conspiracy and the last overt act, the conspiracy has not necessarily ended. joyner v. united states, 547 f.2d 1199, 1203 (4th cir.1977) (<holding>). instead, the defendant bears the burden 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 the end of a conspiracy must be affirmatively shown
B. holding that the notion of enterprise conspiracy has largely rendered the old distinction between single conspiracy and multiple conspiracy irrelevant to rico conspiracy charges
C. holding that prejudice cannot merely be alleged it must be affirmatively proved
D. holding that wrongful or improper purpose must be shown for jurisdictional purposes
E. holding that special damages must be shown to be reasonable and necessarily resulting from accident.
Answer: | A. holding that the end of a conspiracy must be affirmatively shown |
Consider the following statement:
Entirely within a single lane” (emphasis added). while i find that crivello is credible that the rig op were justified, defendants argue that crivello did not have a reasonable suspicion authorized borrower of the ear, had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the rv itself, but only that he lacked such an expectation in the closet. i disagree because he was the driver of the car at the time of the stop, had possession of the keys to the car, had been living in the rv for the two days prior to the search, and planned to use the rv as a home for the duration of the cross-country trip. courts have recognized standing by homeowners to challenge searches of containers found on their premises but owned by third parties. see united states v. garcia-rosa, 876 f.2d 209, 218 (1st cir.1989) (<holding>); united states v. issacs, 708 f.2d 1365,
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 who had constructively possessed a shotgun that was owned by his brother and used solely for lawful sporting purposes was entitled to a reduction under ussg 2k21b2
B. holding that defendant had standing to challenge the seizure of a box regardless of who owned it because it was in a house owned and possessed by defendant
C. holding that owner of a chattel seized during an illegal search of a car owned by a third party has standing to object to the seizure but no standing to object to the search
D. holding that religious corporation which owned property had standing to challenge zoning ordinance
E. holding defendant who was employee of and had key to his fathers business premises searched lacked standing to challenge search of building his father owned.
Answer: | B. holding that defendant had standing to challenge the seizure of a box regardless of who owned it because it was in a house owned and possessed by defendant |
Consider the following statement:
District courts should handle motions by the government to reconsider suppression orders. when the government seeks reconsideration of a suppression order based on a new legal argument or evidence, the eleventh and d.c. circuits require the government to justify its failure to present this legal argument or evidence in the earlier proceedings. see united states v. villabona-gamica, 63 f.3d 1051, 1055 (11th cir. 1995) (“by failing to raise an issue at a suppression hearing without offering any justification therefor, the government waives its right to assert it in subsequent proceedings.” (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted) (quoting, in parenthetical, united states v. thompson, 710 f.2d 1500, 1504 (11th cir.1983))); mcrae v. united states, 420 f.2d 1283, 1288 (d.c.cir.1969) (<holding>). on the other hand, the second, fifth,
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 our court will not consider an issue of whether a defendant has standing to seek suppression of evidence if the issue was not raised in the lower court
B. holding that where an issue is raised in the district court but raised late and the district court declines to deem the issue waived the issue may be raised on appeal
C. holding that suppression issue not raised to the district court was waived under rule 12
D. holding that an issue is preserved for appeal where the issue was sufficiently raised for the court to rule on it
E. holding that the government was obligated to advance stronger justification for relitigating a suppression issue where the issue raised was clear and a considered ruling had been made.
Answer: | E. holding that the government was obligated to advance stronger justification for relitigating a suppression issue where the issue raised was clear and a considered ruling had been made |
Consider the following statement:
By relying on the facts in the presentence report to satisfy the factual basis for his guilty plea. according to oehler, the lack of a specific overt act during the conspiracy time frame rendered the factual basis insufficient. we affirm. federal rule of criminal procedure 11(b)(3) requires that the district court satisfy itself that there is a factual basis for the plea prior to entering judgment. however, because oehler did not move in district court to withdraw his guilty plea, his challenge to the adequacy of the rule 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. united states v. martinez, 277 f.3d 517, 525 (4th cir.2002). a district court may find the factual basis for the plea “from anything that appears on the record,” and the court may defer its inquiry until sentencing. id. at 531 (<holding>). here, oehler stipulated that a factual basis
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 express adoption of factual findings in presentence report is sufficient
B. holding that court may satisfy factual basis requirement by examining presentence report
C. holding that the information contained in a presentence report is reliable because it is based upon the presentence officers research of the records contact with relevant agencies and the gathering of information which is required to be included in a presentence report
D. holding that the district court committed plain error in relying solely on the factual description in the presentence report
E. holding defendant waived alleged factual inaccuracies in presentence report by failing to raise them in district court.
Answer: | B. holding that court may satisfy factual basis requirement by examining presentence report |
Consider the following statement:
One or more of the following: (i) a violation of the constitution of this commonwealth or the constitution or laws of the united states which, in the circumstances of the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place. 42 pa.c.s. § 9543(a)(2)(i). 14 . appellee presumably concedes that the remaining subsections of section 9543(a)(2)-are not applicable to his batson claim. 15 . moreover, this court has examined batson claims within the pcra framework, albeit without challenges being raised as to the applicability of the pcra eligibility requirements relied upon here by appellee. see commonwealth v. jones, 590 pa. 202, 912 a.2d 268 (2006) (finding batson claim waived); commonwealth v. sneed, supra, (<holding>);. commonwealth v. wharton, 571 pa. 85, 811
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 claim is not cognizable
B. holding claim is cognizable
C. holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel
D. holding that while batson claim was waived derivative claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the batson claim is cognizable under the pcra
E. holding that claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel during penalty phase of capital case is cognizable under the pcra.
Answer: | D. holding that while batson claim was waived derivative claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the batson claim is cognizable under the pcra |
Consider the following statement:
Is necessarily correct, for probable cause may be founded upon hearsay and upon information received from informants, as well as upon information within the affiant’s own knowledge that sometimes must be garnered hastily. but surely it is to be ‘truthful’ in the sense that the information put forth is believed or appropriately accepted by the affiant as true.’ id. at 164-65. franks clearly establishes, therefore, that an officer of the law may not make affirmative or reckless misrepresentations to the court in a warrant affidavit. the eleventh circuit has noted, since the o’ferrells’ ease began, that franks clearly established, for qualified immunity purposes, that an officer may not make an “affirmative misstatement” in ‘applying for a warrant. see kelly v. curtis, 21 f.3d at 1555 (<holding>). the eleventh circuit ’interpreted franks 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 where a public official takes discretionary action that the official knows will directly benefit a financial interest that the official has concealed in violation of a state criminal law that official has deprived the public of his honest services under 1346
B. holding the right to record police activity on public property was not clearly established
C. holding that franks had clearly established that a public official could not intentionally perjure himself in seeking warrant
D. holding that if official has violated clearly established law he is entitled to qualified immunity only if reasonable official could have believed conduct was lawful
E. holding police officer is a public official.
Answer: | C. holding that franks had clearly established that a public official could not intentionally perjure himself in seeking warrant |
Consider the following statement:
At 1428-29. it has been held that a disclosure sufficient to waive the work product protection does not have to be intentional; therefore inadvertent or unintentional disclosures of protected materials also might result in the waiver of the privilege. see, e.g., carter v. gibbs, 909 f.2d 1450, 1451 (fed.cir.1990). however, such a disclosure does not automatically forfeit the attorney work product privilege. in determining whether a party has waived the privilege- through an inadvertent or involuntary disclosure, courts consider, among other factors,- the steps taken by a party to remedy the disclosure and any delay in doing so. see, e.g., united states v. keystone sanitation co., 885 f.supp. 672, 676 (m.d.pa.1994); cf. united states v. de la jara, 973 f.2d 746, 749-50 (9th cir.1992) (<holding>). but see carter, 909 f.2d at 1451 (holding
Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given.
A. recognizing privilege
B. holding that a defendant waived his attorneyclient privilege with regards to a seized letter because he waited six months after the seizure to assert his privilege
C. holding that failure to timely assert attorneyclient privilege constitutes waiver
D. holding that governmental entities may assert attorneyclient privilege to prevent disclosure of information otherwise required by statute
E. holding that the information is not protected by attorneyclient privilege.
Answer: | B. holding that a defendant waived his attorneyclient privilege with regards to a seized letter because he waited six months after the seizure to assert his privilege |
Consider the following statement:
To complete discovery. 2 . pl’s compl. 120. 3 . officer synder is a police officer with the philadelphia police department who was a deputized federal officer with the fbi at the time of the events giving rise to this suit. 4 . def.’s mots. to compel ex. b at 3. 5 . pl.’s dep. at 117. 6 . pl.’s resp. to def.’s mot. at 8. 7 . in her response to the motion, robinson states: "upon information and belief, it appears as if the government is maintaining the position that [robinson] is permitted to testify to any and all matters relating to her conversations with the fbi." pl.'s resp. to def.’s mot. at 8. 8 . def.’s mots, to compel ex. b at 3. 9 . fed.r.civ.p. 45(a)(1)(c). 10 . vt. agency of nat’l res. v. united states ex rel. stevens, 529 u.s. 765, 780, 120 s.ct. 1858, 146 l.ed.2d 836 (2000) (<holding>); see int'l primate prot. league v. adm'rs of
Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given.
A. holding that the provisions of the false claims act allowing suit imposing liability on any person who presented false claims to the federal government did not allow suits against state governments
B. holding that a state or agency is not a person subject to qui tam liability under the false claims act
C. holding that standing of a qui tam plaintiff under the false claims act requires an injury to the united states
D. holding that a state agency is not a person subject to suit under federal false claims act
E. holding that the fca effectively assigns the governments claims to qui tam plaintiffs who then may sue based upon an injury to the federal treasury.
Answer: | B. holding that a state or agency is not a person subject to qui tam liability under the false claims act |
Consider the following statement:
Head. further examination of the baby revealed eighteen unexplained rib, leg and arm fractures in various stages of healing, in addition to a skull fracture. the mother denied any knowledge of the injuries except for the skull fracture, which she explained was accidental. dcf was notified and initiated an investigation. dcf subsequently sought termination of both parents’ rights pursuant to sections 89.806(l)(f), (g) florida statutes (2010). the record shows that the evidence presented to the trial court did not rea undamental liberty interest, dcf must establish that termination of parental rights is the least restrictive means of protecting the child or children from serious harm. id. at 571; see also j.c. v. dept. of children and family servs., 937 so.2d 184, 193 (fla. 3d dca 2006) (<holding>); l.d. v. dept. of children and family servs.,
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 although parents have a fundamental right to the care and custody of their children they have no fundamental right to allocate support to their children as they see fit
B. recognizing fundamental right of parents to care for their children
C. holding that natural parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care custody and management of their children
D. recognizing in dictum parents right to care custody management and companionship of their children
E. holding care custody and control of children is a fundamental right.
Answer: | C. holding that natural parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care custody and management of their children |
Consider the following statement:
For f ends on resolution of a substantial question of workmen’s compensation law harper’s retaliation claim also does not arise under michigan’s worker’s disability compensation act according to the second “arising under” definition because the claim does not necessarily depend on resolution of a substantial question under that statute. the retaliation claim does not implicate the administrative or remedial mechanisms of that statutory scheme, require courts to interpret the statute, or seek an award of compensation for personal injury that causes a diminished wage-earning capacity, which is the only type of compensation that the statute affords, mich. comp. laws § 418.301(1), (4). see thornton v. denny’s inc., no. 92-1368, 1993 wl 137078, at *2 (6th cir. apr.29, 1993) (per curiam) (<holding>). as the seventh circuit explained regarding a
Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given.
A. holding that claim for retaliatory discharge premised on michigans workers compensation statute does not arise under that law because the statute provides neither the mechanisms nor the remedy for this type of suit
B. holding that an atwill employee who alleges retaliatory discharge for the filing of a workers compensation claim has stated a cause of action under pennsylvania law
C. recognizing retaliatory discharge tort implied by the workers compensation act
D. holding the retaliation claim did arise under states workers compensation laws
E. holding that a claim for retaliatory discharge premised on missouris workers compensation law arises under that law for purposes of 1445c because antiretaliation provision also authorized the filing of a civil action for damages the antiretaliation right established by the missouri workers compensation statute is an essential element of plaintiffs claim.
Answer: | A. holding that claim for retaliatory discharge premised on michigans workers compensation statute does not arise under that law because the statute provides neither the mechanisms nor the remedy for this type of suit |
Consider the following statement:
Torture.” as is evident from the facts recited above, there is more than ample evidence to support such a conclusion. this distinction—finding torture but not depravity of mind—is significant. the vagueness problem of the “heinous, atrocious, and cruel” (“hac”) instruction is curable with appropriately narrowing language. we have held, of course, that requiring “torture or depravity of mind” does not solve the vagueness problem. requiring only torture, however, does. see maynard v. cartwright, 486 u.s. 356, 364-65, 108 s.ct. 1853, 100 l.ed.2d 372 (1988) (implying that “torture” limitation suffices to cure vagueness of hac); walton v. arizona, 497 u.s. 639, 654, 110 s.ct. 3047, 111 l.ed.2d 511 (1990) (confirming implication); duvall v. reynolds, 139 f.3d 768, 793 (10th cir.1998) (<holding>); cf. wade v. calderon, 29 f.3d 1312, 1319-20
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 evidence of serious physical injury insufficient where victim was shot in right cheek but did not have to have surgery and victim denied having any longterm effects from the shooting
B. holding that begay rejected that circuits earlier approach under which an offense presented a serious potential risk of physical injury to another if the offense conduct had the potential for serious physical injury to another
C. holding that torture occurs when the victim is subjected to serious physical abuse before death that serious sexual abuse may constitute serious physical abuse that facts supporting a finding of torture will also support a finding of depravity of mind and that the age of the victim may be considered in determining whether the evidence shows depravity of mind
D. holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction
E. holding that torture of the victim or serious physical abuse language in the instruction cures vagueness of hac.
Answer: | E. holding that torture of the victim or serious physical abuse language in the instruction cures vagueness of hac |
Consider the following statement:
Of fdcpa claims, concluding that the obligation to pay for criminal or tortious actions does not constitute a “debt.” see, e.g., bass v. stolper, koritzinsky, brewster & neider, s.c., 111 f.3d 1322, 1326 (7th cir.1997) (“[a]lthough a thief undoubtedly has an obligation to pay for the goods or services he steals, the fdcpa limits its reach to those obligations to pay arising from consensual transactions, where parties negotiate or contract for consumer-related goods or services.”); zimmerman v. hbo affiliate group, 834 f.2d 1163, 1168 (3d cir.1987) (“[n]othing in the statute or the legislative history leads us to believe that congress intended to equate asserted tort liability with asserted con sumer debt.”); hawthorne v. mac adjustment, inc., 140 f.3d 1367, 1371 (11th cir. 1998) (<holding>). plaintiffs argue that they were in consensual
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 back rent is debt under the fdcpa
B. holding that fdcpa applies to attorneys who regularly engage in consumer debt collection activities
C. holding that debt under the fdcpa is limited to liability arising out of consensual consumer transactions and not tortious activity
D. holding the fdcpa applies to attorneys who regularly engage in consumer debt collection activity even when that activity consists of litigation
E. holding that unpaid traffic fine is not debt under fdcpa.
Answer: | C. holding that debt under the fdcpa is limited to liability arising out of consensual consumer transactions and not tortious activity |
Consider the following statement:
Jury to conclude that the vehicle registration and inspection lane checklist, which indicated that a vehicle owned by mendoza and bearing the license plate number 0285 had been inspected on june 4, 2009, was false. moreover, wheatley’s testimony that mendoza physically deposited the 0285 license plates with the commission when he sold the 0285 license plates and medallion in december 2008 would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that mendoza knew the vehicle registration and inspection lane checklist were false. a jury could also reasonably infer from mendoza’s possession of the false vehicle registration and inspection lane checklist that he had procured those documents and that he had the intent to file them at the bmv. see united states v. hall, 632 f.2d 500, 502 (5th cir. 1980) (<holding>); people v. rodriguez, 71 a.d.3d 450, 897
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 evidence establishing the intent of the defendants to distribute drugs also permits the inference they intended to exercise dominion over them to demonstrate constructive possession
B. holding jurys finding that money in bank safe deposit box was contraband was not supported by factually sufficient evidence when safety deposit box was located a distance away from marijuana despite fact that canine alerted to safety deposit box
C. holding defendants possession of fake ids was sufficient to infer his intent to defraud or deceive
D. holding defendants possession of forged checks was sufficient to allow inference of his intent to deposit them
E. holding that an inference of intent to distribute was not warranted from the possession of one ounce of cocaine.
Answer: | D. holding defendants possession of forged checks was sufficient to allow inference of his intent to deposit them |
Consider the following statement:
(1952). the general test to resolve this question employs the following factors: 1) the form and manner of the employment contract concerning provisions of full-time or part-time employment; 2) whether the employment contract provides for vacation time, sick leave, or a retirement program; 3) the extent an nature of control the individual has over the execution of his duties; 4) the form of payment; and 5) the ownership status of equipment which is utilized. rivera v. hospital universitario, 762 f.supp. at 17. no one factor, by itself, is sufficient to establish an individual as an independent contractor. id. in fact, it is unusual to find cases where the distinction between an “independent contractor” and an employee is crystal clear. nazario v. gonzalez, 101 d.p.r. 569, 572 (1973) (<holding>). in landrón v. labor relations board, 87
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 depriving an employee of vacation days to which he was entitled would constitute adverse action
B. holding that an employer is accountable to a discharged employee for unpaid compensation if the employee was terminated in bad faith and the compensation is clearly connected to work already performed
C. holding that vacation pay is shortterm compensation because an employee must work six months before getting any vacation vacation pay was computed on the basis of the employees weekly earnings and if an employee was laid off he received vacation pay on a pro rata basis
D. holding that under the mwa the question of whether an employee was an independent contractor or an employee was a question of statutory interpretation
E. holding that an electrical appliance representative and salesperson was not an independent contractor but an employee and as such was entitled to unpaid compensation for accumulated vacation time.
Answer: | E. holding that an electrical appliance representative and salesperson was not an independent contractor but an employee and as such was entitled to unpaid compensation for accumulated vacation time |
Consider the following statement:
Abuse of discretion. vi. finally, the failure to give eyewitness identification instructions was not harmless. to reiterate, the state lacked any evidence directly connecting cabinatan to the charged offenses. the testimony of kincaid was in some respects inconsistent with the police report she filled out before viewing cabina-tan. also, her identification was the result of the inherently suggestive environment of a police showup. cabinatan presented alibi evidence that indicated that he was not present when the thefts occurred. hence, there was a reasonable possibility that the absence of eyewitness instructions caused the jury to place undue weight on kincaid’s testimony; thus contributing to cabinatan’s conviction. see state v. pauline, 100 hawai'i 356, 378, 60 p.3d 306, 328 (2002) (<holding>) (internal quotation marks omitted). absent
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 is considered harmless if it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or alternatively stated that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction
B. holding that the harmless error test places a burden on the state to prove that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or alternatively stated that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction
C. holding that under the harmless error standard an appellate court must determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction
D. holding that harmless error test is satisfied when there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction
E. holding that an error is harmless if there is no reasonable possibility that it contributed to the conviction.
Answer: | C. holding that under the harmless error standard an appellate court must determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed to the conviction |
Consider the following statement:
To “[m]ake reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of qualified employees with handicaps unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the agency's program," 29 c.f.r. § 1614.102(a)(8). in order to fall under the protections of the rehabilitation act, a claimant must have a disability. the term "disability," as used in the rehabilitation act and the ada, means "(a) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (b) a record of such an impairment; or (c) being regarded as having such impairment." 42 u.s.c. § 12102(2). in determining whether an impairment significantly restricts an individual's ability to perform a major , 101 f.3d 346, 349 (4th cir.1996) (<holding>); petty v. freightliner corp., 123 f.supp.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 twentyfive pounds lifting restriction did not substantially limit any major life activities
B. holding that a lifting restriction of ten pounds did not constitute a physical impairment that substantially limited a major life activity
C. holding as a matter of law that a twentyfive pound lifting limitation does not constitute a significant restriction on ones ability to lift work or perform any other major life activity
D. holding that a lifting restriction did not substantially limit a computer technicians ability to engage in the major life activity of working
E. holding plaintiff with carpal tunnel syndrome who could not perform heavy lifting failed to meet burden of establishing substantial limitation in major life activity of work.
Answer: | C. holding as a matter of law that a twentyfive pound lifting limitation does not constitute a significant restriction on ones ability to lift work or perform any other major life activity |
Consider the following statement:
("the parties are entitled to all instructions on their legal theories of the case, provided the instructions are timely requested, supported by evidence, and correctly state the law.”) (citing united states v. jerde, 841 f.2d 818, 820 (8th cir.1988)). 25 . see united states v. lanham, 617 f.3d 873, 884 (6th cir.2010) ("where there are conflicting authorities, the district court could not have committed plain error.”) (citing united states v. williams, 53 f.3d 769, 772 (6th cir.1995)); rice v. office of servicemembers’ grp. life ins., 260 f.3d 1240, 1249 (10th cir.2001) (“while there is conflicting authority, we cannot say that the jury instruction amounted to plain error.”) (citation omitted). see also united states v. olano, 507 u.s. 725, 734, 113 s.ct. 1770, 123 l.ed.2d 508 (1993) (<holding>). 26 . see state v. shackelford, 150 idaho 355,
Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given.
A. holding that a trial court does not commit plain error unless the error is clear under current law
B. holding that an error is plain only if it is clear under current law when there is no binding precedent on point an instruction typically will not be plain error
C. holding that an error cannot be plain unless it is clear under current law quotation omitted
D. holding that an error is plain if it is clear or obvious
E. holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error.
Answer: | A. holding that a trial court does not commit plain error unless the error is clear under current law |
Consider the following statement:
Now moves to dismiss the complaint for want of subject matter jurisdiction. ii. the defendant argues tha aid fall into the latter its by taxpayers for refunds of taxes and penalties paid. see 26 u.s.c. § 7422(f). however, such suits must be filed within two years of the decision by the irs refusing the claim for refund. the governing statute states: no suit or proceeding under section 7422(a) for the recovery of any internal revenue tax, penalty, or other sum, shall be begun before the expiration of 6 months from t .2d 320, 324 (6th cir.1990) (observing that “as with most periods of limitation involving suits against the sovereign, the prerequisites to suit described in section 6532’s ‘general rule’ are jurisdictional”); stevens v. united states, 859 f.supp. 1110 (w.d.mich.1994) (<holding>); united iron & metal co. v. carey, 137 f.supp.
Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given.
A. recognizing that 1404a allows for the transfer of federal employers liability act suits
B. holding that in statute authorizing suits against united states limits time period in which such suits may be brought united states retains its sovereign immunity as to any suits brought outside of that time period therefore court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over suit against united states that is barred by statute of limitations
C. recognizing that 1404a allows for the transfer of clayton act suits
D. holding that since limitations section in internal revenue code allows for suits against a sovereign its requirements are jurisdictional
E. holding that regulatory requirements are not jurisdictional in nature.
Answer: | D. holding that since limitations section in internal revenue code allows for suits against a sovereign its requirements are jurisdictional |
Consider the following statement:
Appears to be no major gender difference in the overall frequency of delusional disorder. american psychiatric association, diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fourth edition, text revision (dsm-iv-tr) (2000), 297.1, atp. 326. 92 . feh transcript, testimony of dr. mary alice conroy, atpp. 145-50. 93 . id., at p. 151. 94 . feh transcript, testimony of dr. mary alice conroy, atpp. 153-54. 95 . id.., atpp. 154-58. 96 . id., atpp. 170-71. 97 . id., atpp. 172-73. 98 . id., atpp. 180-81. 99 . feh transcript, testimony of dr. michael a. roman, atp. 183. 100 . id.., at p. 188. 101 . id., at pp. 200-03. 102 . id., at p. 203. 103 . id., at pp. 206-07. 104 . id., at pp. 209-10. 105 . i'd., at pp. 211-12. 106 . see morris v. state, 301 s.w.3d 281, 300 n. 25 (tex.crim.app.2009)(<holding>); bigby v. state, 892 s.w.2d 864, 870
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 defense counsel validly waived a double jeopardy claim by assenting to a mistrial after defendant was found incompetent to stand trial in the midst of trial
B. holding that the due process clause prohibits the trial of a person who is incompetent
C. holding that the state does not have to prove a defendants competency to stand trial
D. holding that the burden is on the plaintiff
E. holding the statutory burden is on the defendant to prove he is incompetent to stand trial.
Answer: | E. holding the statutory burden is on the defendant to prove he is incompetent to stand trial |
Consider the following statement:
Errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed the defendant by the sixth amendment. second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” 466 u.s. 668, 687, 104 s.ct. 2052, 2064, 80 l.ed.2d 674 (1984). a habeas petitioner claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must succeed on both prongs of the strickland test. butcher v. united states, 368 f.3d 1290, 1293 (11th cir.2004). the supreme court has provided the following explanation regarding strickland’s application in the guilty plea context: in the context of guilty pleas, the first half of the strickland [ ] test is nothing more than a restatement of the standard of attorney competence .... [t]he second, or ‘prejudice,’ requirement, on the other hand, focuses 1991) (<holding>). alvarez-sanchez’s assertion that deering 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 defendant was responsible for the delay from the withdrawal of his guilty plea
B. holding entry of guilty plea waives challenges to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea emphasis added
C. holding that the defendant remains the master of his case particularly with respect to the entry of a guilty plea
D. holding that the defendants guilty plea was valid where the district court carefully questioned the defendant about whether he understood the consequences of his guilty plea
E. holding entry of a guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional issues.
Answer: | C. holding that the defendant remains the master of his case particularly with respect to the entry of a guilty plea |
Consider the following statement:
Court harmless. the district court stated that although the jury’s special verdict “would have no impact upon the [c]ourt’s sentencing decision,” it would impact the court’s decision if “the supreme court later determine[d] that blakely [v. washington, 542 u.s. 296, 124 s.ct. 2531, 159 l.ed.2d 403 (2004)] extends to federal sentencing.” as mentioned above, the special verdict indicated that soreide was responsible for $7 million to $20 million in actual loss and more than $20 million in intended loss, and that he participated as an organizer or leader. because these jury findings were identical to those made by the sentencing judge and because they would be applied upon resentencing, any constitutional error was harmless. see united states v. lee, 427 f.3d 881, 892 (11th cir.2005) (<holding>). as for soreide’s claim of statutory booker
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 conclude that federal constitutional error is harmless court must find that error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
B. holding a constitutional booker error harmless on the ground that because the district court stated its sentence would be the same even if the guidelines were only advisory we know with certainty beyond a reasonable doubt what the district court would do upon remand
C. holding that apprendi error is harmless if the court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the result would have been the same absent the error internal quotation marks and citation omitted
D. holding that booker constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because on remand the district court would have given defendant the same sentence
E. holding that before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Answer: | D. holding that booker constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because on remand the district court would have given defendant the same sentence |
Consider the following statement:
Without their permission. bums librarian o'neill states in his affidavit that "[h]ad the assurances of confidentiality not been made, it is doubtful that any paramilitary would have participated in this oral history project. their stories would have died with them, and an opportunity to document and preserve a critical part of the historical record would have been lost forever.” 27 . appellants’ intervention complaint raised the same claims as their separate civil complaint. we have affirmed that there is no cause of action under the treaty and under the constitution, so there is no need for us to consider whether the district court acted within its discretion in denying appellants' motion to intervene. cf. in re grand jury proceedings, 708 f.2d 1571, 1575 (11th cir. 1983) (per curiam) (<holding>). 28 . appellants also claim that the attorney
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 sentencing error is harmless if the error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed
B. holding that a denial of qualified immunity on the law is collateral to the merits of the underlying action and is therefore considered final for appellate purposes
C. holding that the district courts error was however harmless in light of other considerations
D. holding that the district courts error in calculating the amount of drugs at issue was harmless because the error had no impact on the defendants sentence
E. holding that the district courts denial of a petition to intervene was harmless error because the merits of the appellants claim were eventually considered on appeal.
Answer: | E. holding that the district courts denial of a petition to intervene was harmless error because the merits of the appellants claim were eventually considered on appeal |
Consider the following statement:
Must advise the employee of this fact and provide the employee a reasonable opportunity to cure any deficiency in the certification. darst, 512 f.3d at 910. 29 c.f.r. § 825.305(d). in the case of an unforeseeable, serious health condition, an employee has "15 calendar days after the employer’s request” to submit certification from her physician. kauffman, 426 f.3d at 885. 4 . to be considered an "eligible employee” under the fmla, an employee must demonstrate that, on the date which fmla leave is to commence, the employee: (1) has been employed for a total of at least 12 months by the employer, and (2) has been employed for at least 1,250 hours of service with such employer during the previous 12-month period. 29 u.s.c. § 2611(2); 29 c.f.r. § 825.110(a). bailey, 2009 wl 2970395 at *3 (<holding>); lonergan v. cargo tech. inc., 2009 wl 3152562
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 plaintiff to be ineligible for fmla leave wherein the plaintiffs leave exceeded twelve weeks within a twelve month period
B. holding a plaintiff to be ineligible for fmla leave wherein the plaintiff had not accumulated enough work hours
C. holding that employees who exceed the twelve weeks of fmla leave stand to lose their entitlement to job restoration even if their employers provide additional nonfmla leave
D. holding that an employee who did not present evidence that she could have returned to work prior to the expiration of her fmla leave allowance was not entitled to additional leave merely because her employer had not properly provided her with notice that the leave was designated as fmla leave
E. holding that employers oral denial of plaintiffs request for fmla leave showed interference.
Answer: | A. holding a plaintiff to be ineligible for fmla leave wherein the plaintiffs leave exceeded twelve weeks within a twelve month period |
Consider the following statement:
Allah v. seiverling, 229 f.3d 220, 223 (3d cir.2000) (internal quotations omitted). a motion to dismiss may only be granted where the allegations fail to state any claim upon which relief can be granted. see morse v. lower merion sch. dist., 132 f.3d 902, 906 (3d cir.1997). dismissal is warranted “if it is certain that no relief can be granted under any set of facts which could be proved.” klein v. general nutrition cos., inc., 186 f.3d s brennan and its progeny too broadly. specifically, hartford asserts that where a dispute centers on whether a particular policy provision is contrary to a constitutional, legislative or administrative mandate, the controversy may be subject to judicial review. see, e.g., warner v. continental/cna ins. cos., 455 pa.super. 295, 688 a.2d 177, 181 (1996) (<holding>). in view of this exception, hartford maintains
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 contract containing an arbitration clause is challenged as unconscionable those disputes should first be resolved by an arbitrator
B. recognizing general rule
C. recognizing exception to general rule that disputes arising under contract with valid arbitration clause are referred to arbitrator
D. holding that an arbitrator not a federal or state court will resolve questions concerning validity in the first instance when parties agree to arbitrate all disputes arising under their contract
E. holding defenses concerning the contract as a whole must be referred to ah arbitrator while defenses to the arbitration provision itself are considered by the court.
Answer: | C. recognizing exception to general rule that disputes arising under contract with valid arbitration clause are referred to arbitrator |
Consider the following statement:
The prosecutor explained that he was requesting the amendment only because he was unsure whether the multiple diamonds embedded in the ring were properly characterized as “clusters.” it is unclear whether nations’s argument on appeal is intended to challenge this amendment, as her brief does not mention the ring. in any event, this amendment was also permissible.. the state is permitted to amend the indictment to correct “the description of any property or thing,” provided the amendment is not material or prejudicial. miss. code ann. § 99-17-13 (rev. 2015); see jackson v. state, 450 so.2d 1081, 1082 (miss.1984) (explaining that “[t]he indictment could have been amended” to allege theft of “rib eye roasts” rather than “rib eye steak”); bennett v. state, 211 so.2d 520, 522 (miss.1968) (<holding>); andrews v. state, 220 miss. 28, 31, 70 so.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 an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense
B. holding that the amendment of the indictment was permissible under the statutory predecessor to code 192231 because the amendment did not within the meaning of the statute change the nature of the offense charged in the original indictment
C. holding that the indictment was permissibly amended to change the brand name of the barbed wire stolen
D. holding that the amendment made to the indictment in this case was not authorized by code 192231 because the amended indictment materially changed the nature of the offense originally charged
E. holding that the indictment was permissibly amended to change the description of a stolen watch.
Answer: | E. holding that the indictment was permissibly amended to change the description of a stolen watch |
Consider the following statement:
Israel, 19 wn. app. at 779. in israel, after the prosecutor made a motion for competency determination, the trial judge did not appoint any experts to examine the defendant. id. at 775. instead, the court proceeded to ask questions of the defendant and allowed the prosecutor to question her. id. defense counsel asked no questions hut asked that the court find her competent at the close of the perfunctory examination. id. at 775-76. while the court acknowledged that “the washington statute . . . speak[s] in mandatory language,” id. at 777, it held that the “statutory requirement that two experts be appointed to examine a defendant is not a constitutional right but is statutory and may be waived by counsel.” id. at 779; see also state v. brooks, 16 wn. app. 535, 538, 557 p.2d 362 (1976) (<holding>). ¶19 despite the propriety of waivers 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 the defenses presentation of two psychiatrists testimony constituted an election of the procedure and a waiver of the specific statutory procedures
B. recognizing that where the juvenile code sets forth specific procedures governing termination actions those procedures apply to the exclusion of the rules of civil procedure
C. holding that the presentation of a new theory does not constitute the presentation of a new issue on which a jury trial should be granted as of right under rule 38b
D. holding that brady does not place any burden upon the government to conduct a defendants investigation or assist in the presentation of the defenses case
E. holding that the issue of waiver requires an analysis of the specific facts in each case.
Answer: | A. holding that the defenses presentation of two psychiatrists testimony constituted an election of the procedure and a waiver of the specific statutory procedures |
Consider the following statement:
The law and order code also explicitly recognizes causes of action for the types of claims asserted against snooks. thus, bassetto’s causes of action are recognized and anticipated by the washoe tribe and by the washoe tribal court. it is clear that the existence of tribal legislation in an area will exclude the state even if the tribal legislation differs greatly from the state’s, or offers no remedy. ... a tribe’s legislative jurisdiction over its own people and within its own territory must include the right not to legislate at all in an area, if self-government is to be meaningful. felix cohen’s handbook of federal indian law 351 (1982) (citing littell v. nakai, 344 f.2d 486 (9th cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 u.s. 986 (1966), schantz v. white lightning, 502 f.2d 67 (8th cir. 1974) (<holding>) and enriquez v. superior court, 565 p.2d 522,
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 oklahoma police officer was without jurisdiction to arrest indian inside indian reservation when the state has neither received by express grant nor acted pursuant to congressional authorization to assume criminal jurisdiction over indian country
B. 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
C. holding that the state has no jurisdiction to pursue an indian onto an indian reservation for criminal offenses committed off the reservation
D. holding that federal court has neither federal question nor diversity jurisdiction over civil action by nonindian against indian for events occurring on the reservation
E. holding that state has no jurisdiction over civil suit by nonindian against indian where cause of action arises on indian reservation.
Answer: | D. holding that federal court has neither federal question nor diversity jurisdiction over civil action by nonindian against indian for events occurring on the reservation |
Consider the following statement:
The defendant has assisted authorities in a manner that avoids preparing for trial, an adjustment under subsection (b) may only be granted upon a formal motion by the government at the time of sentencing.” id., comment. (n.6) (emphasis added). we have rejected a defendant’s claim for an additional one-level reduction pursuant to § 3el.l(b) where there was no government motion filed in support of such a reduction. u.s. v. wade, 458 f.3d 1273, 1282 (11th cir.2006), cert. denied, — u.s. -, 127 s.ct. 2096, 167 l.ed.2d 816 (2007). it appears, however, that we are not precluded from reviewing for an abuse of discretion the government’s refusal to file a motion for a reduction pursuant to § 3e1.1(b). see wade v. united states, 504 u.s. 181, 185-86, 112 s.ct. 1840, 1844, 118 l.ed.2d 524 (1992) (<holding>); see also united states v. nealy, 232 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 there was no jurisdiction to review district courts discretionary refusal to depart downward on the grounds that defendants conduct constituted a single act of aberrant behavior
B. holding that an insurer is not liable for punitive damages by its refusal to pay a claim unless such refusal is accompanied by a malicious intent to injure or defraud
C. holding in the context of a motion for substantial assistance that federal district courts have authority to review a prosecutors refusal to file a discretionary motion if they find that the refusal was based on an unconstitutional motive such as the defendants race or religion
D. recognizing that federal district courts have the authority to grant a remedy if the refusal to file a substantial assistance motion was based on an unconstitutional motive
E. holding the trial court was without authority to dismiss an appeal on the ground that the amount of the judgment required the appellant to file an application for discretionary review.
Answer: | C. holding in the context of a motion for substantial assistance that federal district courts have authority to review a prosecutors refusal to file a discretionary motion if they find that the refusal was based on an unconstitutional motive such as the defendants race or religion |
Consider the following statement:
Notwithstanding the previous rule 404(b) ruling. obviously, the calculus of whether or not to place harris on the stand might have differed if evidence of his prior drug conviction were already before the jury. 2 . compare aron v. united states, 291 f.3d 708, 714-15 (11th cir.2002) (in § 2255 context, where petitioner "alleges facts that, if true, would entitle him to relief, then the district court should order an evidentiary hearing and rule on the merits of his claim”) (citation omitted) and united states v. yizar, 956 f.2d 230, 234 (11th cir.1992) (where § 2255 petitioner "has made sufficient allegations so that it cannot be conclusively stated that he is entitled to no relief, ... an evidentiary hearing must be held”) with lynn v. united states, 365 f.3d 1225, 1239 (11th cir.2004) (<holding>) and long v. united states, 883 f.2d 966, 968
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 need for an evidentiary hearing when the petitioners habeas submissions demonstrate that the petitioner is conclusively entitled to relief in such circumstances an evidentiary hearing would be a waste of judicial resources
B. holding that district court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing based on 2255 petitioners mere eonclusory allegations in his affidavit
C. recognizing that evidentiary hearing is not required when 2255 petitioner offers nothing more than conclusoiy allegations
D. holding that more than notice to a defendant is required
E. holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required if there are no factual issues in dispute.
Answer: | C. recognizing that evidentiary hearing is not required when 2255 petitioner offers nothing more than conclusoiy allegations |
Consider the following statement:
For pfg whether removing new mexico pera and central states from pfg would be a possible solution. counsel for pfg answered in the affirmative. transcript of oral argument at 55. a group vying for lead plaintiff status does not necessarily rise and fall as a group. segmentation is a viable remedy and finds support in the case law. in re surebeam corp. sec. litig., no. 03cv 1721, 2003 u.s. dist. lexis 25022, at *23 (s.d.cal. jan. 5, 2004). there, the court found one member of the presumptive lead plaintiff, fmc pension group, inadequate because of its securities industry misconduct. the court explained that it had the authority to “break apart a proposed group in search of the most adequate lead plaintiff.” id.; see also newman v. eagle bldg. tech., 209 f.r.d. 499, 505 (s.d.fla.2002) (<holding>); in re razorfish, inc. sec. lit, 143 f.supp.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 because the spd at issue stated that it is made part of the group policy its terms were sufficient to find that the plan conferred discretion on the plan administrator
B. holding that one members inadequacy is not imputed to the rest of the group noting that the remainder of the group still claimed a financial interest of well over 1 million
C. holding one of the trustees duties is to investigate the financial affairs of the debtor
D. holding that it is wrong to assume a financial conflict of interest from the fact that the plan administrator is also the insurer
E. recognizing that the primary issue to be considered in whether the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class is a determination of whether any antagonism exists between the interests of the plaintiffs and those of the remainder of the class.
Answer: | B. holding that one members inadequacy is not imputed to the rest of the group noting that the remainder of the group still claimed a financial interest of well over 1 million |
Consider the following statement:
The meaning of the restrictions, and the restrictions specifically preclude the construction or retention of any structure other than a single-family home. it was an abuse of discretion to ignore the language contained in the restrictions, or to interpret the term “structure” to exclude the proposed roadway. holding otherwise would render meaningless “[t]he sanctity of written contracts, [which] defin[e] the rights and duties of the contracting parties,” apolito v. johnson, 3 ariz.app. 358, 360, 414 p.2d 442, 444 (1966), and would violate the clear intent of the restrictions as a contract among the property owners. ¶ 20 other jurisdictions have reached similar conclusions. see, e.g., highland meadow estates at castle peak ranch, inc. v. buick, 994 p.2d 459, 462-64 (colo.ct.app.1999) (<holding>), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 21 p.3d 860
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 covenant stating that all lots shall be used exclusively for singlefamily dwellings was both a structural and a use restriction that prohibited the building of roads not used in connection with a residence
B. holding that a pasture leased by the policyholder was not used in connection with the residence premises of the policyholder
C. holding that the application of the enhancement for using a firearm in connection with another felony offense is proper only if there is a clear connection between the firearm that was used in the other offense and the one that was used in the offense of conviction
D. holding that an unpaved public street a short distance from the policyholders home was not part of the insured premises because it was not used in connection with the residence premises
E. holding that homeowners short term rental of home violated deed restriction that home could be used only for singlefamily residence purposes.
Answer: | A. holding that a covenant stating that all lots shall be used exclusively for singlefamily dwellings was both a structural and a use restriction that prohibited the building of roads not used in connection with a residence |
Consider the following statement:
To witnesses. trial tr. at 360-61, 365, 387-89, 404, 423, 441, 466, 481, 496-97, 562-63, 577, 645. contrary to the majority’s conclusion, then, a review of the record shows there could have been a disparity between the movements of the parties during the trial that violated earhart’s “sixth amendment right to act as his own attorney,” rebutting any factual determination to the contrary. see 28 u.s.c. § 2254(e)(1). a violation of the sixth amendment right to conduct one’s own defense is a structural trial error not subject to the harmless-error rule; thus, whether earhart was prejudiced is irrelevant in determining whether his movement restrictions violated his right to self-representation. mckaskle v. wiggins, 465 u.s. 168, 173, 174, 177, 177 n. 8, 104 s.ct. 944, 79 l.ed.2d 122 (1984) (<holding>). if earhart’s rights were violated, the ohio
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 defendants constitutional right to be represented by counsel of his own choice
B. holding that in determining whether a state officer is entitled to qualified immunity for 1983 purposes courts may not consider whether the constitutional right was clearly established before determining first that a constitutional right was violated
C. holding that the same waiver standard applies when assessing whether a defendant has waived his sixth amendment right to counsel during a postindictment interrogation as when assessing whether a defendant has waived his fifth amendment right to counsel preindictment
D. holding an accused has a constitutional right under the sixth amendment to conduct his own defense and the primary focus in determining whether this right was violated must be on whether the defendant had a fair chance to present his case in his own way citing faretta v california 422 us 806 95 sct 2525 45 led2d 562 1975
E. holding that the sixth amendment right to present a meaningful defense does not entitle a defendant to present evidence on a question of law.
Answer: | D. holding an accused has a constitutional right under the sixth amendment to conduct his own defense and the primary focus in determining whether this right was violated must be on whether the defendant had a fair chance to present his case in his own way citing faretta v california 422 us 806 95 sct 2525 45 led2d 562 1975 |
Consider the following statement:
Another. u.s.s.g. § 4b1.2(1) (1992). 4 . although “bank robbery" is not an expressly listed offense, separate from “robbery,” the guidelines assume that "robbery” encompasses "bank robbery." under section 2b3.1 of the guidelines, which assigns offense levels to various forms of “robbery," a sentencing court is instructed to increase the offense level by a certain number of points “[i]f the property of a financial institution ... was taken____” u.s.s.g. § 2b3.1(b)(1) (1992). 5 . these purposes include, inter alia, (1) "to provide just punishment;” (2) to deter criminal conduct; and (3) "to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant____” 18 u.s.c. § 3553(a)(2). 6 . our observation in this regard might be read as implicitly questioning our decision in baskin, 886 f.2d at 389 (<holding>). we do not address the validity of baskin 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 robbery is a crime of violence for purposes of habitualoffender sentencing
B. holding that a court must only look to the statutory definition not the underlying circumstances of the crime to determine whether a given offense is by its nature a crime of violence for purposes of 18 usc 16
C. holding that a sentencing judge retains discretion to examine the underlying facts of a case in deciding whether an offense is a crime of violence under section 4b12
D. holding that sexual abuse of a minor is a violent crime within the meaning of the sentencing guidelines and noting that definitions of crime of violence in 18 usc 16 and ussg 4b12 differ slightly finding reyescastro to be persuasive in its 4b12 analysis
E. holding that once the statute is found to be divisible the court must look to the charging papers and judgment of conviction to determine if the actual crime of which defendant was convicted was a crime of violence but emphasizing that the court is not to examine the particular facts underlying the conviction.
Answer: | C. holding that a sentencing judge retains discretion to examine the underlying facts of a case in deciding whether an offense is a crime of violence under section 4b12 |
Consider the following statement:
In requiring in camera review of the minutes. fisher, 123 md.app. at 328, 329, 718 a.2d 627. in johnson, which was not an action for judicial review, this court barred the county executive’s deposition, because the only relevant information concerned his mental processes while performing discretionary acts. see johnson, 199 md.app. at 328-30, 21 a.3d 199. 14 . see, e.g., patuxent valley, 300 md. at 214, 477 a.2d 759 (quoting united states v. morgan, 313 u.s. 409, 422, 61 s.ct. 999, 85 l.ed. 1429 (1941)) (just as a party may not depose a judge about his or her decisional processes, " 'so the integrity of the administrative process must be equally respected’ ”). 15 . compare maryland-nat’l capital park & planning comm’n v. mardi-rossian, 184 md.app. 207, 223, 964 a.2d 713 (2009) (<holding>). 16 . in arguing that the collateral order
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 did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion for mistrial where the trial court sustained defendants objections to a question by the prosecutor containing improper information and instructed the jury to disregard the question
B. holding that the trial court acted within its discretion in determining that the expertise of an automobile systems expert did not extend to the mental processes and human factors which may have caused an automobile accident
C. holding that the court did not abuse its discretion by tracking the statutory language in the instruction
D. holding that court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the deposition of administrative decisionmakers because the party disavowed any intent to question the commissioners mental processes
E. holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a new trial based on a 250000 award for a mental distress claim.
Answer: | D. holding that court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the deposition of administrative decisionmakers because the party disavowed any intent to question the commissioners mental processes |
Consider the following statement:
Did not file a return to this motion. the trial court granted the motion to alter or amend, finding the district court decision was binding on all parties to this action. it vacated the consent judgment and restored the case to the trial docket. payne filed a motion to reconsider, which the trial court denied. this appeal followed. law/analysis the pocisks assert the order granting rule 60(b) relief is not immediately appealable. we agree. the determination of whether a party may immediately appeal an order issued before or during trial is governed primarily by statute. s.c.code ann. § 14-3-330 (1976 & supp. 2007); hagood v. sommerville, 362 s.c. 191, 195, 607 s.e.2d 707, 70 part of a pleading in the action. therefore, neither subsections (a) nor (c) apply to this order. p (1980) (<holding>); anglin stone v. curtis, 146 n.c.app. 608, 553
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 denial of a motion to remand is interlocutory and not immediately appealable
B. holding an order denying a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory and not appealable
C. holding an order allowing a motion under rule 60b is not immediately appealable because it is interlocutory and does not affect a substantial right
D. holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable
E. holding that overruling of motion to quash does not affect substantial right and is therefore not final appealable order.
Answer: | C. holding an order allowing a motion under rule 60b is not immediately appealable because it is interlocutory and does not affect a substantial right |
Consider the following statement:
At 73. 5 id. 6 rcw 51.52.115; johnson v. weyerhaeuser co., 134 wn.2d 795, 800 n.4, 953 p.2d 800 (1998); dep’t of labor & indus. v. fankhauser, 121 wn.2d 304, 308, 849 p.2d 1209 (1993). 7 row -51.52.115. 8 row 51.52.140; mcclelland v. itt rayonier, inc., 65 wn. app. 386, 390, 828 p.2d 1138 (1992). 9 ranger ins. co. v. pierce county, 164 wn.2d 545, 552, 192 p.3d 886 (2008). 10 cr 56(c). 11 ranger ins. co., 164 wn.2d at 552. 12 id. 13 id. 14 id.; see also vallandigham v. clover park sch. dist. no. 400, 154 wn.2d 16, 26, 109 p.3d 805 (2005). 15 sligar v. odell, 156 wn. app. 720, 725, 233 p.3d 914 (2010). 16 id. (quoting young v. key pharm., inc., 112 wn.2d 216, 225, 770 p.2d 182 (1989)). 17 superior asphalt & concrete co. v. dep’t of labor & indus., 19 wn. app. 800, 804, 578 p.2d 59 (1978) (<holding>). 18 young, 112 wn.2d at 225-26. 19 rcw
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 appellant needed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her husbands death fell within the terms of the insurance policy
B. holding that wife could receive permanent total disability payments after the death of her husband where the husbands claim was pending before the effective date of the 2008 statutory amendments and was still pending at the time of his death even though husbands death occurred after the effective date of the 2008 statutory amendments as wifes status as a dependent was subject to determination as of the time of husbands injury
C. holding that it was appellants burden to prove that her husbands death occurred in the scope of employment and that she was eligible for widows benefits
D. holding widows claim that deceased husbands former employer and its life insurance carrier were negligent in their handling of husbands conversion of benefits was preempted by erisa finding the liability of the defendants is dependent upon the existence of the erisa plan and the interpretation of rights conferred by it
E. holding that the employee was acting within the course of her employment when she died while returning from the workrelated session because her death occurred on a public highway which was brought within the scope of her employment by her employers requirement that she attend training at the state police academy.
Answer: | C. holding that it was appellants burden to prove that her husbands death occurred in the scope of employment and that she was eligible for widows benefits |
Consider the following statement:
He held a press conference announcing his candidacy, nix decl. ¶ 7; see also haase v. sessions, 835 f.2d 902, 907 (d.c.cir.1987) (noting that a plaintiff “can freely augment his pleadings with affidavits,” such as the affidavit nix filed discussing, among other things, his press conference, to establish the plaintiffs standing). the district court nonetheless app . fec, — u.s. —, 130 s.ct. 876, 175 l.ed.2d 753 (2010). in our view, nix’s allegation that he intended to run in the november 2011 election and his public announcement at the press conference sufficiently establish the “substantial probability” of imminent injury required for article iii standing. chamber of commerce v. epa, 642 f.3d 192, 201 (d.c.cir.2011) (internal quotation marks omitted); cf. shays, 414 f.3d at 92 (<holding>). indeed, as nix argues, a contrary holding
Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given.
A. holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search
B. holding that passengers of a vehicle which they did not own had standing to challenge the validity of a traffic stop
C. holding that senator mcconnell lacked standing to challenge a provision of the bipartisan campaign reform act of 2002 bcra that at earliest would have affected him in his 2008 reelection campaign
D. recognizing taxpayer standing to assert a constitutional challenge to the manner of a judicial election given the special circumstances involved
E. holding that incumbent congressmen subject to twoyear election cycles had standing to challenge the fecs implementation of certain provisions of bcra.
Answer: | E. holding that incumbent congressmen subject to twoyear election cycles had standing to challenge the fecs implementation of certain provisions of bcra |
Consider the following statement:
Delta airlines and gary richter contend that because plaintiffs breach of contract claim arises out of events which occurred during the course of embarkation of an international flight, her claim is preempted by the montreal convention. plaintiff responds that her claim falls outside the scope of the convention because she alleges nonperformance of a contract. although the sixth circuit court of appeals has not addressed this issue, a number of other federal courts have concluded that where the complaint alleges complete nonperformance of a contract, rather than delay in transportation, the montreal convention does not preempt a plaintiffs breach of contract claim. see, e.g., nankin v. continental airlines, inc., no. cv-09-07851, 2010 wl 342632, at *7 (c.d.cal. jan. 29, 2010) (<holding>); mullaney v. delta air lines, inc., no.
Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given.
A. holding that additional claims brought under state law are preempted by the montreal convention
B. holding plaintiffs claims were not preempted by the montreal convention because they were grounded in a cause of action for nonperformance of a contract and not delay
C. holding plaintiffs breach of contract claim was not preempted by the montreal convention because plaintiff was seeking damages resulting from deltas refusal to provide him with any flight home after having taken his money for a ticket in short for failure to perform its obligation to provide carriage in exchange for money it had received
D. holding that the montreal convention was not applicable to plaintiffs claims because based on plaintiffs allegations it clearly appears that through its employees continental refused to perform the contract
E. holding plaintiffs breach of contract claims fell outside the scope of the montreal convention because the plain language of article 19 of the montreal convention indicates that it governs claims for delay not nonperformance.
Answer: | D. holding that the montreal convention was not applicable to plaintiffs claims because based on plaintiffs allegations it clearly appears that through its employees continental refused to perform the contract |
Consider the following statement:
Review. (d) martin argues that the prosecutor’s closing argument repeatedly misled the jury regarding the effect of a sentence of guilty but mentally ill. while it was not improper for the prosecutor to state that it would not be justice for the jury to impose a sentence of guilty but mentally ill if it was not supported by the evidence, we agree that it was improper to refer to such a verdict using the phrases, “a break” and “a pass,” and by making similar arguments. we note, however, that such language would have been permissible in the sentencing phase where, regardless of whether the jury had found martin guilty or guilty but mentally ill, the jury would be choosing between imposing a death sentence or granting mercy. see lewis v. state, 279 ga. 756, 764 (12) (620 se2d 778) (2005) (<holding>). because martin did not object to this line of
Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given.
A. holding that the verdict must be sustained if there is any competent evidence to support the verdict
B. holding that the trial court erred in granting the school boards posttrial motion for directed verdict because although the school board timely moved for a directed verdict during trial it did not serve its motion for directed verdict until the eleventh day after the verdict
C. holding that the statute that provides for a verdict of guilty but mentally ill does not preclude a death sentence as the result of such a verdict
D. holding that a jury verdict of guilty constitutes a conviction for purposes of the federal firearms statute and therefore the defendant was convicted of a felony during the interval between the jurys return of its guilty verdict and his scheduled sentencing
E. holding that where the evidence offered by the state and admitted by the trial court whether erroneously or not would have been sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict the double jeopardy clause does not preclude retrial.
Answer: | C. holding that the statute that provides for a verdict of guilty but mentally ill does not preclude a death sentence as the result of such a verdict |
Consider the following statement:
Similar to those presented here, involving an infant delivered by emergency caesarean section at 23-weeks’ gestation that received lifesaving resuscitation contrary to the parents’ wishes. the infant survived but later suffered a brain hemorrhage, a common complication of premature birth, which resulted in severe and permanent disabilities. in rejecting the parents’ informed consent claim, the court in miller, id. at 769, concluded that even though the parents were present in the delivery room, “there was simply no time to obtain their consent to treatment . . . without jeopardizing [the infant’s] life” because the infant might survive with treatment but would likely die if treatment were postponed. see also montalvo v. borkovec, 2002 wi app 147, 256 wis. 2d 472, 647 n.w.2d 413, 420 (<holding>). in this case, as well, there was no time 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 unconstitutional defendants sentence of death based upon the holding in roper supra and remanding for the montgomery circuit court to set aside the defendants death sentence and to sentence him to the only other sentence available life in the penitentiary without the possibility of parole
B. holding that the informed consent doctrine does not apply in the context of emergency treatment provided to a neonate following a caesarean procedure because the failure to treat would be tantamount to a death sentence
C. holding that the doctrine does not apply in such circumstancesi
D. holding in case where plaintiff sought damages resulting from the defendants failure to pay the accidental death benefit claims she filed following death of her husband transfer to south carolina was warranted because with the exception of plaintiffs relocation to the state of west virginia following the death of the decedent the cause of action bears virtually no relation to the forum chosen by the plaintiff
E. holding that even if the court were to apply the apex doctrine the doctrine would not preclude the deposition of two corporate executives in that case.
Answer: | B. holding that the informed consent doctrine does not apply in the context of emergency treatment provided to a neonate following a caesarean procedure because the failure to treat would be tantamount to a death sentence |
Consider the following statement:
Crime. in accordance with our reasoning in mordica, therefore, section 784.045(l)(b) defines a specific intent crime because the statute requires the knowing commission of a battery on a pregnant woman. appellant is thus correct to argue that the doctrine of transferred intent does not operate in the instant case to elevate v.m.’s general intent to commit a simple battery on her brother to the specific intent required to violate section 784.045(l)(b). see (mordica, 618 so.2d at 304-05)(“in this case, the state could not apply the doctrine of transferred intent to enhance the severity of the crime from simple battery to battery of a law enforcement officer by only proving that simple battery against the inmate was intended.”). see also d.j. v. state, 651 so.2d 1255 (fla. 1st dca 1995) (<holding>). nevertheless, we affirm appellant’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 where school principal was struck while trying to stop student fight transferred intent operates to transfer students intent to commit simple battery on classmate thus negating conviction for attempted battery on school official which requires heightened level of intent
B. holding that battery is an inherently included offense of aggravated battery
C. holding that under maryland common law an assault is an attempted battery an actual battery or a combination of the two
D. holding that prior battery was admissible to prove defendants intent to injure
E. holding sentence enhancement statute did not create offense of attempted battery on school employee and thus minors adjudication of delinquency should have been based on finding that minor committed attempted battery.
Answer: | A. holding where school principal was struck while trying to stop student fight transferred intent operates to transfer students intent to commit simple battery on classmate thus negating conviction for attempted battery on school official which requires heightened level of intent |
Consider the following statement:
Sec. dealers, inc., 191 f.3d 198, 205 (2d cir.1999). this court reached a similar conclusion in st. paul fire and marine insurance company v. employers reinsurance corporation, 919 f.supp. 133 (s.d.n.y.1996) (sotomayor, j.), holding that arbitration clauses only affect “procedural right[s]” and “the parties’ substantive rights remain amply protected.” id. at 139. the right to have a dispute heard in an arbitral forum is a procedural right that affects the forum that will decide the substantive rights of the parties. therefore, applying the present law to this dispute would not have a disfavored retroactive consequence. rather, because the parties’ substantive rights remain unaffected by this statute, it is proper to apply the present law to this dispute. see pezza, 767 f.supp.2d at 234 (<holding>). therefore, section 922 of dodd-frank applies
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 collective bargaining agreements cannot compel the arbitration of statutory rights
B. recognizing that new law did not apply to claims that accrued prior to enactment
C. holding that the fair sentencing act does not apply retroactively to defendants whose criminal conduct occurred before its enactment even if those defendants were sentenced after its enactment
D. holding that because agreements to arbitrate do not affect underlying substantive rights doddfranks ban on arbitration should be applied to conduct that arose prior to its enactment
E. holding that a change of an element of an offense could not be applied retroactively to a crime committed prior to the statutes enactment.
Answer: | D. holding that because agreements to arbitrate do not affect underlying substantive rights doddfranks ban on arbitration should be applied to conduct that arose prior to its enactment |
Consider the following statement:
Is not impaired”); in re harris, 482 b.r. 899 (bankr. n.d. ill. 2012) (same); and in re stroud, 219 b.r. at 390 (same and concluding that “[l]ien avoidance must be conditioned upon debtor’s completion of the chapter 13 plan and granting of the discharge in order to ensure that creditors’ interests are protected” (citation omitted)). 18 . see in re mulder, no. 810-74217-reg., 2010 wl 4286174, at *3 (bankr. e.d.n.y. oct. 26, 2010) ("this court finds no support in the code to use section 349 as a basis on which to condition section 522(f) lien avoidance upon entry of a discharge. this position inappropriately assumes that failure to' receive a discharge goes hand in hand with dismissal of a case.”); see also in re ferrante, no. 09-13098, 2009 wl 2971306 (bankr. d.n.j. sept. 10, 2009) (<holding>). 19 . law v. siegel, — u.s. -, 134 s.ct. 1188,
Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given.
A. holding that a state statutory framework and the punitive nature of segregation created a liberty interest
B. holding that the debtor must have had an interest in the property before the lien attached to take advantage of 522f
C. holding that in light of the statutory framework created by the code 522f lien avoidance cannot be made subject to any subsequent event
D. holding that consumer lien avoidance powers of section 522f cannot be applied retroactively
E. holding that a debtors ability to utilize 522f to avoid a judicial lien is not dependent upon the debtor receiving a discharge .
Answer: | C. holding that in light of the statutory framework created by the code 522f lien avoidance cannot be made subject to any subsequent event |
Consider the following statement:
The burden shifts to the defendant to rebut the presumption of discrimination by “producing evidence that the adverse employment actions were taken for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.” id. finally, if the rebuttal is successful, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the employer’s nondiscriminatory reason was pretext. id. however, where the defendant asserts a legitimate, non-retaliatory explanation for the alleged adverse actions, “the district court should ... proceed[ ] to the ultimate issue of retaliation vel non instead of evaluating whether [plaintiff] made out a prima facie case.” jones v. bernanke, 557 f.3d 670, 678 (d.c.cir.2009) (citing united states postal service bd. of governors v. aikens, 460 u.s. 711, 716, 103 s.ct. 1478, 75 l.ed.2d 403 (1983) (<holding>)). in this case, the parties do not dispute
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 employee makes its prima facie showing the burden then shifts to the employer to prove that legitimate reasons supported the termination
B. holding that if the plaintiff makes a prima facie case the defendant employer must then articulate some legitimate nonretaliatory reason for the adverse action and the employee must then have a fair opportunity to show pretext that is that a discriminatory intent motivated the employers action
C. holding that once an employer asserts a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its action it has done everything that would be required if the plaintiff had properly made out a prima facie case so whether the plaintiff really did so is no longer relevant
D. holding in a race discrimination case that close timing is an element of the plaintiffs prima facie case but insufficient on its own to rebut a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason that explains the action and its timing
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: | C. holding that once an employer asserts a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its action it has done everything that would be required if the plaintiff had properly made out a prima facie case so whether the plaintiff really did so is no longer relevant |
Consider the following statement:
That the finality of a decision resolving an adversary action does not turn on whether the entire bankruptcy proceeding has been terminated. see in re ual corp., 411 f.3d 818, 821 (7th cir.2005). in this case, the bankruptcy court issued a final decision in booker’s adversary action against fields on september 15, 2005, when the court entered a default judgment and declared that the amount owing to booker was nondischargeable. this decision is therefore final because it resolved a discrete dispute that is equivalent to a stand-alone lawsuit. see bank of am. v. moglia, 330 f.3d 942, 944 (7th cir.2003); in re szekely, 936 f.2d 897, 899 (7th cir.1991). the “final disposition of any adversary proceeding falls within our jurisdiction.” zedan v. habash, 529 f.3d 398, 402 (7th cir.2008) (<holding>); see also in re teknek, 512 f.3d 342, 345 (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 this court lacked preliminary authority to review the district courts jurisdiction because there was no immediately appealable order before the court
B. holding that bankruptcy courts have inherent power to sanction and affirming sanctions imposed by bankruptcy court against a nonparty
C. holding that a district courts order of dismissal with prejudice was a nullity because the court lacked jurisdiction
D. holding that this court had jurisdiction to review a district courts order affirming a bankruptcy courts dismissal of an adversary complaint with prejudice
E. holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts.
Answer: | D. holding that this court had jurisdiction to review a district courts order affirming a bankruptcy courts dismissal of an adversary complaint with prejudice |
Consider the following statement:
Of acquittal were entered on these counts by the court because the jury’s findings did not identify specified unlawful activities from which the funds were acquired by the defendant that were distinct from the alleged money laundering activities. see united states v. howard, no. 02-079, slip. op. at 8 (d.d.c. feb. 5, 2003); see also united states v. seward, 272 f.3d 831, 836 (7th cir.2001) (“the transaction or transactions that created the criminally-derived proceeds must be distinct from the money-laundering transaction because the money laundering statutes criminalize ‘transaction^] in proceeds, not the transaction^] that create [ ] the proceeds.' ”) (quoting united states v. mankarious, 151 f.3d 694, 705 (7th cir.1998)); united states v. butler, 211 f.3d 826, 830 (4th cir.2000) (<holding>). 9 . it is not entirely clear whether 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 evidence of 1957 money laundering was sufficient where the government proved aggregate withdrawals of far more than 10000 above the amount of clean funds available the vast majority of funds transferred to the defendants business account from the food stamp reimbursements were not supported by evidence of legitimate food sales
B. holding that an order to disgorge funds was final even though the order did not distribute the funds
C. holding that a money laundering enhancement was applicable because defendant knew the funds were represented to be proceeds of a drug transaction
D. holding that defendant violated section 4b when she misappropriated pool participant funds by soliciting funds for trading and then trading only a small percentage of those funds while disbursing the rest of the funds to investors herself and her family
E. holding that to establish a money laundering offense the laundering of funds cannot occur in the same transaction through which those funds first become tainted by crime.
Answer: | E. holding that to establish a money laundering offense the laundering of funds cannot occur in the same transaction through which those funds first become tainted by crime |
Consider the following statement:
S.ct. 1373, 84 l.ed.2d 392 (1985). the court agrees and finds that, as a class, gay men and lesbians are a minority and have relatively limited political power to attract the favorable attention of lawmakers. see city of cleburne, 473 u.s. at 445, 105 s.ct. 3249. although this factor is not an absolute prerequisite for heightened scrutiny, the court finds the evidence and the law support the conclusion that gay men and lesbians remain a politically vulnerable minority. see plyler, 457 u.s. at 216 n. 14, 102 s.ct. 2382; murgia, 427 u.s. at 321, 96 s.ct. 2562. here, having analyzed the factors, the court holds that the appropriate level of scrutiny to use when reviewing statutory classifications based on sexual orientation is heightened scrutiny. see also in re levenson, 587 f.3d at 931 (<holding>); witt, 527 f.3d at 824-25 (canby, j.,
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 disability is not a suspect or quasisuspect classification that requires heightened scrutiny
B. recognizing that strict scrutiny applies to facial discrimination against a suspect class
C. holding that strict scrutiny applies
D. holding that some form of heightened constitutional scrutiny applies
E. recognizing scrutiny on statutory grounds stated in 10a and scrutiny for whether the award evinces a manifest disregard of applicable law.
Answer: | D. holding that some form of heightened constitutional scrutiny applies |
Consider the following statement:
By the phrase “a public entity’s property,” and thus the same public entity on whose property the dangerous condition exists. id. as such, the threshold question which must first be addressed when a public entity is sued for injuries resulting from a dangerous condition on property is whether the property is the public entity’s property. summitt v. roberts, 903 s.w.2d 631, 635 (mo.app.w.d.1995) (claim “fails on a threshold question” because property where plaintiff was injured “belongs to neither” public entity); see also spielvogel v. city of kansas city, 302 s.w.3d 108, 112 (mo.app.w.d.2009); thomas v. clay cnty. elec. bd., 261 s.w.3d 574, 578-80 (mo.app.w.d.2008). the phrase “a public entity’s property” plainly includes property owned by a public entity. claspill, 809 s.w.2d at 89 (<holding>); dorlon v. city of springfield, 843 s.w.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 the crucial distinction that rendered the public entity liable for a private actors inaccessibility was that the public entity had contracted with the private actor for it to provide aid benefits or services to beneficiaries of the public entitys redevelopment program
B. holding that if property is not property1 of the public entity then the public entity cannot be subject to suit under the dangerous condition waiver
C. holding that ijnjuries caused by the condition of a public entitys property clearly refers to ownership of a property interest which allows a public entity to control the property
D. holding that a public entitys property refers to the public entity that owns the property where a dangerous condition exists
E. holding that property of a public entity includes having exclusive control and possession of property.
Answer: | D. holding that a public entitys property refers to the public entity that owns the property where a dangerous condition exists |
Consider the following statement:
Applied retroactively if it constitutes a "clear break with the past." hoff, 814 p.2d at 1128. a new rule is a clear break with the past if it caused " 'an abrupt and fundamental shift in doctrine as to constitute an entirely new rule which in effect replaced an older one.'" baker, 935 p.2d at 509 (quoting united states v. johnson, 457 u.s. 537, 551, 102 s.ct. 2579, 73 led.2d 202 (1982)). a break with the past occurs when a decision "disapproves a practice this court arguably has sanctioned in prior cases." id. (internal quotation marks omitted). t 74 as we concluded above, before subsection (1) was added to rule 11, the controlling case law only required a defendant to show good cause to withdraw his plea. and when a court failed to inform a defendant of a constitutional right li 2) (<holding>). the failure to properly inform a defendant of
Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given.
A. holding that any error in excluding impeachment evidence about witnesss drug use in general was harmless when witness was heavily impeached in other ways
B. holding that witness statements in police report inadmissible
C. holding that error if any in excluding portion of defendants statement to police was harmless because similar evidence was admitted through the testimony of another witness
D. holding that error in excluding a police officers report was harmless where the same evidence was presented by another witness
E. holding that police officers have a duty to conduct an investigation into the basis of the witness report.
Answer: | D. holding that error in excluding a police officers report was harmless where the same evidence was presented by another witness |
Consider the following statement:
The twentieth century, displaced “the traditional rule ... that an ‘at will’ employee could be discharged at any time and for any reason.” 2 dobbs § 6.10(1), at 190. contrary to the majority’s conclusion, it is not sufficient to state that because back pay involves monetary relief, it is necessarily legal in nature. chauffeurs, teamsters, and helpers, local no. 391 v. terry, 494 u.s. 558, 570, 110 s.ct. 1339, 108 l.ed.2d 519 (1990). “[n]ot all monetary relief is damages,” and “[ejquity sometimes awards monetary relief, or the equivalent.” clair v. harris trust & sav. bank, 190 f.3d 495, 498 (7th cir.1999) (concluding that “restitution is both a legal and an equitable remedy that is monetary yet is distinct from damages”); allison v. bank one-denver, 289 f.3d 1223, 1243 (10th cir.2002) (<holding>). even great-west, which stated that suits
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 prejudgment interest may include compound interest
B. holding that a court may in its discretion award prejudgment interest in erisa cases where appropriate but it is not axiomatic that such interest should be awarded simply because the prevailing party has demonstrated entitlement to the funds
C. holding that the owner of an equitable interest in property in the form of a land contract can grant a mortgage on that interest under ohio law
D. holding that prejudgment interest is in the nature of compensatory damages and therefore should be included in judgment finally obtained
E. holding in an erisa case decided after greatwest that monetary relief in the form of prejudgment interest may be equitable in nature.
Answer: | E. holding in an erisa case decided after greatwest that monetary relief in the form of prejudgment interest may be equitable in nature |
Consider the following statement:
To be actionable as fraud in illinois, a “misrepresentation” must contain the following elements: (1) it must be a statement of material fact, as opposed to opinion; (2) it must be untrue; (3) the party making the statement must know or believe it to be untrue; (4) the person to whom the statement is made must believe and rely on it, and have a right to do so; (5) it must have been made for the purpose of inducing the other party to act; and (6) the reliance by the person or entity to whom the statement is made must lead to the claimed injury. see mother earth, ltd. v. strawberry camel, ltd, 72 ill.app.3d 37, 28 ill.dec. 226, 390 n.e.2d 393, 403 (1979) (citing broberg v. mann, 66 ill.app.2d 134, 213 n.e.2d 89, 91-92 (1965)) ; see also w.w. vincent, 286 ill.dec. 734, 814 n.e.2d at 969 (<holding>). orion’s live pleadings allege that uop’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 purchasing corporation stated valid claim of fraudulent misrepresentation by inducement based on knowingly false statements by transferring corporation that assets transferred to purchasing corporation included general agents contract
B. holding that claims of corporation vest in corporation
C. holding that in a merger shareholders are effectively purchasing shares in a new corporation while losing their status as shareholders in the previous corporation
D. recognizing that agents of a corporation may be held criminally responsible for crimes committed in the name of the corporation
E. holding that corporation and sole owner of corporation were separate legal entities and corporation was not party to contract signed by owner in individual capacity.
Answer: | A. holding that purchasing corporation stated valid claim of fraudulent misrepresentation by inducement based on knowingly false statements by transferring corporation that assets transferred to purchasing corporation included general agents contract |
Consider the following statement:
Q. is there another statement? a. on her? q. yes, sir. a. not by me. q. okay. well, when i asked you if there was anyone else around, you said not on this statement. a. there are other statements, but i was not present. q. you weren’t present for those? a. no, sir. ms. wansley argues that “[b]y combining only the first and last [statements] and omitting others, the prosecutor left the possibility for the jury to misunderstanding the meaning of the statements.” the state counters ms. wansley’s concern that “[c]ombining the two statements may have misled the jury,” by asserting the “presumption that the judgment of the trial court is correct, and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate some reversible error to the appellant court.” see edlin v. state, 533 so.2d 403, 410 (miss.1988) (<holding>) (citation omitted). the state further 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 evidence insufficient to overcome presumption of correctness
B. holding that in appellate proceedings the decision of the trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error
C. holding that it is the duty of the appellant to overcome the presumption of the correctness of the trial courts judgment by demonstrating some reversible error
D. holding that in appellate proceedings where no transcript is provided a trial courts decision has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error
E. holding that it is the appellants burden to present a record to overcome the presumption of correctness of the trial courts findings.
Answer: | C. holding that it is the duty of the appellant to overcome the presumption of the correctness of the trial courts judgment by demonstrating some reversible error |
Consider the following statement:
Governmental conduct, that amendment, not the more generalized notion of ‘substantive due process,’ must be the guide for analyzing these claims.” graham v. connor, 490 u.s. 386, 395, 109 s.ct. 1865, 104 l.ed.2d 443 (1989). following the supreme court’s holing in graham, the first circuit court of appeals has rejected alleged deprivations of substantive due process rights under the fourteenth amendment based either on excessive force or on malicious prosecution. estate of bennett v. wainwright, 548 f.3d 155 (1st cir.2008) (dismissing a substantive due process claim for deprivation of a life interest because the claim was based on excessive force more appropriately brought under the fourth amendment); torres-rivera v. o’neill-cancel, 406 f.3d 43, 51-53 (1st cir.2005) (<holding>); roche v. john hancock mutual life ins., 81
Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given.
A. holding that whether an officers force was reasonable must be analyzed under the reasonableness standard of the fourth amendment
B. holding that the protect act amendments to the standard of review apply retroactively
C. holding that an excessive force claim is governed by the fourth amendments objectively reasonable standard rather than the fourteenth amendments shock the conscience standard
D. holding that claims that law enforcement officials used excessive force in making an arrest are properly analyzed under the fourth amendments objective reasonableness standard
E. holding that new york law reasonable cause standard is equivalent to fourth amendments probable cause standard.
Answer: | C. holding that an excessive force claim is governed by the fourth amendments objectively reasonable standard rather than the fourteenth amendments shock the conscience standard |
Consider the following statement:
Federal statute. see s cal.app.3d 1365, 245 cal.rptr. 585, 588 (1988) (noting that state did not introduce any evidence regarding the purpose behind monitoring defendant's statements spoken in an interview in answer to defendant's contention that his statements were protected unless monitored for institutional security purposes). see generally u.s. v. hearst, 9th cir., 563 f.2d 1331, 1345-46 (1977), reh’g denied, 9th cir., 573 f.2d 579 (1978), cert. denied, 435 u.s. 1000, 98 s.ct. 1656, 56 l.ed.2d 90 (1978) (finding that surreptitiously recording conversations between prisoner and visitor does not violate prisoner’s right to privacy when confronted with state's "justifiable purpose of imprisonment or prison security"); state v. hauss, app., 142 ariz. 159, 688 p.2d 1051, 1054-55 (1984) (<holding>); people v. gallego, cal. supr ., 52 cal.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 taking an individual who was not suspected of any crime to a police station and into an interview room and detaining her for approximately four hours where it was made clear she was not free to leave violated the fourth amendment
B. holding that in this case where police were concerned that while couple was in an interview room they would pass a weapon discuss escape plans or destroy evidence once the government established that its intrusion was for a justifiable purpose of imprisonment or prison security the fourth amendment question was essentially resolved in its favor
C. holding that even if an agreement that title would pass once financing was obtained the most a creditor could claim was a security interest once the good was delivered
D. holding that where an individual voluntarily goes to the police station to discuss the commission of a crime that person has not been seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment
E. holding that public safety exception applies if and only if two conditions are satisfied 1 that the defendant might have or recently have had a weapon and 2 that someone other than police might gain access to that weapon and inflict harm with it and that while second prong would not apply for instance if the police entered a defendants room handcuffed him and placed him on a chair in the hallway outside his room it might apply if defendant was unrestrained and had turned back into his room to retrieve his identification when questioned by the police.
Answer: | B. holding that in this case where police were concerned that while couple was in an interview room they would pass a weapon discuss escape plans or destroy evidence once the government established that its intrusion was for a justifiable purpose of imprisonment or prison security the fourth amendment question was essentially resolved in its favor |
Consider the following statement:
A set of facts would give rise to reasonable suspicion, this court must look at the totality of the circumstances and not just each independent fact standing alone. furthermore, the court may consider any added meaning that certain conduct might suggest to experienced officers in the field, trained in the observation of criminal activity.” united states v. jones, 269 f.3d 919, 926-927 (8th cir.2001). based on the totality of facts discovered by deputy sheriff brown during this consensual encounter, i conclude the officer had a reasonable articulable suspicion to continue detaining the defendants for a reasonable period of time to investigate the circumstances and determine if the defendants were engaged in criminal activity. united states v. foley, 206 f.3d 802, 805 (8th cir.2000)(<holding>). see also, jones, 269 f.3d at 928 (holding
Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given.
A. holding that passengers lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore had no standing to challenge the search of the vehicle
B. holding that questioning of passengers on bus including asking for drivers licenses and tickets constituted consensual encounter and passengers were free to decline to answer questions
C. holding presence of a masking odor in vehicle passengers nervous behavior passengers inability to recall the name of his purport ed daughterinlaw and vast divergence between passengers and drivers statements regarding travel accommodations to california justified further detention of the vehicle for investigation of whether a crime was being committed
D. holding that if random suspicionless questioning of bus passengers for inspection of identification and tickets was consensual encounter it was not a violation of passengers fourth amendment rights
E. holding that passengers of a vehicle which they did not own had standing to challenge the validity of a traffic stop.
Answer: | C. holding presence of a masking odor in vehicle passengers nervous behavior passengers inability to recall the name of his purport ed daughterinlaw and vast divergence between passengers and drivers statements regarding travel accommodations to california justified further detention of the vehicle for investigation of whether a crime was being committed |
Consider the following statement:
And parties to a criminal prosecution may be privy to the information derived from the blood sample, o.r.s. § 181.085(2), and the state may not analyze'the samples to discover genetic predispositions to physical or mental conditions. the absence of any individualized suspicion that persons subject to blood sampling have committed criminal offenses other than their original offenses of conviction does not render chapter 669 unconstitutional. rather, the evenhandedness of oregon’s statute contributes to its reasonableness. “an essential purpose of a warrant requirement is to protect privacy interests by assuring citizens subject to a search or seizure that such intrusions are not the random or arbitrary acts of government agents.” skinner, 489 u.s. at 621-22, 109 s.ct. at 1415-16 (<holding>). the supreme court recently reaffirmed 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 a warrant was not required in part because in light of the standardized nature of the tests and the minimal discretion vested in those charged with administering the program there are virtually no facts for a neutral magistrate to evaluate
B. holding that a contract for the installation and implementation of a complex computer system did not constitute a consumer purchase covered by the njcfa and noting that the contract did not provide for simply the installation of a standardized computer software program but rather the design of a custommade program to satisfy the plaintiffs unique needs and the defendants active participation in implementation of this program
C. holding that an alien had no wellfounded fear of persecution for resisting chinas coercive population control program in part because he was not charged with a crime and there was no warrant issued for his arrest
D. holding that nature and occasion of offenses are facts inherent in convictions and those facts need not be alleged in indictment or submitted to jury
E. holding that the nature and occasion of prior offenses are facts inherent in the convictions which government is not required to allege in the indictment or prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Answer: | A. holding that a warrant was not required in part because in light of the standardized nature of the tests and the minimal discretion vested in those charged with administering the program there are virtually no facts for a neutral magistrate to evaluate |
Consider the following statement:
Days of receiving the notice of right to sue). ms. scott never served the defendant in that case, and the court dismissed it without prejudice on january 21, 2000. ms. scott filed a second lawsuit on july 21, 2000. however, ms. scott also did not serve the defendant in the second case, and the court dismissed it without prejudice on february 6, 2001. this circuit has held “that the filing of a complaint that is dismissed without prejudice does not toll the statutory filing period of title vii.” brown, 926 f.2d at 961. we reasoned that “as a general rule, a voluntary dismissal without prejudice leaves the parties as though the action had never been brought.” id. other courts have applied this rule to ada claims, see chico-velez v. roche prods., inc., 139 f.3d 56, 59 (1st cir.1998) (<holding>). as the district court observed, application
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 review committee of the kansas board for discipline of attorneys had the authority to dismiss a complaint against an attorney with or without prejudice and when dismissal was ordered without specifying the nature of the dismissal the dismissal was without prejudice to the filing of later proceedings on the same matter
B. holding that the dismissal without prejudice of the plaintiffs first action doomed his ada claim because the ninetyday filing period had run
C. holding that proper remedy for failure to exhaust is dismissal of the claim without prejudice
D. holding borough could not appeal dismissal of complaint without prejudice because dismissal without prejudice is comparable to a nonsuit under the former practice of lavf
E. holding district court had no authority to require plaintiffs to obtain courts permission to dismiss defendant who had not served answer or motion for summary judgment as plaintiffs had absolute right to dismissal without prejudice and thus court could not sanction plaintiffs for filing notice of voluntary dismissal rather than motion.
Answer: | B. holding that the dismissal without prejudice of the plaintiffs first action doomed his ada claim because the ninetyday filing period had run |
Consider the following statement:
Are the prices charged by suppliers like the bpa and the wapa to the consumers like pg&e, through the calpx and iso. the memphis clause binds the price charged to ferc determinations; the tariff binds the parties to use the calpx and iso for sale/purchase of energy; the parties, conducting sales through the calpx and iso to purchase/supply energy amongst themselves, are bound to each other through, their market transactions, the- rules of the tariff, and the ferc regulations. “when a contract provides that its terms are subject to a regulatory body, all parties to that contract are bound by the actions of the regulatory body.” alliant energy v. neb. pub. power dist., 347 f.3d 1046, 1050 (8th cir. 2003). see inter-city gas corp. v. boise cascade corp., 845 f.2d 184, 187 (8th cir. 1988) (<holding>). the sellers and buyers of power achieved
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 federal court may refuse to exercise continuing jurisdiction even though the parties have agreed to it parties cannot confer jurisdiction by stipulation or consent
B. holding that parties to a contract which provided that its rates may be approved ordered or set by any valid law order rule or regulation of any regulatory authority having jurisdiction were bound by a ferc rate determination even though they were not directly subject to fercs jurisdiction
C. recognizing that subject matter jurisdiction can be questioned at any time and with respect to any claim
D. holding that unlike subject matter jurisdiction personal jurisdiction may be waived
E. holding issues related to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time.
Answer: | B. holding that parties to a contract which provided that its rates may be approved ordered or set by any valid law order rule or regulation of any regulatory authority having jurisdiction were bound by a ferc rate determination even though they were not directly subject to fercs jurisdiction |
Consider the following statement:
If the jury posed a question about insurance during deliberations. evidence of insurance is generally not admissible at trial unless it is offered for a purpose permitted by federal rule of evidence 411. see also piontkowski v. scott, 65 ohio app.3d 4, 582 n.e.2d 1002, 1003-04 (1989). gratzianna’s brief reference to “cincinnati insurance” was inadvertent and unresponsive to the question chapman’s counsel asked. ■ counsel hurriedly diverted the jury’s attention from the comment and, unlike the cases on which defendants rely, defense counsel did not ask the court contemporaneously to strike the witness’s remark and instruct the jury to disregard it, nor did counsel ask for an immediate curative instruction. cf. e.g., kaltrider v. ymca of cleveland, ohio, 457 f.2d 768, 770 (6th cir.1972) (<holding>); davis v. wal-mart stores, inc., 967 f.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 the lack of a contemporaneous objection could not be salvaged by a motion for a mistrial
B. holding no prejudice occurred where party made contemporaneous objection to brief remark about insurance during closing argument and court gave cautionary instruction
C. holding a contemporaneous objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review
D. holding that when no objection was made to jury instruction evidence to support finding based on instruction should be assessed in light of the instruction given
E. holding mistrial unwarranted where contemporaneous objection was made to single mention of insurance and court gave cautionary instruction.
Answer: | E. holding mistrial unwarranted where contemporaneous objection was made to single mention of insurance and court gave cautionary instruction |
Subsets and Splits