Datasets:

quyanh

/

lexglue-cot-dpo-test

like 0

Consider the following statement: So that no party is harmed by what we have called a 'preliminary' adjudication." (quoting united states v. munsingwear, inc., 340 u.s. 36, 40-41, 71 s.ct. 104, 95 l.ed. 36 (1950))); peter a. v. state, dep't of health & soc. servs., office of children's servs., 146 p.3d 991, 994-96 (alaska 2006) (finding equity requires vacatur of challenged order when prevailing party's unilateral actions below resulted in issue becoming moot); city of valdez v. gavora, inc., 692 p.2d 959, 960-61 (alaska 1984) (vacating judgment because it was moot and to prevent it having later legal effect). 10 . see, e.g., state v. carlin, 249 p.3d 752, 756 (alaska 2011) ("we will overturn one of our prior decisions only when we are 'clearly convinced that the rule was originally erroneous or is no 0) (<holding>). 18 . see, e.g., bigley v. alaska psychiatric Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal 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 policy and ruling that person who failed to file counterclaim when childs paternity was being determined in earlier litigation should not be allowed to bring later suit to establish that he was childs natural father as this would not be in the childs best interests B. holding harmless the improper admission of a social workers hearsay testimony concerning a childs report of sexual abuse where the credibility of the childs testimony was supported by other witnesses C. holding that a plenary hearing was necessary based upon mothers certification and school social workers report of childs behavioral problems D. holding childs claim he was improperly adjudicated as delinquent not moot even though adjudication was later declared void ab initio because childs records were easily obtainable by others such as school authorities social workers judges at sentencing military and prospective employers E. holding that trial court improperly awarded custody of child to the childs stepmother and grandparents where no pleading in the case was directed at such relief and the childs mother had no notice that the issue would be considered. Answer:

D. holding childs claim he was improperly adjudicated as delinquent not moot even though adjudication was later declared void ab initio because childs records were easily obtainable by others such as school authorities social workers judges at sentencing military and prospective employers

Consider the following statement: V. cruz pagan, 537 f.2d 554, 558 (1st cir. 1976). we tend to agree. ¶ 35. it is important to distinguish between the apartment building and dumstrey's actual home. while the parking garage is located directly beneath the entire apartment building, it does not follow that it is therefore closely proximate to dumstrey's home. his home cannot reasonably be said to constitute the entire apartment building. rather, dumstrey occupies only one of the 30 units located within the building. this is a far cry from a single family home's attached garage, which courts have consistently held constitutes curtilage. see state v. davis, 2011 wi app 74, ¶ 12, 333 wis. 2d 490, 798 n.w.2d 902 (collecting cases and citing state v. leutenegger, 2004 wi app 127, ¶ 21 n.5, 275 wis. 2d 512, 685 n.w.2d 536 (<holding>)). ¶ 36. in such cases, the garage is quite Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal 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 cases consistently hold that an attached garage is part of the curtilage B. recognizing that the supreme court in hayes consistently limited its holding that the mva title provisions applied instead of the ucc to cases involving tort law and liability insurance coverage C. recognizing that the supreme court has consistently applied an analysis keyed to economic realities D. recognizing that the virginia supreme court has consistently applied the one year statute of limitation to defamation actions E. recognizing that an indictment may be dismissed in part. Answer:

A. recognizing that cases consistently hold that an attached garage is part of the curtilage

Consider the following statement: Not to place the tapes in the investigation file, depends upon the function he was performing at the time the conduct occurred. he is absolutely immune from liability for damages if he was gathering evidence to present to the trier of fact. see ybarra, 723 f.2d at 679. bogan and ingram would be protected only by qualified immunity, however, if they were conducting an investigation to determine whether probable cause existed to arrest broam and manning. see, e.g., powers v. coe, 728 f.2d 97, 103 (2d cir.1984) (determining that, “when a prosecutor engages in or authorizes and directs illegal wiretaps” and “the wiretapping is ... investigative in nature,” the prosecutors are only “entitled to qualified, rather than absolute, immunity”); jacobson v. rose, 592 f.2d 515, 524 (9th cir.1978) (<holding>); guerro v. mulhearn, 498 f.2d 1249, 1255-56 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding officers engaged in search entitled to immunity B. holding that a judge was not entitled to absolute immunity for firing an employee C. holding that while a witness and prosecutor were protected by absolute immunity for their participation in judicial proceedings they were not entitled to absolute immunity on a 1983 claim that they conspired to present false testimony D. holding that when prosecutors joined in implementing the wiretap they engaged in an act that was ordinarily related to police activity and were not entitled to absolute immunity E. holding that prosecutors have absolute immunity. Answer:

D. holding that when prosecutors joined in implementing the wiretap they engaged in an act that was ordinarily related to police activity and were not entitled to absolute immunity

Consider the following statement: To the suit in which he is appointed, and the receiver is not appointed for the benefit of any party_”) 16 . rcw § 7.60.040 provides: "[t]he receiver shall have power, under control of the court, to bring and defend actions, to take and keep possession of the property, to receive rents, collect debts, and generally to do such acts respecting the property, as the court may authorize.” 17 . rcw § 7.60.030 provides: before entering upon his duties, the receiver must be sworn to perform them faithfully, and with one or more sureties, approved by the court, execute a bond to such person as the court may direct, conditioned that he will faithfully discharge the duties of receiver in the action, and obey the orders of the court therein. 18 . see also, bennett v. williams, 892 f.2d at 824 (<holding>). 19 . the general definition is in cercla § Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 individual defendants may not be held liable for violations under title vii B. holding that a municipality may be held liable as a person under 1983 C. holding that no judgment can be rendered against defendant who cannot be held liable D. holding that bankruptcy trustees shall not be held liable for mistakes within reasonable business judgment E. holding that employer may be held liable under 1981 for discrimination by supervisory employee. Answer:

D. holding that bankruptcy trustees shall not be held liable for mistakes within reasonable business judgment

Consider the following statement: And, in addition, show that a writing is “sufficient against the sender.” we proceed to examine the context of the statute. ors 71.1020 provides in part: “(1) the uniform commercial code shall be liberally-construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies. “(2) underlying purposes and policies of the uniform commercial code are: “(a) to simplify, clarify and modernize the law governing commercial transactions; “(b) to permit the continued expansion of commercial practices through custom, usage and agreement of the parties; “(c) to make uniform the law among the various jurisdictions.” in examining the context of the statute, we also look to the decisions of other jurisdictions that have considered the merchant’s exception. see security bank, 304 or at 445 n 6 (<holding>). the cases cited by the parties, however, do Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal 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 decisions of lower federal courts interpreting federal law are not binding on state courts B. recognizing that decisions of other courts that have examined these questions are relevant C. holding that subject matter questions may be but are not necessarily decided before questions of personal jurisdiction D. holding that questions of procedure are for the arbitrator not the courts E. holding that state courts in construing and interpreting state law are not bound by the decisions of federal courts. Answer:

B. recognizing that decisions of other courts that have examined these questions are relevant

Consider the following statement: Cir.1996) (stating that the “purpose of the thirty-day rule is to ensure that the defendant is not held under an arrest warrant for an excessive period without receiving formal notice of the charge against which he must prepare to defend himself’); united states v. mccown, 711 f.2d 1441, 1447 (9th cir.1983) (noting that purpose of the sta time limit is to “apprise defendant of the charges against which he must be prepared to defend himself”). 6 . see also united states v. hsin-yung, 97 f.supp.2d 24, 30 (d.d.c.2000) (citing bailey with approval and concluding the charged offenses were not the same because “they have different elements, proscribe different forms of conduct, and carry different penalties”). 7 .cf. united states v. cardenas-alvarez, 987 f.2d 1129, 1132-33 (5th cir.1993) (<holding>). it is of no moment that the two indictments Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 found in indictment need not allege all of the elements of entry B. recognizing difference in elements between offense of actual entry and attempted entry C. holding that trial court must make entry of default prior to entry of default judgment and court may not make entry of default when there is no default in law or in fact D. holding that the defendants entry into the foyer of a fraternity house was an entry into a dwelling E. holding in an impliedconsent case that a warrantless police entry was unlawful in part because the police did not request entry. Answer:

B. recognizing difference in elements between offense of actual entry and attempted entry

Consider the following statement: Have held that, under these circumstances, the additional language of jenkins’ proposed instruction “prevents] the jury from considering the forbidden defense of assumption of the risk while allowing it to make factual findings on the issue of comparative negligence.” gish, 890 f.2d at 993; see also koshorek v. pennsylvania r.r. co., 318 f.2d 364, 369 (3rd cir.1963). because there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that jenkins was given a direct order, the district court’s failure to give the proposed instruction was tantamount to reinstating the defense of assumption of risk. the district court’s instruction allowed the jury to treat the employee’s “voluntary, knowledgeable acceptance of a dangerous condition” as contributory negligence. gish, 890 f.2d at 991 (<holding>). c union pacific argues that the district Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that trial court did not err B. holding that the trial court erred by giving a misleading instruction C. recognizing district court does not err by giving instruction that tracks pattern instruction and correctly states the law D. holding that district court did not err in giving an instruction identical to that proposed by jenkins E. holding that district court did not clearly err in giving twolevel enhancement for similar conduct. Answer:

D. holding that district court did not err in giving an instruction identical to that proposed by jenkins

Consider the following statement: Being discharged. see nrdc v. epa 822 f.2d 104,108. (d.c.cir.1987); see also waterkeeper all., 399 f.3d at 498 (discharge allowed “where ... permits ensure that every discharge of pollutants will comply with all applicable effluent limitations and standards”). this permit, known as a national pollutant discharge elimination system (“npdes”> permit, establishes enforceable effluent limitations, as well as monitoring and reporting requirements. npdes permits, which are issued either by epa or a state in a federally approved permitting system, see 33 u.s.c. § 1342, may be individual (issued to a specific entity to discharge y-forcing, meaning it should force agencies and permit applicants to adopt technologies that achieve the great est reductions in pollution. see nrdc, 822 f.2d at 124 (<holding>). in determining the standard for tbels, epa Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 cwa seeks not only to stimulate but to press development of new more efficient and effective technologies which is essential purpose of this series of progressively more demanding technologybased standards B. holding that the standard for withholding of removal is more demanding than the standard for asylum C. holding that more than notice to a defendant is required D. holding that the more transformative the new work the more likely the use of the old work is a fair one E. holding the aedpa standard is demanding but not insatiable. Answer:

A. holding that cwa seeks not only to stimulate but to press development of new more efficient and effective technologies which is essential purpose of this series of progressively more demanding technologybased standards

Consider the following statement: Adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” slack v. mcdaniel, 529 u.s. 473, 484, 120 s.ct. 1595, 146 l.ed.2d 542 (2000) (quotations omitted). because the district court did not rule on whether to grant valencia a coa, we assume it was denied. 10th cir. r. 22.1(c). accordingly, she may not appeal the district court's decision absent a grant of coa by this court. 2 . because the district court did not enter a separate judgment disposing of valencia’s § 2255 petition, judgment is deemed entered 150 days from the entry of the relevant order. fed.r.civ.p. 58(b)(2)(b). thus, the judgment dismissing the first § 2255 petition is deemed entered on september 18, 2006, and valencia’s june 26, 2006 notice of appeal is timely. see thompson v. gibson, 289 f.3d 1218, 1221 (10th cir.2002) Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that a notice of appeal is timely when filed before final judgment is entered by the district court B. holding that a judgment is final only when the parties have exhausted their respective rights to appeal or if no party to the action filed a timely appeal C. holding that court had jurisdiction where no separate judgment had been entered even though notice of appeal was not timely filed as measured from the final decision D. holding that a conviction is deemed final on the date of sentencing when there is no evidence that notice of appeal was filed E. holding that notice of appeal was not effectively taken where appeal was filed simultaneously with timely motion for reconsideration because when timely motion for reconsideration is filed a notice of appeal filed prior to disposition of the motion to reconsider has no effect. Answer:

A. holding that a notice of appeal is timely when filed before final judgment is entered by the district court

Consider the following statement: Assesses the prejudicial impact of most constitutional errors by determining whether they “had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” brecht v. abrahamson, 507 u.s. 619, 623, 113 s.ct. 1710, 123 l.ed.2d 353 (1993) (quoting kotteakos v. united states, 328 u.s. 750, 776, 66 s.ct. 1239, 90 l.ed. 1557 (1946)); see also fry v. pliler, 551 u.s. 112, 127 s.ct. 2321, 168 l.ed.2d 16 (2007) (brecht standard applies whether or not the state court recognized the error and reviewed it for harmlessness). the brecht harmless error analysis also applies to habeas review of a sentencing error. the test is whether such error had a “substantial and injurious effect” on the sentence. calderon v. coleman, 525 u.s. 141, 145-47, 119 s.ct. 500, 142 l.ed.2d 521 (1998) (<holding>); hernandez v. lamarque, 2006 wl 2411441 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 error must have a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict to entitle a petitioner to habeas relief B. holding that a substantial right is affected when the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jurys verdict C. holding that mental health evidence could be mitigating at the penalty phase even though it is insufficient to establish a legal defense to conviction in the guilty phase D. holding that for habeas relief to be granted based on constitutional error in capital penalty phase error must have had substantial and injurious effect on the jurys verdict in the penalty phase E. holding that states improper use of defendants postmiranda silence was error but did not warrant habeas relief unless error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the jurys verdict. Answer:

D. holding that for habeas relief to be granted based on constitutional error in capital penalty phase error must have had substantial and injurious effect on the jurys verdict in the penalty phase

Consider the following statement: In part, reversed in part, and remanded by published opinion. judge niemeyer wrote the opinion, in which judge lee joined. judge king wrote a dissenting opinion. opinion niemeyer, circuit judge: this appeal presents the question of first impression in this circuit whether and to what extent the equal employment opportunity commission (“eeoc”), in prosecuting a suit in its own name, is bound by a private arbitration agreement between the charging party and his employer. other circuits are split on the proper response to this question. compare eeoc v. kidder, peabody & co., 156 f.3d 298 (2d cir.1998) (<holding>), with eeoc v. frank’s nursery & crafts, inc., Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 neither the faa nor principles of preclusion or waiver could operate to bar the eeoc from seeking monetary relief on behalf of aggrieved individuals B. holding that even if indirect purchasers are barred from seeking damages relief they may still obtain injunctive relief C. holding a party seeking mandamus must serve the party against whom relief is sought D. holding that an arbitration agreement between a charging party and an employer precludes the eeoc from seeking purely monetary relief in federal court on behalf of the charging party but not from seeking broad injunctive relief E. holding that a private party may bring an action in a federal district court seeking injunctive relief on the basis of garmon preemption for only arguably protected or prohibited activity. Answer:

D. holding that an arbitration agreement between a charging party and an employer precludes the eeoc from seeking purely monetary relief in federal court on behalf of the charging party but not from seeking broad injunctive relief

Consider the following statement: 2013 wl 98059, at *1 (w.d.ky. jan. 7, 2013) (“based on the overwhelming precedent where federal courts sitting in diversity have applied federal rule of civil procedure 42(b) rather than state law to decide bifurcation issues—many of which appear in the precise context presented in this case—the court cannot agree with the parties’ assertions that kentucky law governs and instead finds rule 42(b) is the standard applicable here.”). federal law on bifurcation for bad faith claims against insurers does not support arrowood’s argument for separate trials. federal courts sometimes bifurcate trials of underlying liability claims and bad faith claims, but only when the liability claims are still unresolved. see, e.g., warren v. federal ins. co., 358 fed.appx. 670, 676 (6th cir.2009) (<holding>). there is no pending contract claim here. 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 it was reasonable for the district court to bifurcate bad faith claim and stay discovery while breach of contract coverage claim was pending B. holding that claim file discovery was premature in a firstparty breach of contract claim C. holding that a bad faith claim is a tort D. holding that an insurance contract between the parties and a breach thereof by the defendant is an element of a bad faith refusal claim E. holding that a party cannot claim damages for breach of contract unless he has shown his full compliance with the contract and is not acting in bad faith. Answer:

A. holding it was reasonable for the district court to bifurcate bad faith claim and stay discovery while breach of contract coverage claim was pending

Consider the following statement: The legal requirements of exclusive dealing. we acknowledge that “partial” exclusive dealing is rarely a valid antitrust theory. see barr labs., 978 f.2d at 110 n. 24 (“an agreement affecting less than all purchases does not amount to true exclusive dealing.”) (citation omitted); concord boat, 207 f.3d at 1044, 1062-63 (noting that the defendant’s discount program, which conditioned incremental discounts on customers purchasing 60-80% of their needs from the defendant, did not constitute exclusive dealing because customers were not required to purchase all of their requirements from the defendant, and in fact, could purchase up to 40% of their requirements from other sellers without foregoing the discounts); magnus petroleum co. v. skelly oil co., 599 f.2d 196, 200-01 (7th cir.1979) (<holding>) (citations omitted). partial exclusive dealing Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 buyer had opportunity to inspect goods and failed to inform seller in timely manner of defects buyer deemed to have accepted goods pursuant to 672606 B. holding that contract requiring buyer to purchase a fixed quantity of goods that amounted to roughly 6080 of its needs was not unlawful because the agreements contained no exclusive dealing clause and did not require the buyer to purchase any amounts of the defendants product that even approached its requirements C. holding an arbitration clause contained in confirmations sent to buyer by seller was part of parties course of dealing and therefore part of the contract after buyer had repeated opportunities to object to the clause and had failed to do so D. holding buyer liable for balance of contract price of accepted goods E. holding that although the language of the contract was permissive when it said the buyer could purchase such quantities of the items listed herein as it might order or schedule and that the buyer shall have the right at any time and from time to time to cancel in whole or in part the deliveries specified and the authorizations contained in any shipping schedule given to the seller we must conclude that the contract taken as a whole is ambiguous and that further investigation as to whether the parties intended a requirements contract is required. Answer:

B. holding that contract requiring buyer to purchase a fixed quantity of goods that amounted to roughly 6080 of its needs was not unlawful because the agreements contained no exclusive dealing clause and did not require the buyer to purchase any amounts of the defendants product that even approached its requirements

Consider the following statement: (1993). in § 2254 proceedings, the federal court must assess the prejudicial impact of a constitutional error in a state-court criminal proceeding under brecht’s more forgiving “substantial and injurious effect” standard, whether or not the state appellate court recognized the error and reviewed it for harmlessness under the “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” standard set forth in chapman v. california, 386 u.s. 18, 24, 87 s.ct. 824,17 l.ed.2d 705 (1967); fry v. pliler, 551 u.s. 112, 127 s.ct. 2321, 2328, 168 l.ed.2d 16 (2007). the brecht harmless error analysis also applies to habeas review of a sentencing error. the test is whether such error had a “substantial and injurious effect” on the sentence. calderon v. coleman, 525 u.s. 141, 145-47, 119 s.ct. 500, 142 l.ed.2d 521 (1998) (<holding>); hernandez v. lamarque, 2006 wl 2411441 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 states improper use of defendants postmiranda silence was error but did not warrant habeas relief unless error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the jurys verdict B. holding that a substantial right is affected when the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jurys verdict C. holding that an error must have a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict to entitle a petitioner to habeas relief D. holding that mental health evidence could be mitigating at the penalty phase even though it is insufficient to establish a legal defense to conviction in the guilty phase E. holding that for habeas relief to be granted based on constitutional error in capital penalty phase error must have had substantial and injurious effect on the jurys verdict in the penalty phase. Answer:

E. holding that for habeas relief to be granted based on constitutional error in capital penalty phase error must have had substantial and injurious effect on the jurys verdict in the penalty phase

Consider the following statement: 1223, 1228 (7th cir.1994) (same); united states v. badalamenti, no. s.s. 84 cr. 236cpnl), 1985 wl 2572, at *10 (s.d.n.y. sept. 19, 1985) (referring to a second indictment that would be returned after dismissal of a first indictment because of section 2517(5) violations, the same situation as in this case, as a “superseding” indictment). therefore, the court holds that the second indictment in this case can properly be referred to as a “superseding” indictment. the superseding-versus-new-indictment issue might have been an interesting and relevant debate if the speedy trial act or the statute of limitations were the focus of defendants’ appeals from the detention order, because those are the only situations in which it matters whether an indictment is a superseding indictme (d.c.1979) (<holding>); united states v. thoresen, 428 f.2d 654, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 application of the doctrine of law of the case is discretionary and that a district court abuses its discretion in applying the law of the case doctrine only if 1 the first decision was clearly erroneous 2 an intervening change in the law occurred 3 the evidence on remand was substantially different 4 other changed circumstances exist or 5 a manifest injustice would otherwise result B. holding that the law of the case doctrine posits that when a court decides upon a rule of law that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case C. holding that the application of the fair use doctrine at the pleading stage is appropriate D. holding that for all intents and purposes the instant case is the same action that was brought previously we therefore find the application of the doctrine of the law of the case to be appropriate E. holding that the degree of the loss of use of a body part is a question of fact whether the loss is for all practical intents and purposes is a question of law. Answer:

D. holding that for all intents and purposes the instant case is the same action that was brought previously we therefore find the application of the doctrine of the law of the case to be appropriate

Consider the following statement: Be obtained’ and the ‘obligations imposed’ reveal a purpose to preclude state authority.... even when congress has not chosen to occupy a particular field, pre-emption may occur to the extent that state and federal law actually conflict. such a conflict arises when ‘compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility/florida lime & avocado growers, inc. v. paul, 373 u.s. 132, 142-143, 83 s.ct. 1210, 1217, 10 l.ed.2d 248 (1963), or when a state law ‘stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of congress/hines v. davidowitz, 312 u.s. 52, 61 s.ct. 399, 85 l.ed. 581 (1941). — u.s. at -, 111 s.ct. at 2481-82 (citations omitted). accord hatfield v. burlington northern r. co., 958 f.2d 320, 321 n. 1 (10th cir.1992) (<holding>). we believe that release of the government’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 where evidence shows that federal funds were expended for installation for warning devices or signs at railroad crossing state law claims based on adequacy of those warning devices are preempted by the federal railroad safety act B. holding that manual on uniform traffic control devices mutcd standards were admissible C. holding adoption by secretary of transportation of manual on uniform traffic control devices issued under federal railroad safety act preempted state common law standards of care for grade crossings D. holding that the government is immune from liability for its choice of traffic protection devices E. holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law. Answer:

C. holding adoption by secretary of transportation of manual on uniform traffic control devices issued under federal railroad safety act preempted state common law standards of care for grade crossings

Consider the following statement: Stop” and “not an effort to obtain an arrest for failure to identify after a terry stop yielded insufficient evidence.” hiibel, 542 u.s. at 189, 124 s.ct. 2451. but the request for mocek’s identification was a “commonsense inquiry” meant to gather basic information about a suspect, which has “an immediate relation to the purpose, rationale, and practical demands of a terry stop.” id. mocek’s refusal to cooperate interfered with these efforts to investigate possible disorderly conduct. second, mocek argues the arrest was a mere pretext for seizing his camera and destroying his recordings of the security checkpoint. he cites our holding that police cannot use an administrative search as an excuse to enter a building to seize suspected contraband. see winters v. b ly motivated by hi 4) (<holding>); abrams v. walker, 307 f.3d 650, 654 (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. recognizing that general rule applies only to statutes that implicate no constitutionally protected conduct emphasis added B. holding that the law of michigan rather than the forum applied to manufacturers claim of attorneyclient privilege in a products liability suit because the communication took place in michigan and therefore michigan had most significant relationship to communication C. holding for purposes of a retaliation claim because michigan has not passed an applicable time place or manner restriction dean had a constitutionally protected right to engage in peaceful targeted picketing in front of byerleys residence emphasis added D. holding floridas stalking statute which contained the language constitutionally protected activity is not included in the course of conduct definition and constitutional protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests was not impermissibly vague E. holding for purposes of a retaliation claim restricting disruptive behavior constitutes the type of time place and manner regulation that survives even the most stringent scrutiny for a public forum. Answer:

C. holding for purposes of a retaliation claim because michigan has not passed an applicable time place or manner restriction dean had a constitutionally protected right to engage in peaceful targeted picketing in front of byerleys residence emphasis added

Consider the following statement: In issue here is the air bladder, and only the air bladder. (big-man deck, ex. 8 at 105.) plaintiff has, however, admitted that its “air bladder concept and design” (the trade secret) were disclosed in the ’099 patent, which issued on september 9, 1986. (first am.compl. ¶ 10.) additionally, this court has previously determined that “the information disclosed to reebok in may of 1986 was contained in the [’099 patent].” (order of dec. 6, 1993.) thus, as plaintiffs trade secret was extinguished in september 1986 with the issuance of the ’099 patent, reebok'couíd only be liable on plaintiffs trade secret claims for products incorporating the trade secret that were sold by defendant prior to the issuance date of the patent. see timely prods. corp. v. arron, 523 f.2d 288, 304 (2d cir.1975) (<holding>); trenton indus. v. a.e. peterson mfg. co., 165 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 cause of action accrued on the date of sale B. holding that a plaintiff could recover actual damages under the tcpa for loss of credit if the plaintiff submitted sufficient proof of the amount damages requested C. holding that if the breach of an entire contract is only partial the plaintiff can recover only such damages as he or she has sustained leaving prospective damages to a later suit in the event of further breaches D. holding that plaintiff could recover royalties only for products manufactured by defendant after disclosure of secret but before issuance of patent E. holding that plaintiff could recover only damages sustained as a result of the sale of the accused product by defendant prior to the issuance date. Answer:

E. holding that plaintiff could recover only damages sustained as a result of the sale of the accused product by defendant prior to the issuance date

Consider the following statement: No matter how meager or unlikely. manuel v. state, 667 so.2d 590, 593 (miss.1995). a lesser-included-offense instruction should be granted where there is an evidentiary basis in the record for it. lee v. state, 469 so.2d 1225, 1230 (miss.1985). “[t]he evidence in a particular case generally warrants granting a lesser offense instruction if a ‘rational’ or a ‘reasonable’ jury could find the defendant not guilty of the principal offense charged in the indictment yet guilty of the lesser included offense.” monroe v. state, 515 so.2d 860, 863 (miss.1987). common sense dictates that if someone resists too strongly it becomes an assault, and therefore, resisting arrest is clearly a lesser-included-offense of simple assault on an officer. murrell v. state, 655 so.2d 881, 886 (miss.1995) (<holding>). ¶ 5. officer gray testified that there was 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 force exerted against an officer after an arrest is complete cannot be used as the basis for prosecuting one for resisting arrest B. holding that resisting arrest is lesser offense of assault on an officer C. holding that merger did not apply because sexual assault was not a lesser included offense of seconddegree kidnapping involving sexual assault D. holding avoiding arrest is not the same as resisting arrest E. holding simple assault is a lesser included offense of recklessly endangering another person. Answer:

B. holding that resisting arrest is lesser offense of assault on an officer

Consider the following statement: To one holding a superior position or office.” that relationship typically involves “subjection, guidance, or control.” in addition, precedent and statutory purpose make clear that the private person’s “acting under” must involve an effort to assist, or to help carry out, the duties or tasks of the federal superior. watson v. philip morris companies, inc., 551 u.s. 142, 151-52, 127 s.ct. 2301, 168 l.ed.2d 42 (2007) (internal citations omit ted). “the words ‘acting under’ are broad,” and the supreme court “has made clear that the statute must be ‘liberally construed.’” id. at 147, 127 s.ct. 2301. in jacks v. meridian resource co., llc, 701 f.3d 1224 (8th cir.2012), an insurance carrier administering a service benefit plan under fehba brought a sub , 629 f.supp.2d 905 (e.d.ark.2007) (<holding>). the federal employees health benefits act 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 a health plan insurer contracting with a government agency under a federal benefits program is considered a person acting under a federal officer B. holding that the federal officer removal statute is not narrow or limited C. holding that health insurer contracted with fehba was not acting under a federal agency within the meaning of the federal officer removal statute D. holding that an alcoholic beverage control officer was a public officer within the meaning of the statute E. holding that a federal drug informant acting under the partial direction of the fbi and for pay was not a federal employee under the ftca. Answer:

C. holding that health insurer contracted with fehba was not acting under a federal agency within the meaning of the federal officer removal statute

Consider the following statement: Custody of his mother when she was naturalized, the legal custody condition would be met if he could show that his parents were legally separated at that time. the critical question, therefore, is whether, at the time of his mother’s naturalization, “there ha[d] been a legal separation of the parents.” ina § 321(a)(3). the meaning of the term “legal separation” as contained in former ina § 321(a)(3) is a question of federal statutory interpretation. see brissett v. ashcroft, 363 f.3d 130, 133 (2d cir.2004); wedderburn v. ins, 215 f.3d 795, 799 (7th cir.2000). yet, the ina does not define the term and the only case from our circuit to discuss it merely holds that a legal separation must be preceded by a legal marriage. see barthelemy v. ashcroft, 329 f.3d 1062, 1065 (9th cir.2003) (<holding>); see also wedderburn, 215 f.3d at 797, 799-800 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 petitioner did not enjoy derivative citizenship under the first clause of 321a3 because his natural parents never married and thus could not legally separate emphasis in original B. holding that a childs interest supercedes that of its natural parents C. holding the foster parents responsible for support where the childs natural parents are unknown and noting that an earlier new york case held that an agreement to adopt did not terminate the natural parents duty of support but that in that earlier case the natural parent was alive and capable of providing for the child D. holding evidence legally sufficient E. holding that once a state posits a judicially enforceable right on behalf of children to needed support from their natural fathers there is no constitutionally sufficient justification for denying such an essential right to a child simply because its natural father has not married his mother. Answer:

A. holding that a petitioner did not enjoy derivative citizenship under the first clause of 321a3 because his natural parents never married and thus could not legally separate emphasis in original

Consider the following statement: An interpreter when, other than having some syntactical errors, his testimony was “very responsive” and “indicative of [his] ability to speak and understand english.”). additionally, and as noted by the trial court in its denial of nur’s motion for a new trial, neither nur nor his attorney ever requested an interpreter; nur communicated with the court in english, both orally and in writing; and the evidence at trial showed that nur communicated with native english speakers in english when orchestrating the crime. thus, based on the record, we cannot say that the court had notice that nur had a significant language difficulty. as such, the court’s failure to appoint an interpreter on its own motion was not fundamental error. see, e.g., martinez v. state, 451 n.e.2d 39, 41 (ind.1983) (<holding>). we therefore affirm the trial court’s denial Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that the trial court was under no obligation to appoint an interpreter where defendant did not request one and spoke english reasonably well B. holding that it was not error for a trial court to have failed to provide sua sponte a competent interpreter where counsel did not request one prior to trial and defendant spoke and understood english well enough to conversantly discuss the crime with a police officer and had no trouble answering questions at the sentencing hearing C. holding that trial court need not appoint an interpreter where counsel indicated that he could communicate with defendant and that defendant could understand questions and answers D. holding that once counsel was appointed defendant spoke to the court through counsel and thus the court was not required to respond to defendants request for a speedy trial E. holding that where alien was in custody spoke only spanish had limited education and was unfamiliar with this country and its legal procedures in light of his failure to obtain counsel despite his efforts the immigration judge sua sponte if necessary should have continued the hearing so as to provide the petitioner a reasonable time to locate counsel and permit counsel to prepare for the hearing. Answer:

B. holding that it was not error for a trial court to have failed to provide sua sponte a competent interpreter where counsel did not request one prior to trial and defendant spoke and understood english well enough to conversantly discuss the crime with a police officer and had no trouble answering questions at the sentencing hearing

Consider the following statement: For the confidential informant to exit his vehicle and say “hi,” peery drove his vehicle to the corner of the parking lot where he parked and took no further action until, coincidentally, the confidential informant had completed his drug deal with dustin and the police moved in for the drug bust, at which point peery attempted to exit the parking lot. courts have considered similar conduct to be suggestive of counter-surveillance by a participant in a drug transaction. see united states v. diaz-lizaraza, 981 f.2d 1216, 1221 (11th cir.1993) (officer’s belief that person was engaged in counter-surveillance was reasonable when record showed that the defendant showed up with the suspect and drove back and forth in front of store while the suspect purchased drugs); ocampo, 937 f.2d at 490 (<holding>); united states v. green, 52 f.3d 194, 198-99 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that the court of appeals erred in declining to consider whether the arrest was illegal and whether the consent was tainted by the potentially illegal police activity B. holding that firing authority is indicative of employer status C. holding that countersurveillance driving is a fact indicative of illegal activity D. holding that money seized from a bank account must be traceable to illegal activity in order to be subject to forfeiture even if account previously contained proceeds of illegal activity E. holding that unprovoked flight is not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing but it is certainly suggestive of such. Answer:

C. holding that countersurveillance driving is a fact indicative of illegal activity

Consider the following statement: See id. at 281, 117 s:ct, 2028 ("we do not think treasure salvors ... is helpful to the tribe because the state officials there were acting beyond the authority conferred upon them by the state, a theory the tribe does not even attempt to pursue in the case before us.” (internal citation omitted)). 11 . because the court in inyo county determined the tribe sought to assert sovereign rights, the court did not definitively resolve whether a sovereign could sue under § 1983 to vindicate personal, non-sovereign rights. inyo county, 538 u.s. at 710-12, 123 s.ct. 1887. subsequently, certain of our sister circuits appear to have provided different answers to that question, albeit in differing contexts. compare va. office for prot. & advocacy v. reinhard, 405 f.3d 185, 190 (4th cir.2005) (<holding>), with keweenaw bay indian cmty. v. rising, 569 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that the state police is a state agency B. holding that an action naming a state entity as a defendant did not constitute an action against the state because the state entity was sued in its capacity as receiver C. holding that the university of colorado is an arm of the state for purposes of sovereign immunity D. holding state university is not a person under 1983 E. holding a state agency as an arm of the state cannot constitute a person under 1983 because it is a sovereign entity. Answer:

E. holding a state agency as an arm of the state cannot constitute a person under 1983 because it is a sovereign entity

Consider the following statement: That: notwithstanding any other provision of law ... no term of imprisonment imposed on a person under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed on the person, including any term of imprisonment imposed for the crime of violence or drug trafficking crime during which the firearm was used, carried, or possessed. id. § 924(c)(l)(d)(ii). these consecutive terms are imposed separately from, and in addition to, the enhanced penalty for use of a weapon already provided by the bank robbery statute itself. see 18 § u.s.c. 2118(d) (raising maximum penalty from 20 to 25 years if the offender “puts in jeopardy the life of any person by the use of a dangerous weapon or device”); united states v. segarra, 582 f.3d 1269, 1272-73 (11th cir.2009) (per curiam) (<holding>). a defendant may be convicted of multiple § Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 924es consecutive sentences apply even when the underlying crimes carry their own mandatory minimums B. holding apprendi does not apply to consecutive sentencing C. holding that consecutive sentences were warranted because of the multiple separate and distinct criminal acts D. holding that mandatory minimums do not implicate apprendi E. holding that the federal constitutional right to a jury trial does not apply to decisions to impose consecutive sentences. Answer:

A. holding that 924es consecutive sentences apply even when the underlying crimes carry their own mandatory minimums

Consider the following statement: Is binding upon the united states. c. authority to bind the united states even if the court were to assume arguen-do that kozak has demonstrated the existence of a cooperation agreement between her and iowa authorities, kozak must also demonstrate that the state cooperation agreement is binding on the united states. federal circuit courts of appeal have held that agreements made by state agents cannot be enforced against the united states because state agents are without authority to bind federal proceedings. hendrix v. norris, 81 f.3d 805, 807 (8th cir.1996) (“ ‘[s]tate prosecutors cannot bind federal prosecutors without the latter’s knowledge and consent.’ ”) (quoting united states v. fuzer, 18 f.3d 517, 520 (7th cir.1994)); united states v. sparks, 87 f.3d 276, 279 (9th cir.1996) (<holding>); united states v. cordova-perez, 65 f.3d 1552, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 prosecutors have absolute immunity B. holding that prosecutors statements were not evidence and could not support restitution order C. holding that state prosecutors agreements with defendant not binding on federal prosecutors D. holding that prosecutors reference to cooperation agreements with government witnesses was not plain error E. holding that the prosecutors question to the defendant about a prior unrelated offense was improper. Answer:

C. holding that state prosecutors agreements with defendant not binding on federal prosecutors

Consider the following statement: Require a showing of actual harm when a plaintiff sues for willful violations.” robins v. spokeo, inc., 742 f.3d 409, 412 (9th cir.2014). the court reasoned that when, as with the fcra, “the statutory cause of action does not require proof of actual damages, a plaintiff can suffer a violation of the statutory right without suffering actual damages.” id. at 413; see also 15 u.s.c. § 1681n(a)(1)(a) (“any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed [under the fcra] with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of — any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1000.” (emphasis added); bateman v. am. multi-cinema, inc., 623 f.3d 708, 719 (9th cir.2010) (<holding>); montgomery v. wells fargo bank, c12-3895 teh, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 irrespective of whether bateman and all the potential class members can demonstrate actual harm resulting from a willful violation of the fail and accurate credit transactions act they are entitled to statutory damages B. holding that rule 23b2 calls for injunction as to all class members or to none of them and does not authorize class certification when each class member would be entitled to an individualized award of monetary damages C. holding that a plaintiff can seek statutory damages even in the absence of actual damages D. holding that fdcpa statutory damages did not predominate over the requested equitable relief because given the defendants net worth and the number of class members each class member would be entitled to receive only 025 in statutory damages E. holding that class certification is not appropriate because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the calculation of individualized actual economic damages if any suffered by the class members can be performed in accordance with the predominance requirement of rule 23b3. Answer:

A. holding that irrespective of whether bateman and all the potential class members can demonstrate actual harm resulting from a willful violation of the fail and accurate credit transactions act they are entitled to statutory damages

Consider the following statement: Such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” internatl. shoe co. v. washington (1945), 326 u.s. 310, 316, 66 s.ct. 154, 158, 90 l.ed. 95, 102. the phrase “transacting any business” (r.c. 2307.382[a][2]) has been interpreted very broadly by ohio courts. schneider v. gunnerman (aug. 24, 1998), fayette app. nos. ca97-07-017, ca97-12-034, unreported, 1998 wl 526541. defendants argue that there was no significant business transacted in ohio. they note that the closing occurred in kenton county, kentucky, for assets located in kenton county, kentucky, of a business incorporated in kentucky. however, plaintiffs argue that they were contacted by defendants at their residence in clermont county, hio app.3d 696, 591 n.e.2d 1336 (<holding>). in our case, the contacts between defendants Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 texas court had personal jurisdiction over a kansas resident who after objecting to the texas courts jurisdiction filed a motion for attorneys fees B. holding negotiating over the telephone with an ohio resident and mailing a contract to ohio to be accepted were sufficient to grant ohio courts jurisdiction C. holding that outofstate defendants who furnished intangibles and services in west virginia and ohio and entered into agreement in which a florida corporation served as financier and supervisor of enterprises business aspects did not submit themselves to florida jurisdiction D. holding the defendant employee subject to personal jurisdiction in ohio based on his businessrelated travels to ohio in an action for breach of a noncompetition agreement E. holding nonresident defendant did not submit to general jurisdiction of texas courts merely by executing contract with resident. Answer:

B. holding negotiating over the telephone with an ohio resident and mailing a contract to ohio to be accepted were sufficient to grant ohio courts jurisdiction

Consider the following statement: Dissenting. i respectfully dissent from the majority’s reversal of carter’s attempted murder conviction. while i agree that the instruction at issue here was erroneous and that carter’s appellate counsel was deficient for failing to raise the issue on direct appeal, i conclude that carter has failed to demonstrate prejudice. as a result, i would affirm the post-conviction courts denial of carter’s petition for post-conviction relief. if deficient performance by appellate counsel is found, we turn to the prejudice prong to determine whether the issues appellate counsel failed to raise would have been clearly more likely to result in reversal or an order for a new trial. ritchie v. state, 875 n.e.2d 706, 724 (ind.2007), reh’g denied; overstreet v. state, 877 n.e.2d 144, 165 (ind.2007) (<holding>), reh’g denied, cert. denied, — u.s.-, 129 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 to succeed on an ineffective assistance claim a defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsels unprofessional errors the result of the proceeding would have been different B. holding that in order to show prejudice defendant must demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsels unprofessional errors the result of the proceeding would have been different C. holding that to show prejudice in a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel the petitioner must show a reasonable probability that but for counsels errors the result of the proceeding would have been different D. holding that to establish prejudice sufficient to warrant finding of ineffective assistance the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsels unprofessional errors the result of the proceeding would have been different E. holding that to establish prejudice there must be a reasonable probability that but for counsels unprofessional errors the result of the proceeding would have been different. Answer:

C. holding that to show prejudice in a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel the petitioner must show a reasonable probability that but for counsels errors the result of the proceeding would have been different

Consider the following statement: The parties supplement their briefs following the court's decision in that case. 3 scull argues that the state forfeited its right to argue that the good-faith exception applies because it did not raise the issue before the circuit court. we disagree. first, we may affirm a circuit court's decision on any grounds. see state v. milashoski, 159 wis. 2d 99, 108-09, 464 n.w.2d 21 (ct. app. 1990). second, the good-faith exception never came up before the circuit court because the circuit court ruled on the issue prior to the united states supreme court's decision in jardines and concluded that the dog sniff was not a search. therefore, the circuit court did not need to explore the contours of the exclusionary rule in this case. 4 see united states v. brock, 417 f.3d 692, 696 (7th cir. 2005) (<holding>); united states v. roby, 122 f.3d 1120, 1125 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 drug sniff outside defendants locked bedroom door was not a fourth amendment search because it detected only the presence of contraband and did not provide any information about lawful activity over which the defen dant had a legitimate expectation of privacy B. holding that a dog sniff during a legitimate traffic stop does not constitute a search because there is no expectation of privacy in contraband and a dog sniff does not violate any privacy interest C. holding that a dog sniff of the area outside the door of a hotel room is not a search under the fourth amendment or the texas constitution because the dogs sniff does not explore the details of the hotel room and the sniff reveals nothing about the room other than the presence of cocaine in which there is no legitimate privacy interest D. holding a dog sniff outside the defendants front door was not a fourth amendment search E. holding that a drug sniff outside the front door of the defendants residence was not a fourth amendment search because the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy at the entrance to property that is open to the public including the front porch. Answer:

A. holding that a drug sniff outside defendants locked bedroom door was not a fourth amendment search because it detected only the presence of contraband and did not provide any information about lawful activity over which the defen dant had a legitimate expectation of privacy

Consider the following statement: End of the spectrum, in that scott brooks was an indirect cause of these injuries, but we cannot conclude that scott brooks is outside the scope of ussg § 5k2.1 or ussg § 5k2.2. unintended consequences are often the result of reckless behavior, and while perhaps scott brooks could not have anticipated the particular sequence of events, scott brooks should have foreseen the possibility of serious physical harm to another as a result of his actions. we see no basis for foreclosing a departure under ussg § 5k2.1 or ussg § 5k2.2 when a defendant helps put into motion a chain of events that risks serious injury or death, even when an intent to harm is entirely absent and the defendant was not directly responsible for the death. cf. united states v. diaz, 285 f.3d 92, 100-01 (1st cir.2002) (<holding>); united states v. fortier, 242 f.3d 1224, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding it error to give selfdefense instruction requiring that defendant believe his actions were necessary to avert death or great bodily harm when defendant claimed that the victims death was accidental B. holding a reasonable recipient would have perceived the letter as a serious expression of an intent to harm C. holding that in a 18 usc 922g1 prosecution ussg 5k21 upward departure was warranted because the defendant should have foreseen the possibility of serious harm as a result of his actions even though the defendant harbored no intent to harm and was not directly responsible for the death D. holding that a death sentence for a conviction for the rape of a child where the crime did not result and was not intended to result in death of the victim was barred by the eighth amendment E. holding that defendant was responsible for the delay from the withdrawal of his guilty plea. Answer:

C. holding that in a 18 usc 922g1 prosecution ussg 5k21 upward departure was warranted because the defendant should have foreseen the possibility of serious harm as a result of his actions even though the defendant harbored no intent to harm and was not directly responsible for the death

Consider the following statement: Requirements. further, upon review of the record, we find no objection by appellant to the trial court’s response to the jury question. appellant stated that he was satisfied with the judge’s instruction. see n.t., 9/22/99, at 131-32. under pa. r.a.p. 302(a), “[i]ssues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” see also commonwealth v. edmondson, 553 pa. 160, 718 a.2d 751, 753 (1998); commonwealth v. dennis, 548 pa. 116, 695 a.2d 409, 411 (1997) (“[i]f appellate courts were to consider issues not raised in the trial court, then the trial would become a dress rehearsal ....”) (citing dilliplaine v. lehigh valley trust company, 457 pa. 255, 322 a.2d 114, 116 (1974)); commonwealth v. jones, 248 pa.super. 214, 375 a.2d 63, 65-66 (1977) (<holding>). because appellant did not preserve the issue Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 failure to object to a trial courts instruction constitutes waiver B. holding that plaintiffs failure to object to the improper comments of defendant during closing arguments resulted in waiver of plaintiffs right to argue the issue on appeal because the trial court was not given an opportunity to rule on the issue C. holding that the failure to object to an instruction constitutes a waiver of error D. holding that failure to object to trial courts refusal of further instruction to jury during deliberation results in waiver of issue on appeal E. holding failure to object in timely fashion at trial results in waiver of issue for appeal. Answer:

D. holding that failure to object to trial courts refusal of further instruction to jury during deliberation results in waiver of issue on appeal

Consider the following statement: Co., 32 va. cir. 497, 502-03 (henrico 1981). in any event, dryvit was sued at the same time as rml and had the same notice of the original homeowner suit. defendants state that the only notice received regarding the warranty claims was from the service of the third-party motion for judgment and rml’s cross-claim against dryvit and argue that this does not constitute adequate notice within the parameters of virginia code § 8.2-607(3)(a). it is true that some courts have found that service of process is insufficient notice of a breach of warranty claim. see, e.g., armco steel corp. v. isaacson structural steel co., 611 p.2d 507, 513 (ala. 1980) (filing of a third-party complaint by defendant one year into the litigation); lynx, inc. v. ordnance prods., inc., 327 a.2d 502, 514 (md. 1974) (<holding>); voboril v. namco leisure world, inc., 24 ucc Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal 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 private right of action B. holding that right to payment does not accrue until condition precedent has been fulfilled C. holding that once the workers compensation act provides a remedy it is exclusive and the employee has no right to bring an action in commonlaw negligence against his employer D. holding that if no notice was given prior to the institution of an action a condition precedent to the right to bring the action does not exist and the buyerplaintiff has lost the right of his remedy E. holding that no right of action is given to the estate of the victim of a tort but is granted only to his heirs if there are no heirs no right of action vests in anybody. Answer:

D. holding that if no notice was given prior to the institution of an action a condition precedent to the right to bring the action does not exist and the buyerplaintiff has lost the right of his remedy

Consider the following statement: Susceptible to the interpretation that they do”). however, it was appropriate for the court to look to the 1994 will as an aid to determining whether the 2007 will was affected by undue influence. see griffith, 50 md. at 482 (explaining that a testator’s "declarations in regard to her testamentary intentions ... before the execution of the will and codicil, and before any improper influences are supposed to have operated upon her, are admissible ... either to rebut the charges of fraud and undue influence, by showing that the will is consistent with the long cherished wishes of a testator, or [to show] that it is contrary to well settled convictions of what he thought was a just and proper disposition of his property”); estate of gill, 111 cal.app.2d 486, 244 p.2d 724, 726 (1952) (<holding>). 13 . the 1994 will did name amani as trustee Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 presumption that respondent exercised undue influence by preparing will that left all of the decedents property to him was amply rebutted by evidence that decedent had made an earlier will ineffective because not witnessed leaving all her property to him and had written him a letter stating that she was leaving all her property to him B. holding that the plaintiffs evidence that his back injury precluded him from performing at least 50 of the jobs previously available to him was enough to classify him as disabled under the ada C. holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion to substitute counsel on the strength of gonzalezs sworn responses at the pleataking that no one was threatening him or forcing him to plead where the defendant alleged that his attorney forced him to plead guilty and threatened him if he did not take the plea D. holding that defendant had the right to refuse to answer questions put to him by police officer who had called him E. holding that the trial judge must comply with rule 3172c8 and advise all defendants in all cases that the plea may subject him or her to deportation . Answer:

A. holding that presumption that respondent exercised undue influence by preparing will that left all of the decedents property to him was amply rebutted by evidence that decedent had made an earlier will ineffective because not witnessed leaving all her property to him and had written him a letter stating that she was leaving all her property to him

Consider the following statement: By the plaintiffs in their complaints — harmful effects on the quality and quantity of east texas’ water supply— “are among the sorts of interests” that nepa was specifically designed to protect. lujan, 110 s.ct. at 3187. these alleged injuries fall squarely within the class of injuries that nepa safeguards: the circuit courts, to be sure, are flooded with cases which elucidate that water quality and water supply are prototypically matters of great environmental concern. e.g., olmsted citizens for a better community, 793 f.2d 201, 205 (8th cir.1986) (a federal action which “poses a threat to the physical resources of the area because of anticipated ... water supply problems” must be preceded by an eis); environmental defense fund, inc. v. andrus, 596 f.2d 848, 851-53 (9th cir.1979) (<holding>); city of davis v. coleman, 521 f.2d 661, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding after consideration of a single significance factor that an eis was required B. holding that an attorney is required to advise a defendant of the direct consequences of a plea and will not be found ineffective for failing to advise of collateral consequences of the plea C. holding that an eis was required to evaluate the environmental consequences of the decision to divert water to industrial use D. holding that an agencys decision not to prepare an eis was unreasonable because record demonstrated that four of the regulatory factors were implicated E. holding that an ea prepared by an agency in that case was not the functional equivalent of an eis. Answer:

C. holding that an eis was required to evaluate the environmental consequences of the decision to divert water to industrial use

Consider the following statement: Or in a state of flux, “this court has not hesitated to render its independent judgment as a matter of distinct and enforceable pennsylvania constitutional law.” pap’s am. v. city of erie, 571 pa. 375, 812 a.2d 591, 607 (2002) (addressing freedom of expression) (citing commonwealth v. smith, 532 pa. 177, 615 a.2d 321, 325 (1992) (extending double jeopardy protection under pennsylvania constitution) and ins. adjustment bureau v. ins. comm’r, 518 pa. 210, 542 a.2d 1317, 1324 (1988) (addressing commercial speech)). similarly, we have recognized that decisions based on pennsylvania’s declaration of rights “ensure[s] future consistency in state constitutional interpretation, since federal law is always subject to change.” commonwealth v. lewis, 528 pa. 440, 598 a.2d 975, 979 n. 8 (1991) (<holding>). when considering the rights provided by 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 state prosecutor violated fifth amendment by telling jury that a defendants failure to testify supports an unfavorable inference against him B. holding that a single ballot question encompassing amendments to both article i section 9 and article v section 10c violated the separatevote requirement C. holding that defendants rights under article i section 9 were violated by the failure to provide a noadverse inference instruction D. recognizing that rights under article i section 11 are subject to reasonable limitations E. holding that a defendants fifth amendment rights were violated when an interpreter was withdrawn by the court. Answer:

C. holding that defendants rights under article i section 9 were violated by the failure to provide a noadverse inference instruction

Consider the following statement: The use must be necessary to the use of the dominant estate); koonce v. j.e. brite estate, 663 s.w.2d 451, 452 (tex.1984) (stating one of the required elements to establish an easement by necessity is that “access must be a necessity and not a mere convenience”). because necessity is the common, and dispositive element for the purpose of this appeal, we further narrow our review to whether the saenzes carried their burden of showing there are no genuine issues of material fact on the element of necessity, and we do not consider whether they met their burden on the remaining elements of their theories of recovery. there is no dispute the saenzes must cross property owned by another in order to access their acreage. “[a]n easement by necessity is not defeated n antonio 1996, writ denied) (<holding>). in their motion for summary judgment, 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 same as to an implied easement appurtenant B. holding that one who possesses deeded easement need not use the easement to maintain his title and easement cannot be extinguished from nonuser alone C. holding same as to an easement by implication D. recognizing that an easement may entitle the easement owner to do acts which were not for the easement would constitute a nuisance E. holding that an easement agreement and an unrecorded easement plan created an easement. Answer:

C. holding same as to an easement by implication

Consider the following statement: As applicable, to the present case. 1. purchaser of assets as an initial matter, there is no explicit requirement in the substantial continuity test for successor liability that an entity must be a “purchaser of assets” to be a successor. however, the court recognizes that whether a transfer of assets occurred may be relevant to the find ing of substantial continuity when balancing the equities in a particular case or legal context. see whitmore v. o’connor mgmt., inc., 156 f.3d 796, 799 (8th cir.1998) (“[t]here are many difficulties with [plaintiffs] legal argument, not the least of which is the fact that there was no sale of a business creating a predecessor-successor relation between the two corporations”). erisa appears to be such a legal context. see einhorn, 632 f.3d at 99 (<holding>); see also cobb, 452 f.3d at 556 (“title vii Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 seller carried insurance for benefit of buyer and held proceeds in trust for buyer when seller agreed to maintain insurance until possession date but bam burned before buyer took possession B. holding that broker who represents seller cannot represent buyer in purchase of property from seller without sellers knowledge and consent C. holding that a purchaser of assets may be liable for a sellers delinquent erisa fund contributions to vindicate important federal statutory policy where the buyer had notice of the liability prior to the sale and there exists sufficient evidence of continuity of operations between the buyer and seller emphasis added D. holding that a seller could enforce an arbitration provision against a buyer even though only the buyer had signed the provision E. holding that auctioneer who handled sale of car between seller and buyer could not be held liable for allegedly defective condition of car. Answer:

C. holding that a purchaser of assets may be liable for a sellers delinquent erisa fund contributions to vindicate important federal statutory policy where the buyer had notice of the liability prior to the sale and there exists sufficient evidence of continuity of operations between the buyer and seller emphasis added

Consider the following statement: Bank of am. nat’l trust & sav. ass’n v. hotel rittenhouse assocs., 800 f.2d 339, 345 (3d cir.1986). second, the fact that the defendants are all governmental entities is compelling as well. the public’s interest in accessing a settlement forming part of the public record is strong enough as it is, but it becomes even more so when the government is a party to that agreement. in such cases, the right of access plays an important role in giving the public oversight of the government’s actions, an interest long recognized by the courts. see, e.g., nixon, 435 u.s. at 597-598, 98 s.ct. 1306 (noting that the right of access is especially important when sought to keep a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies); see also state ex rel. colescott v. king, 154 ind. 621, 57 n.e. 535 (1900) (<holding>); ferry v. williams, 1879 wl 7013, 41 n.j.l. Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 county had no standing to sue the state to recover taxes illegally obtained from citizens unless the money belongs to the county B. holding that plaintiffs claim for conversion of funds was barred by statute of limitations because the conversion occurred when robert white exercised unlawful dominion over the funds in other words when robert white withdrew the funds from the annuities without plaintiffs permission C. holding that plaintiff could state a claim for conversion of confidential information D. holding citizens lacked standing to challenge statute when all citizens affected in the same way E. holding that a group of concerned citizens could have ac cess to files relating to county officials possible conversion of funds. Answer:

E. holding that a group of concerned citizens could have ac cess to files relating to county officials possible conversion of funds

Consider the following statement: Agent for service of process is one of agency law with particular emphasis on the nature of the relationship and the degree of control exercised. in cannon manufacturing co. v. cudahy packing co., 267 u.s. 333, 45 s.ct. 250, 69 l.ed. 634 (1925), the united states supreme court held that a parent-subsidiary relationship, by itself, is not sufficient to justify severance of the subsidiary as an agent for the parent corporation. although in cannon service of process was made on the subsidiary as agent for the parent, rather than on the parent as in the present case, this factual distinction does not affect the supreme court’s reasoning concerning when one corporation becomes the other corporation’s agent for severance. see akari imeji co. v. qume corp., 748 f.supp. 588, 591 (n.d.ill.1990) (<holding>); geick v. american honda motor co., 117 f.r.d. Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 parent must exercise some control over the subsidiarys activities which does not require that the subsidiary be controlled to an ultimate degree by its parent although something more than mere passive investment by the parent is required the parent must have and exercise control and direction over the affairs of its subsidiary in order for venue to be proper B. holding that to establish that subsidiary is agent of parent for jurisdictional purposes the parent must exert control that is so pervasive and continual that the subsidiary may be considered an agent or instrumentality of the parent notwithstanding the maintenance of corporate formalities C. holding there is no precise test for defining how much control a foreign parent corporation must wield over its domestic subsidiary before the subsidiary will be deemed its agent for the purposes of service D. recognizing separate corporate identity of parent despite evidence that parent was alterego of its subsidiary and was being sued for acts of its subsidiary E. holding that control person liability adequately alleged because as the sole shareholder of the subsidiary the parent corporation had the potential power to influence and direct the activities of its subsidiary. Answer:

C. holding there is no precise test for defining how much control a foreign parent corporation must wield over its domestic subsidiary before the subsidiary will be deemed its agent for the purposes of service

Consider the following statement: Evade review. deq begins by observing that some federal courts have adopted a “rule of thumb” that two years is an adequate time to obtain a final judicial decision on a challenge to a federal administrative agency order. see, e.g., fund for animals, inc., v. hogan, 428 f3d 1059, 1064 (dc cir 2005). the time it takes to fully litigate a challenge to a federal administrative agency order or rule, however, may be different from the time it would take to challenge an oregon agency’s order or rule under the oregon administrative procedure act. moreover, the “rule of thumb” that deq identifies does not appear to have been uniformly followed by federal courts, particularly in cases involving challenges to npdes permits. see, e.g., trustees for alaska v. epa, 749 f2d 549, 555 (9th cir 1984) (<holding>); montgomery environmental coalition v. costle, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal 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 mootness exception for abortion litigation because pregnancy truly could be capable of repetition yet evading review B. holding that a party may not invoke the capable of repetition yet evading review exception where its failure to obtain prompt relief has prevented judicial review C. holding ease not moot when challenged administrative order expired because icc proceedings are continuing and their consideration ought not be defeated by short term orders capable of repetition yet evading review D. holding that we have no difficulty concluding that challenge to expired fiveyear npdes permit was capable of repetition yet evading review E. holding that challenge to expired fiveyear npdes permits originally issued eight years earlier was capable of repetition yet evading review. Answer:

E. holding that challenge to expired fiveyear npdes permits originally issued eight years earlier was capable of repetition yet evading review

Consider the following statement: Is three years1.”); ortiz v. morgenthau, 772 f.supp. 1430, 1432 (s.d.n.y.1991) (“the three-year limitations period is appropriate for actions pursuant to 42 u.s.c. §§ 1981 and 1985....”), aff'd, 962 f.2d 4 (2d cir.1992.). plaintiffs alleged civil rights claims arise solely out of the 1994 civil suit, and thus are time-barred because they accrued more than three years prior to the commencement of this action. plaintiff filed this suit on october 5, 1999. therefore, any civil rights claims which accrued prior to october 5, 1996 are time-barred. all of plaintiffs civil rights claims arose prior to october 5,1996. in new york, federal civil rights actions are governed by a three-year statute of limitations. see owens v.okure, 488 u.s. 235, 250-51, 109 s.ct. 573, 102 l.ed.2d 594 (1989) (<holding>). “federal civil rights claims accrue at 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 new york statute of limitations for 1983 actions was three years B. holding new mexico statute of limitations for filing a 1983 action is three years C. holding that the new jersey statute of limitations applicable to 1983 actions is njsa 2a142 D. holding that the statute of limitations for an attorneys fees action under 1415e4b is three years E. holding that a complaint filed within three years of an accident complied with the michigan court rules and was not barred by the statute of limitations even though service was made more than three years after the accident. Answer:

A. holding that new york statute of limitations for 1983 actions was three years

Consider the following statement: The city from intervening as a matter of right. b. the district court improperly engaged in issue reduction. the district court acknowledged that the complaint contained allegations regarding both abuse of process and federal preemption, but inappropriately claimed that the case “is not about the applicability of environmental laws.” the district court is mistaken; the question of federal preemption necessarily concerns the applicability of environmental laws. cemex’s prayer for relief clearly states that it wishes to conduct its gravel mining operation without impediment from state environmental laws. the district court’s focus on abuse of process and away from the application of environmental laws is not only mistaken, but also impermissible. city of los angeles, 288 f.3d at 399 (<holding>) regardless of the impermissible issue Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that while it is not appropriate to consider the merits in determining certification the admissibility of all evidence which has relevance to the merits is not barred if it is relevant to the purpose of refuting or supporting the existence of a class B. holding that the district court is not free to consider the potential for issue reduction when determining whether a putative intervener has a protectable interest in the merits of the action C. holding that when the district court dismissed rather than transferred a case not within its jurisdiction and a party appealed that dismissal the circuit court could consider only the propriety of the dismissal on appeal and determining that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction on appeal to consider the merits of the action D. holding that either the district court or the court of appeals must issue a certificate of appealability on both the merits and the procedural bar before we can consider the merits of a claim that the district court held to be procedurally barred E. holding that the district court is free to consider the full record in the case when selecting the appropriate sanction. Answer:

B. holding that the district court is not free to consider the potential for issue reduction when determining whether a putative intervener has a protectable interest in the merits of the action

Consider the following statement: Act. labor management relations act (taft-hartley act), pub.l. 80-101, 61 stat. 136 (1947). the amendments left intact the prohibition against discrimination based on union-membership status, but having found the closed shop susceptible to abuse, congress outlawed it. see general motors, 373 u.s. at 740-41, 83 s.ct. 1453. congress accordingly rewrote section 8(3) — which it renumbered as section 8(a)(3) — to permit only union-shop and agency-shop arrangements requiring union membership (or its equivalent) no earlier than 30 days after the start of employment. id.; see also 29 u.s.c. § 158(a)(3). gone was the language authorizing closed-shop agreements that made union-membership a condition of obtaining employment. see n.l.r.b. v. local union no. 55, 218 f.2d 226, 232 (10th cir.1954) (<holding>). but lest the taft-hartley act’s detailed Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 immunity agreements are analogous to plea agreements and are enforced under principles of contract law within the constitutional safeguards of due process B. holding that identical all agreements language this policy contains all of the agreements between the parties is an integration clause C. recognizing closed shop agreements were made illegal D. holding that agreements other than fullfledged collective bargaining agreements may be contracts within the meaning of 301 E. holding such agreements to be per se illegal. Answer:

C. recognizing closed shop agreements were made illegal

Consider the following statement: The use and benefit of the life tenant ..."); see also tex. prop.code ann. § 5.009 (west 2003) (specifying rules with respect to the fiduciary duties of a life tenant of a life estate who is given the power to sell and reinvest life tenancy property). 82 .see gonzales v. gonzales, 115 tex. 16, 273 s.w. 798, 798 (1925) (indicating that the continued homestead rights of a spouse following the death of the owner of the homestead property are contingent upon the spouse's use and possession of the property for homestead purposes); laster, 826 s.w.2d at 129 ("this homestead protection, however, can arise only in the person or family who has a present possessory interest in the subject property.”); see also moorhouse v. crew, 273 s.w.2d 654, 655-56 (tex.civ.app.-san antonio 1954, writ ref'd) (<holding>). 83 . see lucas v. lucas, 104 tex. 636, 143 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 homestead exemption was unavailable even though claimants were living on the land and claiming it as homestead with the permission or acquiescence of the owner for they could have no homestead right or interest in land to which they had no title B. holding that spouses homestead interest was not abandoned because right to possession continued C. holding despite contrary authority that husband debtor with a mere possessoiy interest was not entitled to claim a homestead exemption and stating it is a fundamental tenet of the law of exemptions that the debtor must have an ownership interest in the property before an exemption may be claimed a long line of illinois cases has required that a debtor have title or some ownership interest in property in order to claim a homestead exemption other courts deciding the issue under the federal exemption scheme have held that the key word is interest and that an interest in real property up to a specified amount implies a monetary interest more than just one spouses right to reside with the other D. holding even though debtor would have been entitled to iowa homestead exemption but for former spouses iowa code section 59821 lien debtor could not avoid the lien because it attached to the homestead prior to or simultaneously with debtors acquisition of the interest in the homestead E. holding that even if divorced wife only owned a beneficial interest and not title interest in the residence constituting her homestead she was nonetheless entitled to claim a homestead exemption from the forced sale of the property. Answer:

B. holding that spouses homestead interest was not abandoned because right to possession continued

Consider the following statement: May bring an action on the contract if the parties to the agreement intended to benefit the non-party, provided that the benefit claimed is a direct and not merely an incidental benefit of the contract. e.b. roberts constr. co. v. concrete contractors, inc., 704 p.2d 859, 865 (colo.1985). while the intent to benefit the non-party need not be expressly recited in the contract, the intent must be apparent from the terms of the agreement, the surrounding circumstances, or both. id. in this case, parrish was only one of many health care providers from which progressive’s insureds could have chosen for treatment of injuries resulting from automobile accidents covered by that policy. see kelly health care, inc. v. prudential ins. co. of america, inc., 226 va. 376, 309 s.e.2d 305, 307 (1983) (<holding>). parrish argues that it is nevertheless an Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 incidental beneficiary does not have standing to sue for breach of a contract B. holding that health care providers could pursuant to 1983 enforce the boren amendment to the medicaid act C. holding that boren amendment created substantive federal right enforceable by health care providers to reasonable and adequate rates D. holding that even though certain corporate formalities had not been complied with in the execution of the subject contract the corporation had knowledge of the existence of the contract and treated it as a valid and binding contract and thus ratified the contract by accepting the benefits thereunder E. holding that member of a large class of health care providers available to the insured was only a potential and incidental beneficiary of the contract and thus not entitled to recover thereunder. Answer:

E. holding that member of a large class of health care providers available to the insured was only a potential and incidental beneficiary of the contract and thus not entitled to recover thereunder

Consider the following statement: However, the appellant in this case conceded that united states v. moreno-rivera, 472 f.3d 49 (2d cir. 2006), prevents this court from dismissing this appeal and remanding with instructions that the district court enter a new judgment as in fuller. see moreno-rivera, 472 f.3d at 51-52 (<holding>). the appellant requested, in the alternative, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 an issue was not properly before the court on appeal because the trial court did not have the opportunity to make any findings of fact regarding it C. holding that because it was not clear on the present record unlike in fuller that morenoriveras trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective the court should dismiss the appeal as untimely and the defendant would have the opportunity to develop the recordand seek a remedy for his trial counsels alleged ineffectiveness should he prove that trial counsel failed to timely file a requested appealin a 2255 motion before the district court D. holding that a defendant whose new trial motion is based on the alleged ineffectiveness of trial counsel may bypass rule 33s sevenday time limit only if his claim that his counsel was ineffective was based on information unavailable to the defendant at the time of trial E. holding a party must timely present his legal theories to the trial court so as to give the trial court an opportunity to rule properly. Answer:

C. holding that because it was not clear on the present record unlike in fuller that morenoriveras trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective the court should dismiss the appeal as untimely and the defendant would have the opportunity to develop the recordand seek a remedy for his trial counsels alleged ineffectiveness should he prove that trial counsel failed to timely file a requested appealin a 2255 motion before the district court

Consider the following statement: So.2d 185, 187-88 (fla.1993). when a police officer turns on his or her emergency and takedown lights under these circumstances, a reasonable person would expect to be stopped, at a minimum, for a traffic infraction and perhaps for the crime of fleeing and eluding if he or she drove away. see § 316.126, fla. stat. (1999); state v. mccune, 772 so.2d 596 (fla. 5th dca 2000). accordingly, the use of such lights cer who has initiated a consensual encounter may turn on his emergency lights for reasons of traffic safety during the consensual encounter. in this case, there is no dispute that the deputy lacked a well-founded suspicion that mr. hrezo had committed or was about to commit a crime when he turned on his emergency lights. see danielewicz v. state, 730 so.2d 363 (fla. 2d dca 1999) (<holding>). the cocaine and drug paraphernalia 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 officers observation of a known drug dealer approaching the defendants car gave rise to reasonable suspicion B. holding the location of an investigative stop is a factor that contributes to an officers reasonable suspicion C. holding investigative stop based on officers observation of defendant apparently asleep in legally parked car was improper D. holding that even if an officers stop of a defendant who was on foot was unlawful the search of a parked car was justified by a different officer observing a gun magazine in plain view in the car E. holding that the fact that a group of men surrounding a car parked in a marked bus stop dispersed upon the approach of investigating officers was relevant to a reasonable suspicion determination. Answer:

C. holding investigative stop based on officers observation of defendant apparently asleep in legally parked car was improper

Consider the following statement: Ruling precluded bolt from testifying about the work papers. the court did not explicitly make a ruling on bolt’s testimony concerning the work papers. the court stated it was not prepared to rule on bolt’s analysis of the work papers at the beginning of the trial. the court also stated it had no problem with qcbt mentioning inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the work papers in its opening statement; the record clearly establishes the court’s ruling on the motion in limine declared that bolt’s testimony concerning generally accepted cpa auditing standards, whether kireher breached those standards, and causation, was inadmissible. the court did not equivocate or state it would reconsider its ruling at trial. cf. holst v. countryside enters., inc., 14 f.3d 1319, 1323 (8th cir.1994) (<holding>). thus, as to this testimony, we conclude 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 defendant failed to preserve for appeal the question of admissibility of evidence that was the subject of the motion in limine where defendant failed to object to evidence when offered at trial B. holding that a trial courts evidentiary ruling on a pretrial motion is not sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal unless a defendant renews the objection during trial C. holding that a party failed to preserve error by not pursuing a ruling at trial where the courts motion in limine ruling invited the party to attempt to admit the evidence during trial D. holding that a party had failed to preserve an argument for appellate review when that party had failed to argue the issue to the trial court either at trial or in his postjudgment motion E. holding that trial courts have discretion to decide whether litigation conduct violates a ruling on a motion in limine. Answer:

C. holding that a party failed to preserve error by not pursuing a ruling at trial where the courts motion in limine ruling invited the party to attempt to admit the evidence during trial

Consider the following statement: Section 1692f(6), referenced in this definition, prohibits a debt collector from taking or threatening to take “nonjudicial action to effect dispossession or disablement of property” if there is no present right to possession of the property claimed as collateral through an enforceable security interest, if there is no present intention to take possession of the property, or if the property is exempt by law from such dispossession or disablement. under the cited definition, a person whose principal purpose is the enforcement of security interests is a “debt collector” for the purpose of § 1692f(6), but is not subject to the rest of the fdcpa unless he also fits § 1692a(6)’s general definition of a debt collector. see kaltenbach v. richards, 464 f.3d 524, 527, 527 n. 3 (5th cir.2006) (<holding>) (citing montgomery v. huntington bank, 346 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 effect of discharge of debt under bankruptcy code is the same as it was under the 1898 bankruptcy act it is not an extinguishment of the debt but only a bar to enforcement of the debt as a personal obligation of the debt or B. holding that a person may regularly render debt collection services even if these services are not a principal purpose of his business C. holding that an entity engaged in collection activity on a defaulted debt acquired from another is a debt collector under the fdcpa even though it may actually be owed the debt D. recognizing distinction between general debt collection and enforcement of a security interest and observing that by the plain language of 1692a6 a person whose business has the principal purpose of enforcing security interests but who does not otherwise satisfy the definition of a debt collector is subject only to 1692f6 E. holding that law firm executing nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding was enforcing a security interest rather than collecting a debt and hence fell outside the ambit of the fdcpa except for the provisions of section 1692f6. Answer:

D. recognizing distinction between general debt collection and enforcement of a security interest and observing that by the plain language of 1692a6 a person whose business has the principal purpose of enforcing security interests but who does not otherwise satisfy the definition of a debt collector is subject only to 1692f6

Consider the following statement: Were made after 11 october 2002. see warren v. warren, 175 n.c. app. 509, 517, 623 s.e.2d 800, 805 (2006); 2002 n.c. sess. laws ch. 159, sec. 33.5. here, the parties separated a january 2002. therefore, any post-separation, debt-reduction payments made prior to 11 october 2002 should technically not be characterized as divisible property. however, plaintiff does not argue that the trial court erred by mischaracterizing, in this particular way, the post-separation payments made by the parties as divisible property. nonetheless, we hold that any error regarding the trial court’s characterization of any such payments as divisible property to be harmless. see cooke v. cooke, 185 n.c. app. 101, 107-08, 647 s.e.2d 662, 667 (2007), disc. review denied, 362 n.c. 175, 657 s.e.2d 888 (2008) Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 it was not an abuse of discretion to award a spouse all of the divisible property attributable to his postseparation payments which reduced marital debt B. holding that the lower court failed to account for payments made in connection with the marital home including mortgage payments C. holding that funds advanced by husbands parents as down payment for purchase of marital residence was a gift and not a loan where there was no promissory note or other documentation no payments were made to parents for several years and no payments were requested D. holding that the collateralsource statute requires a reduction of the judgment only for payments made prior to the verdict E. holding that it was error but not error necessitating remand for a trial court to mischaracterize postseparation payments made prior to 11 october 2002 towards marital debt as divisible property and to distribute all such payments to the party who made them. Answer:

E. holding that it was error but not error necessitating remand for a trial court to mischaracterize postseparation payments made prior to 11 october 2002 towards marital debt as divisible property and to distribute all such payments to the party who made them

Consider the following statement: 139 va. 394, 124 s.e. 477, 481 (1924)). all of these versions of fraud share the common element of a false statement of fact. in the present case, plaintiff has not alleged any statement attributable to womack that was false. plaintiff does allege that, “defendants engaged in an aggressive advertising campaign throughout virginia touting its self-proclaimed honesty and fair dealing to prospective consumers, including the plaintiffs.” (compl. ¶ 4.) while this amounts to an assertion by defendants, it is not an assertion of fact. it is well established that such an expression of opinion “is no fraud.” mcmillion v. dryvit sys., inc., 262 va. 463, 471-72, 552 s.e.2d 364 (2001); see eca local m ibew joint pension trust of chicago v. jp morgan chase co., 553 f.3d 187, 205 (2nd cir.2009) (<holding>); alpine bank v. hubbell, 555 f.3d 1097, 1108 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 five alleged incidents in four years were too few too separate in time and too mild to create an abusive working environment B. holding that false statements in a labor dispute that were injurious to employers reputation were not preempted C. holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid the securities fraud exception by pleading mail fraud or wire fraud if the conduct giving rise to those offenses also amounts to securities fraud D. holding that defendants selfprofessed standardsetting reputation for integrity were too general to sustain charge of fraud E. holding sanctions order was too general to support award. Answer:

D. holding that defendants selfprofessed standardsetting reputation for integrity were too general to sustain charge of fraud

Consider the following statement: Each other prior to trial is of no consequence. under those circumstances, we are persuaded that there was manifest necessity to declare a mistrial, considering the “ends of justice for the defendant and the state.” farmer, supra, 48 n.j. at 171, 224 a.2d 481. in our view, the trial court exercised sound discretion in declaring a mistrial and that decision is entitled to deference. ibid, (noting that “appellate courts must realize that under our system the conduct of a trial is committed to the trial judge, and that in appraising the exercise of his discretionary action a wise and tolerant restraint must be practiced if the separate levels of the judicial process are to be maintained.”). see also arizona v. washington, supra, 434 u.s. at 515-16, 98 s.ct. at 835-36, 54 l.ed.2d at 734 (<holding>); state v. modell, 260 n.j.super. 227, 239, 615 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding plaintiff responsible for attorney error B. holding that the record supported the district courts award of damages C. holding the federal government responsible for the immediately foreseeable consequences of its actions D. holding defendant implicitly consented to trial courts declaration of a mistrial E. holding that trial courts responsible and deliberate actions supported mistrial declaration. Answer:

E. holding that trial courts responsible and deliberate actions supported mistrial declaration

Consider the following statement: In the best position to discern the impression conveyed by the witness, and because the ij’s finding of non-responsiveness was supported by the record, the ij reasonably found that li’s demeanor undermined her credibility. see zhou yun zhang, 386 f.3d at 73. similarly, the record supports the ij’s finding that li was “hesitant and vague” when asked to describe her mother’s practice of falun gong. the record reflects that li’s testimony on this topic was “spare” and that the ij attempted to “probe for incidental details.” jin shui qiu v. ashcroft, 329 f.3d 140, 152 (2d cir.2003). because the ij’s finding also included her perception of li’s demeanor, it serves as an adequate basis for an adverse credibility finding. see jin chen v. u.s. dep’t of justice, 426 f.3d 104, 114 (2d cir.2005) (<holding>). additionally, the ij reasonably found that it Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that history of dishonesty can support an adverse credibility finding B. holding that in the absence of an adverse credibility determination the court must accept petitioners testimony as true C. holding that the record did not support the agencys adverse credibility finding in the absence of additional probing D. holding that speculation and conjecture cannot support an adverse credibility finding E. holding that inconsistencies adequately support the administrative law judges alj adverse credibility finding. Answer:

C. holding that the record did not support the agencys adverse credibility finding in the absence of additional probing

Consider the following statement: These two provisions do not do, however, is clearly define how states can invoke standing to bring title vii suits. nonetheless, a review of the standing capacities traditionally available to plaintiff states confirms that congress intended to permit parens patriae actions when it authorized state governments to bring suit under title vii. in connecticut ex rel. blumenthal v. cahill, 217 f.3d 93, 97 (2d cir.2000), the second circuit held that “plaintiff-states generally bring suit in the federal courts in one of three standing capacities: (1) proprietary suits in which the state sues much like a private party suffering a direct, tangible injury; (2) sovereignty suits requesting adjudication of boundary disputes or water rights, or (3) parens patriae suits in which states h cir.1976) (<holding>); gray v. greyhound lines, east, 545 f.2d 169, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 discriminatory employment practices are cognizable under title ix B. holding that white woman who sued under title vii to enjoin racially discriminatory employment practices was aggrieved person within meaning of the statute C. holding individual defendants are not an employer within meaning of title vii D. holding that white woman who was not object of discrimination but who alleged injury because of race discrimination against another was a person aggrieved within the meaning of title vii E. holding that a plaintiff alleging discriminatory employment practices with regard to race has an independent remedy under 1981 without respect to exhaustion under title vii. Answer:

B. holding that white woman who sued under title vii to enjoin racially discriminatory employment practices was aggrieved person within meaning of the statute

Consider the following statement: A grace period of 30 days to permit the claimant to comply with that subsection.” see act of may 5, 1995, 74th leg., r.s., ch. 140, § 1, 1995 tex. gen. laws 985, 985-87, repealed by act of june 2, 2003, 78th leg., r.s., ch. 204, § 10.09, 2003 tex. gen. laws 847, 887. under section 13.01(g), the granting of a 30-day grace period is mandatory upon a finding that the failure to comply was the result of accident or mistake. walker v. gutierrez, 111 s.w.3d 56, 62-63 (tex. 2003). although a trial court has the discretion to find good cause and grant an extension under section 13.01(f) based on facts that also would constitute accident or mistake under section 13.01(g), this does not mean that the analysis under these two statutory provisions is the same. see james, 2005 wl 713671, at *2-4 (<holding>). even if the scotts had proven accident 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 claims under the adea and the nyshrl are subject to the same analysis B. holding that analysis under section 1301g is not the same as the analysis under section 1301f and that the existence of accident or mistake is irrelevant because appellants moved for relief only under section 1301f C. holding that equitable relief is not available to an individual under this section of the fdcpa D. holding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983 E. holding that section 4a12 is a broadly applicable section of the guidelines. Answer:

B. holding that analysis under section 1301g is not the same as the analysis under section 1301f and that the existence of accident or mistake is irrelevant because appellants moved for relief only under section 1301f

Consider the following statement: Will undoubtedly assist us in our present analysis. indeed, massachusetts courts have indicated that when a massachusetts statute is similar to a statute in another jurisdiction, even though it may not be identical, a consideration of the foreign jurisdiction’s law, including judicial decisions, is appropriate, though by no means binding. see piemonte v. new boston garden corp., 377 mass. 719, 723, 387 n.e.2d 1145, 1148 (1979). an examination of case law from other jurisdictions reveals that there are two types of actions that arise during the period of corporate existence but survive past the windup period of the survival statute. the first are those actions that are brought in an individual capacity for a personal wrong. see hunter v. old ben coal co., 844 f.2d 428, 432 (7th cir.1988)(<holding>). indeed, when a claim is held individually by Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding shareholder thirdparty benficiaries to corporate contract have individual breachofcontract claim B. holding that a corporate officer signing a contract in his corporate capacity is generally not liable for damages under the contract C. holding that even where no attorneyclient relationship exists between a shareholder and the corporate attorney this does not necessarily mean that the law firm had no fiduciary duty to the shareholder and observing that instances in which the corporation attorneys stand in a fiduciary relationship to individual shareholders are obviously more likely to arise where the number of shareholders is small in such cases it is not really a matter of the courts piercing the corporate entity D. holding that shareholders lack standing to sue as thirdparty beneficiaries to allegedly breached contract unless the contract indicates the intent to benefit them directly independently of their shareholder status E. holding that sole shareholder could recover on behalf of company but not in individual capacity for former shareholder and officers misappropriation of corporate assets. Answer:

A. holding shareholder thirdparty benficiaries to corporate contract have individual breachofcontract claim

Consider the following statement: 717 (1910). in all of those situations, the conduct at issue occurred before a specific risk had been identified; the risk at issue was the inherent danger of gas or electricity. here, in contrast, the risk at issue was not the inherent danger of mulch, but the unique and specific danger of the mulch surrounding these buildings and its known propensity to catch fire from careless disposal of smoking materials. see shantigar found. v. bear mt. builders, 441 mass. 131, 144, 804 n.e.2d 324 (2004) (“massachusetts law recognizes that in the absence of a statutory duty to [take certain fire prevention measures], a jury could find such a duty when the owner knows of a ‘particular danger of fire.’ ”); accord little v. lynn & marblehead real estate co., 301 mass. 156, 161, 16 n.e.2d 688 (1938) (<holding>). in stewart, the sjc also held that expert Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that damage to building and personal property as a result of fire negligently caused by defendant was to be measured by reasonable cash market value of the property at the time it was destroyed by the fire or if it was not totally destroyed by the diminution in its fair market value before and after the fire B. holding that the relationship between fire insurance regulation and rating fire loss fire prevention and fire investigation is rational and reasonable C. holding that not having been shown to have knowledge of any particular danger of fire the defendant was not obliged to take precautions to guard against it D. holding that even without expert testimony the grand jurors common knowledge of the nature of fire would have allowed them to conclude that a fire spreads and becomes more dangerous the longer it is left unattended E. holding that the fact that the fire was communicated to other property may reasonably be inferred from common knowledge of the operation of the established laws of nature in the familiar forms of combustion and the effects of wind on fire . Answer:

C. holding that not having been shown to have knowledge of any particular danger of fire the defendant was not obliged to take precautions to guard against it

Consider the following statement: And key were unreliable because they were not asked to identify him in a photographic lineup before trial and their testimony about the appearance of the surviving assailant differed to some extent. however, appellant did not object to the admission of this eyewitness identification evidence at trial. see neil v. biggers, 409 u. s. 188, 196-201 (93 sct 375, 34 le2d 401) (1972) (discussing the due process protection against the admission of evidence deriving from suggestive identification procedures). and it is firmly established that the determination of a witness’s credibility, including eyewitness identification, is within the exclusive province of the jury. see reeves v. state, 288 ga. 545, 546 (705 se2d 159) (2011). see also walker v. state, 295 ga. 688, 690 (763 se2d 704) (2014) (<holding>); vega v. state, 285 ga. 32, 33 (673 se2d 223) Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 proffer of testimony is required to preserve the issue of whether testimony was properly excluded by the trial judge and an appellate court will not consider error alleged in the exclusion of testimony unless the record on appeal shows fairly what the excluded testimony would have been B. holding that expert testimony should not be admitted as to a matter that is obviously within the common knowledge of jurors because such testimony almost by definition can be of no assistance C. holding that because the special master saw the witnesses and heard the testimony he has broad discretion in determining credibility D. holding that a trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to exclude testimony of a witness for an alleged sequestration violation where no impermissible harmonization of testimony could be inferred from the witnesss reading of the newspaper in the absence of any evidence that this testimony was based on what he read E. holding that whether and to what extent a witnesss testimony should be believed is a matter to be decided by the jury that saw and heard the testimony not by an appellate court reviewing a transcript. Answer:

E. holding that whether and to what extent a witnesss testimony should be believed is a matter to be decided by the jury that saw and heard the testimony not by an appellate court reviewing a transcript

Consider the following statement: Different place in the superseding indictment than it does in the statute makes no difference here. first, the “attempt” language appears after “knowingly” and before the other elements of the crime. “attempt” can fairly be read to modify all of the elements that follow the word, not just the “means or facility of interstate commerce” element. second, even if the “attempt” language in the superseding indictment is somewhat imprecise, this does not render the superseding indictment insufficient. “[d]ue process does not require a recitation of the statute; it requires only that the [indictment] as a whole set forth the critical details of the offense charged.” united states v. lentsch, 369 f.3d 948, 953 (6th cir.2004); see also united states v. martinez, 981 f.2d 867, 872 (6th cir.1992) (<holding>). third, given the circumstances in which this Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that the government need not prove that the defendant actually knew the exact nature of the substance to establish mens rea knowledge of drugs illegality is sufficient B. holding that a mens rea of unlawfully in the indictment was sufficient because the indictment referenced the applicable statute which required a reckless mens rea C. holding convictions under fla stat 893131 qualify as serious drug offenses pursuant to the acca despite the florida statutes lack of a mens rea element D. holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense E. holding that an indictment that omitted the mens rea element was sufficient because it cited the applicable statutes which informed the defendant of the elements of the charged offenses. Answer:

E. holding that an indictment that omitted the mens rea element was sufficient because it cited the applicable statutes which informed the defendant of the elements of the charged offenses

Consider the following statement: Stated: in many cases it would work the grossest injustice to a carrier if it could not rely on the contract of shipment it has made, know whether it was bound to obey the state or federal law, or, obeying the former, find itself mulcted in penalties for not obeying the law of the other jurisdiction, simply because the shipper intended a transportation beyond that specified in the contract. it must be remembered that there is no presumption that a transportation when commenced is to be continued beyond the state limits, and the carrier ought to be able to depend upon the contract which it has made, and must conform to the liability imposed by that contract. id. at 414, 27 s.ct. at 363. 21 . compare klitzke v. steiner corp., 110 f.3d 1465, 1470 (9th cir.1997); shew, 370 f.2d at 378, 380 (<holding>); beggs v. kroger co., 167 f.2d 700, 703 (8th Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding shipments from a distribution point supplied by outofstate shipments made pursuant to preexisting orders were interstate in character B. holding prima facie showing of unreasonableness made by presenting evidence that tariff rates in effect at time of shipments were well above rates paid to other carriers for same service C. holding that warehouse distributions to companyowned stores constituted interstate commerce since inter alia the company knew at the time oufiofstate shipments to the warehouse commenced that the shipments were bound for its retail stores D. holding that interstate shipments to a warehousedistribution point through to samestate retail outlets retained their interstate character where the warehouse was merely a convenient instrumentality for the division of the shipments coming to it and the continuation of the movement of each part to the retail stores E. holding that the halt of shipments of unprocessed milk without processing or commingling did not remove the interstate character of the shipments. Answer:

A. holding shipments from a distribution point supplied by outofstate shipments made pursuant to preexisting orders were interstate in character

Consider the following statement: Developed over a period of years is evenhandedly applied.” id. at 401, 101 s.ct. 2424. reliance on “public policy” was similarly misplaced: “ ‘[pjublic policy dictates that there be an end of litigation.’ ” id. (quoting baldwin v. traveling men’s ass’n, 283 u.s. 522, 525, 51 s.ct. 517, 75 l.ed. 1244 (1931)). see also supporters to oppose pollution v. heritage group, 973 f.2d 1320, 1325 (7th cir.1992) (“moitie scotches equitable arguments” against application of principles of preclusion in any particular situation). just as fairness and equity are no reason not to apply claim preclusion, a party seeking its application need not show that the particular circumstances are abusive or vexatious. see first alabama bank of montgomery v. parsons steel, inc., 825 f.2d 1475, 1482 (11th cir.1987) (<holding>). it is the mere fact of relitigation that is Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution B. holding that a bad faith claim is a tort C. holding that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution D. holding that showing of bad faith prosecution or harassment not required for issuance of injunction to prohibit relitigation E. holding that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. Answer:

D. holding that showing of bad faith prosecution or harassment not required for issuance of injunction to prohibit relitigation

Consider the following statement: That they made a fraudulent statement in the october letter when they said that “the congregation of [the church] has been working on the ‘ball field’ at [the park], without pay, since april 2013” because “work performed by members of the church congregation had ceased in may 2013.” (compl. ¶ 92.) the next paragraph of the complaint, however, belies this assertion of falsity because it acknowledges that the october letter also informed the town that the church’s work at the park “had stopped.” (id. ¶ 93,). in other words, the october letter stated that the church had worked on the soccer field, but this work had ended. thus, the complaint does not adequately explain why the october letter was fraudulent. compare houraney v. burton & assocs., p.c., 701 f.supp.2d 258, 262 (e.d.n.y. 2010) (<holding>), with nanjing standard int'l, ltd. v. dmd Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that plaintiff failed to establish pretext where plaintiff was terminated after the employer conducted an investigation into a subordinates allegations of misconduct on the part of the plaintiff and believed the allegations to be true even though plaintiff presented evidence in the lawsuit that the allegations may have been false B. holding that a prior inconsistent statement was admissible and the defendant failed to ask for a limiting instruction that the jury could not use the statement as substantive evidence C. holding that failure to explain allegations and possible consequences mandated reversal D. holding that fundamental error occurred and reversal was required when trial court failed to explain allegations or to explain adequately future use of adjudication record E. holding that plaintiff failed to explain why statement was fraudulent where it was not necessarily inconsistent with plain tiffs factual allegations. Answer:

E. holding that plaintiff failed to explain why statement was fraudulent where it was not necessarily inconsistent with plain tiffs factual allegations

Consider the following statement: Decision to waive his right to counsel. 3 . our concurring colleague, judge katzmann, disagrees with our characterization of the quoted language as dictum. in his view, the supreme court would not have vacated the state judgment of conviction if it had not been satisfied that faretta knowingly exercised his right to self-representation; thus, the court’s discussion of what constitutes a "knowing and intelligent” waiver of the right to counsel “was essential to its conclusion that faretta’s constitutional rights had been violated.” infra at 566. we are not convinced. given faretta's recognition of a constitutional right to represent oneself, the court might well have vacated the state conviction and remanded the case even without a finding of a valid waiver of the right t 1984) (<holding>); see also united states v. medina, 944 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 that for a trial judge to accept a defendants guilty plea without an affirmative showing that it was intelligent and voluntary violates the defendants constitutional rights B. holding that right to challenge factual basis is waived by guilty plea C. holding that factual basis inquiry is one way of satisfying the constitutional requirement that a guilty plea be voluntary and intelligent but it is not mandated by due process D. holding that a voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty is an admission of all the elements of a formal criminal charge E. holding that due process requires state courts to make an affirmative showing that a guilty plea is intelligent and voluntary. Answer:

C. holding that factual basis inquiry is one way of satisfying the constitutional requirement that a guilty plea be voluntary and intelligent but it is not mandated by due process

Consider the following statement: The sixth amendment of the united states constitution. however, if johnson’s claim rests upon the ineffectiveness of his attorney on appeal, then his cause of action could not have accrued prior to the disposition of his appeal. for these reasons, we find that johnson’s cause of action for habeas corpus did not accrue until his direct appeal was decided by this court on may 19, 1989. see johnson, 774 p.2d 1141. because this decision occurred after the legislature’s deletion of imprisonment as a disability that tolls the statute of limitations under section 78-12-36, the trial court correctly held that johnson’s claim was time-barred. we recognize that the ninety-day statute of limitations applicable to habeas corpus actions has been declared unconstitutional. see currier, 862 p.2d 1357 (<holding>); see also renn v. utah state bd. of pardons, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal 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 rights under article i section 11 are subject to reasonable limitations B. holding that executive branch prosecution of disciplinary charges against a judge violated the separation of powers provision in the nevada constitution a provision identical to article v section 1 of the utah constitution C. holding that refusal to proceed to trial by arbitrarily abating case violates article i section 13 of the texas constitution D. holding that the contracts clause article i section 10 clause 1 to the united states constitution does not apply to the actions of the federal government E. holding that ninetyday statute of limitations on habeas actions is unreasonable limitation that violates article i section 11 of utah constitution. Answer:

E. holding that ninetyday statute of limitations on habeas actions is unreasonable limitation that violates article i section 11 of utah constitution

Consider the following statement: Me with real questions about the fairness of this trial. see united states v. haynes, 729 f.3d 178, 197 (2d cir.2013) (vacating judgment of conviction and remanding because multiple errors, considered together, “call into serious doubt whether the defendant received the due process guarantee of fundamental fairness to which she and all criminal defendants are entitled”). see infra point iv. because the confrontation clause violation and the instructional error rendered defendants’ trial fundamentally unfair, a new trial as to all counts is warranted. see spencer v. texas, 385 u.s. 554, 563-64, 87 s.ct. 648, 17 l.ed.2d 606 (1967) (“[t]he due process clause guarantees the fundamental elements of fairness in a criminal trial.”); cf. united states v. bruno, 383 f.3d 65, 91 (2d cir.2004) (<holding>). see infra point v. i the constitution Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal 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 spillover effect that warranted vacatur of counts other than those primarily infected with error B. holding that severance was not required when a defendant was charged with five counts of forcible rape two counts of felonious restraint three counts of kidnapping two counts of armed criminal action two counts of forcible sodomy one count of second degree assault one count of first degree robbery and one count of stealing C. holding error was structural because of the difficulty of assessing the effect of the error D. recognizing with approval the practice following vacatur of some counts of conviction on appeal of increasing the defendants sentence on remaining counts to yield an aggregate sentence equal to the original aggregate imposed E. holding that issues underlying all counts were sufficiently intertwined that the separate appeal of the summary judgment counts would complicate the trial of the remaining counts. Answer:

A. recognizing spillover effect that warranted vacatur of counts other than those primarily infected with error

Consider the following statement: V. new jersey were tried and convicted based on confessions elicited without miranda warnings, and the convictions became final before miranda was decided. id. at 725-26, 86 s.ct. 1772. in unambiguous terms, the court held that “miranda applies only to cases in which the trial began after the date of our decision one week ago.” id. at 721, 86 s.ct. 1772. the rule did not apply “retroactively,” that is, to convictions which were already final, nor did it apply to cases tried before miranda’s effective date. id. at 731-32, 86 s.ct. 1772. however, even for statements elicited pre-miranda, the rule would henceforth apply “to persons whose trials had not begun as of june 13, 1966.” id. at 734, 86 s.ct. 1772; see also frazier v. cupp, 394 u.s. 731, 738, 89 s.ct. 1420, 22 l.ed.2d 684 (1969) (<holding>). since johnson v. new jersey and frazier, 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 a confession obtained in violation of miranda was admissible for impeachment B. holding miranda decision does not apply retroactively C. holding that miranda was constitutionally based but declining to go further than miranda to establish a constitutional right D. holding on collateral review that miranda rule did not apply to confession because petitioner was tried before miranda decision E. holding miranda inapplicable because defendant not in custody. Answer:

D. holding on collateral review that miranda rule did not apply to confession because petitioner was tried before miranda decision

Consider the following statement: Most favorable to the plaintiffs, the court finds that a material issue of fact exists concerning whether or not the la vega site may currently present an imminent and substantial endangerment. defendant esso has presented evidence that the chemicals released at the site do not constitute such a threat, but this evidence has been controverted by plaintiffs. accordingly, this issue must be reserved for trial. f. plaintiffs’ cwa claim adequately identifies the effluent standard that esso is allegedly violating defendant argues that plaintiffs claim does not identify the effluent al cases in support of assertion that “the cwa has been consistently applied by the courts to land and waters located in puerto rico”); commonwealth of puerto rico v. alexander, 438 f.supp. 90, 94-96 (d.d.c.1977) (<holding>). plaintiffs’ claim alleges that an indivisible Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 federal water pollution control act amendments of 1972 and certain regulations promulgated thereunder are applicable to nonnavigable waters of puerto rico despite contention that such waters are areas of purely local concern and that federal regulation of such areas is inapplicable under the puerto rican federal relations act B. holding that no implied private right of action exists under the nha and noting that the district of columbia first sixth and ninth circuits have held that the housing act and regulations promulgated thereunder do not satisfy the fourpart cort test and thus have refused to create a right of action for private parties who wish to sue to enforce the statute or regulations promulgated thereunder C. holding ripe for review an epa informal adjudication that regulations promulgated under the federal water pollution control act applied to certain brass cleaning facilities D. holding that a private company operating under a federal contract was not a federal department agency or instrumentality for the purposes of section 313 of the federal water pollution control act amendments of 1972 E. holding that a landlord has a duty of reasonable care over common areas or other areas over which the landlord has retained control. Answer:

A. holding that the federal water pollution control act amendments of 1972 and certain regulations promulgated thereunder are applicable to nonnavigable waters of puerto rico despite contention that such waters are areas of purely local concern and that federal regulation of such areas is inapplicable under the puerto rican federal relations act

Consider the following statement: Ineffective assistance under strickland [v. washington, 466 u.s. 668, 104 s.ct. 2052, 80 l.ed.2d 674 (1984) ], then the prejudice standard under the ‘cause and prejudice’ showing to excuse a procedural default is also met.” lynch v. ficco, 438 f.3d 35, 49 (1st cir.2006). in this case, it is clear that the error complained of — goldman’s sentencing as a career offender despite the invalidity of one of his essential prior convictions — had “substantial and injurious effect.” the government does not dispute that goldman’s career offender status increased his sentence by at least seventeen years. this constitutes a “substantial and injurious effect or influence” and meets the strickland standard. see glover v. united states, 531 u.s. 198, 203, 121 s.ct. 696, 148 l.ed.2d 604 (2001) (<holding>). with regard to cause, goldman argues 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 it is error to engraft onto the prejudice branch of the strickland test a requirement that any increase in a sentence must meet a standard of significance B. holding regarding sixth amendment prejudice if there is no reasonable possibility that the appellate court would have ruled in his favor there can be no strickland prejudice C. holding that there is no baseline or quantifiable increase in a defendants sentence that must be shown to establish prejudice under strickland D. holding that any reduction in sentence constitutes substantial prejudice for purposes of strickland analysis E. holding that prejudice is shown where a sentencing error may affect the determination of sentence. Answer:

C. holding that there is no baseline or quantifiable increase in a defendants sentence that must be shown to establish prejudice under strickland

Consider the following statement: Omitted). accord, e.g., united states v. bailey, 691 f.2d 1009, 1014 & n. 3 (11th cir.1982) (‘voluntary” means not caused by police misconduct); united states v. barber, 557 f.2d 628, 632 (8th cir.1977) (evidence left in police car after illegal arrest held inadmissible because discovery of the evidence was a direct result of the unconstitutional seizure of defendant’s person); united states v. newman, 490 f.2d 993, 995 (10th cir.1974) (drugs left behind as a result of illegal search of rear compartment of camper held inadmissible). of course, if the abandonment is truly voluntary — i.e., not caused by police misconduct — evidence found is admissible even if there was a prior or subsequent illegal search or seizure. e.g., united states v. pirolli, 673 f.2d 1200, 1204 (11th cir.1982) (<holding>); united states v. kelly, 551 f.2d 760, 763 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal 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 trial court properly left the door open for defendant to prove its defenses to the fed complaint B. holding that when a police officer observes something from an area where the officer is lawfully entitled to be anything that is in open view may be observed without having to obtain a search warrant because making such open view observations does not constitute a search in the constitutional sense C. holding tacit consent to search of person was insufficient to prove consent to search bags where bags were not in defendants actual possession defendant merely pointed out bags at officers request and officer never specifically asked for consent to search bags D. holding that abandonment was not caused by police misconduct where defendant left bags in open view before officers had knocked on door to gain admission because officers had not yet done anything illegal E. holding that no search occurred when police officers entered an open business. Answer:

D. holding that abandonment was not caused by police misconduct where defendant left bags in open view before officers had knocked on door to gain admission because officers had not yet done anything illegal

Consider the following statement: Applied hardy and suggested the limits of the term: whether the information “tell[s] the [agency] how to catch lawbreakers; [or tells] lawbreakers how to avoid the [agency’s] enforcement efforts.” id. our existing cases lead our district courts to strain the logical limits of “law enforcement” to cover otherwise valid invocations of exemption 2. they regularly deny requests for disclosure of all kinds of internal documents, including those related to the military and national security, even if unrelated to investigations or prosecutions. see, e.g., kelly v. faa, no. 07-00634, 2008 wl 958037 (e.d.cal. apr.8, 2008) (magistrate judge recommending exemption of “grading sheet” for hiring of designated pilot examiners); l.a. times v. dep’t of army, 442 f.supp.2d 880, 898 (c.d.cal.2006) (<holding>); gordon, 388 f.supp.2d at 1036 (holding “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 attempted aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer is not a crime in florida B. holding data on insurgent and other attacks in iraq are law enforcement materials C. holding that law enforcement commission was a benefit of employment D. holding that while law enforcement officers properly separated and assumed possession of a cell phone from arrestees person during the search incident to arrest a warrant was required before the information data and content of the cell phone could be accessed and searched by law enforcement E. holding that a question about present employment in field of law enforcement did not trigger disclosure of past employment in field of law enforcement. Answer:

B. holding data on insurgent and other attacks in iraq are law enforcement materials

Consider the following statement: On the true character of matters occurring within the limitations period.” local lodge no. 1424, 362 u.s. at 416, 4 l. ed. 2d at 838, 80 s. ct. at 826. the court also stated that “where conduct occurring within the limitations period can be charged to be an unfair labor practice only through reliance on an earlier unfair labor practice,” “it serves to cloak with illegality that which was otherwise lawful. and where a complaint based upon that earlier event is time-barred, to permit the event itself to be so used in effect results in reviving a legally defunct unfair labor practice.” local lodge no. 1424, 362 u.s. at 416-17, 4 l. ed. 2d at 838, 80 s. ct. at 827. see also national r.r. passenger corp. v. morgan, 536 u.s. 101, 113, 153 l. ed. 2d 106, 122, 122 s. ct. 2061, 2072 (2002) (<holding>). this court subsequently addressed the issue Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 title vii cases the mixedmotive theory of discrimination is available in cases with circumstantial evidence of discrimination B. holding that in title vii cases the mixedmotives theory of discrimination is available in cases with circumstantial evidence of discrimination C. holding that the mixedmotive framework does not apply to retaliation cases under title vii D. holding that in title vii cases the statute of limitations does not bar an employee from using prior acts as background evidence in support of a timely claim E. holding that the doctrine of qualified immunity does not protect a government official who is sued in an official capacity under title vii because title vii does not impose personal liability. Answer:

D. holding that in title vii cases the statute of limitations does not bar an employee from using prior acts as background evidence in support of a timely claim

Consider the following statement: To make bond, and to keep an office or place of business; but none or all of these requirements do not absolutely determine whether or not a given employment is a public office, within the meaning of a given statute or constitutional provision.... “on account of this variety of meanings attaching to the words ‘office’ and ‘officer,” as used in various written laws, the adjudicated cases do not always, nor even often, furnish safe guides by which to determine with absolute certainty whether or not a given employment is an office [within] the meaning of a given statute or other written law. every case must of necessity be determined by consideration of the particular facts and circumstances involved.... ” harrington v. state ex rel. van hayes, 200 ala. 480, 481-82, 76 so. 422, 424 (1917) (<holding>). in ward v. state ex rel. goldsmith, 203 ala. Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that county defendant was a person within meaning of fca for purposes of suit by private plaintiff B. holding that a police department is not a person within the meaning of section 1983 C. holding that health insurer contracted with fehba was not acting under a federal agency within the meaning of the federal officer removal statute D. holding that an alcoholic beverage control officer was a public officer within the meaning of the statute E. holding that the position of alltime health officer for a county was not an office within the meaning of section 1467 of the code of 1907. Answer:

E. holding that the position of alltime health officer for a county was not an office within the meaning of section 1467 of the code of 1907

Consider the following statement: After conviction,” and (3) “multiple punishments for the same offense.” ohio v. johnson, 467 u.s. 493, 498, 104 s.ct. 2536, 81 l.ed.2d 425 (1984) (citing brown v. ohio, 432 u.s. 161, 165, 97 s.ct. 2221, 53 l.ed.2d 187 (1977)); see also morris v. reynolds, 264 f.3d 38, 49 (2d cir.2001) (“[t]he double jeopardy bar prohibits not only multiple punishments for the same offense, but also a second prosecution following conviction[.]”). the prohibition of multiple successive prosecutions, the double jeopardy claim at issue in this case as urged by defendant, serves two interests. first, it preserves the criminal defendant’s interest in the finality of judgment. see brown, 432 u.s. at 165, 97 s.ct. 2221 (“where successive prosecutions are at stake, the guarantee ser 680, 97 l.ed.2d 1 (1987) (<holding>). “as a general rule, jeopardy attaches in 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 a codefendants prior statements made at his guilty plea hearing were not admissible to corroborate his trial testimony because the witnesss guilty plea hearing did not predate any improper motive he may have had to testify against the defendant B. holding double jeopardy did not bar retrial where a jury could not render a verdict and a mistrial was granted C. holding double jeopardy bar on subsequent prosecution did not apply even after defendant had been sentenced when he breached conditions of his guilty plea and refused to testify for a second time at codefendants retrial for murder D. holding double jeopardy did not prohibit capital prosecution of defendant who pled guilty to seconddegree murder and agreed to testify against codefendants but violated plea agreement by refusing to testify at retrial and state properly sought new indictment for capital murder resulting in death sentence imposed at trial for firstdegree murder E. holding that fact that conviction has been overturned at defendants behest removes double jeopardy bar to increased sentence after retrial. Answer:

C. holding double jeopardy bar on subsequent prosecution did not apply even after defendant had been sentenced when he breached conditions of his guilty plea and refused to testify for a second time at codefendants retrial for murder

Consider the following statement: The risk or to see that sufficient precautions are taken to protect others from the harm that the risk poses.” kaisner v. kolb, 543 so.2d 732, 735 (fla.1989). thus, “[a]s to duty, the proper inquiry for the reviewing appellate court is whether the defendant’s conduct created a foreseeable zone of risk, not whether the defendant could foresee the specific injury that actually occurred.” mccain, 593 so.2d at 504 (bold emphasis added). by placing the large cement pipes on the corner of an intersection, freedom created a “foreseeable zone of risk” where motorists had an obstructed view of eastbound traffic on griffin road. therefore, freedom had a duty to take necessary precautions and minimize the risk inherent in that obstructed view. cf. whitt v. silverman, 788 so.2d 210 (fla.2001) (<holding>). the primary issue upon which the trial court Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding a private landowner can be held hable for negligently keeping property in a manner that obstructs a drivers view of traffic B. holding that a state official can be held individually hable under 1983 for acts taken within the scope of his or her official duties C. holding that public entities may be held vicariously hable for the negligent acts of their individual employees D. holding tavern employees could be held liable for negligently furnishing alcohol to a patron in violation of a criminal statute or ordinance E. holding that in condemnation proceedings the landowner has the burden of establishing the value of the property. Answer:

A. holding a private landowner can be held hable for negligently keeping property in a manner that obstructs a drivers view of traffic

Consider the following statement: Provided, however, that: (t ⅝ ⅜ ⅝ “(2) in respect to those injuries or damages due to acts of medical * * * malpractice which could not in the exercise of reasonable diligence be discoverable at the time of the occurrence of the incident which gave rise to the action, suit shall be commenced within three (3) years of the time that the act or acts of the malpractice should, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, have been discovered.” (emphases added.) under the plain language of § 9-1-14.1, in order to toll the malpractice statute of limitations, there must be a finding that the plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence at the time the injury occurred, yet failed to discover a wrongful act on the part of the defendant. see grossi v. miriam hospital, 689 a.2d 403, 404 (r.i.1997) (<holding>). in contrast, the tolling provision contained Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding prescription defense available to wife who asserted that she was holding her husbands pills on his behalf B. holding erisa did not apply when doctor was not employee of the medical association of the state of alabama C. holding that a wifes minimal involvement in her husbands business coupled with the lack of evidence that she knew of or intended to further her husbands fraudulent schemes was insufficient evidence of conspiracy D. holding that the tolling provision of 91141 did not apply when the plaintiff knew that medical negligence may have contributed to her husbands death but asserted that she did not know the identity of the doctor who treated him E. holding that where petitioner testified she did not know who fired shots at her ear or why the evidence did not compel the conclusion that the shooting was based on her political opinion. Answer:

D. holding that the tolling provision of 91141 did not apply when the plaintiff knew that medical negligence may have contributed to her husbands death but asserted that she did not know the identity of the doctor who treated him

Consider the following statement: The assets at stake were artwork or cash, the defendants, through a series of complex transactions, have succeeded in moving such assets from trusts and accounts in which the plaintiff had the right of access, to trusts and accounts in which she did not. thus, all of the alleged predicates of mail fraud, wire fraud and money laundering are related insofar as they served either to execute the fraud, or mask it. see, e.g., jacobson v. cooper, 882 f.2d 717, 720 (2d cir.1989) (although plaintiff alleged separate acts involving separate properties, relatedness present where all acts had purported effect of depriving plaintiff of his interest in real estate entity). at this stage, nothing more is required. see, e.g., koal indus. v. asland, s.a., 808 f.supp. 1143, 1161-62 (s.d.n.y.1992) (<holding>). the plaintiff has also met the continuity Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 to prevail under civil rico plaintiff must prove that defendants participated in the conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity B. holding that plaintiff stated pattern of racketeering activity where defendants allegedly committed various predicates with common design of defrauding plaintiffs of money and obtaining control of coal mine C. holding that a pattern of racketeering activity required multiple illegal schemes D. holding that plaintiffs allegation that defendant engaged in multiple instances of mail and wire fraud did not allege pattern of racketeering activity with sufficient particularity E. holding that racketeering predicates must be related and amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity. Answer:

B. holding that plaintiff stated pattern of racketeering activity where defendants allegedly committed various predicates with common design of defrauding plaintiffs of money and obtaining control of coal mine

Consider the following statement: That separateness. in grace’s view, for the maxima to become nathaniel’s separate property, he owed her half of the value of the automobile because the couple had purchased it with “joint” funds. likewise, nathaniel had to pay “his” separate part of the marital debt for health and automobile insurance. {¶ 58} however, spouses cannot by agreement convert marital assets and debt into separate assets and debt, unless the agreement is pursuant to an immediate separation. r.c. 3103.06 (“a husband and wife cannot, by any contract with each other, alter their legal relations, except that they may agree to an immediate separation and make provisions for the support of either of them and their children during the separation”); blair v. blair (mar. 5, 2002), 3d dist. no. 9-01-36, 2002 wl 359470 (<holding>). “ ‘r.c. 3103.06 prohibits post-nuptial Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 circuit court erred in failing to consider that marital property in the form of marital earnings was used to pay debt against nonmarital property B. holding that separate property valued at 45000 was transmuted to marital property when improved by 3800 of marital property C. holding that the trial court erred in finding that marital property was the former wifes separate property based on a nonseparation agreement in which the former husband purported to relinquish any interest in the marital property D. holding trial court had no authority to award portion of the marital property to wifes children from another marriage even though money they received by way of social security benefits were commingled with the marital estate and used in part for the aequisition of marital property E. holding that separate property may become marital property if spouse donates it to marital unit with intent at time of donation that property become marital. Answer:

C. holding that the trial court erred in finding that marital property was the former wifes separate property based on a nonseparation agreement in which the former husband purported to relinquish any interest in the marital property

Consider the following statement: Have changed the jury’s decision to impose a death sentence. see gissendaner, 272 ga. at 713-714 (10) (b) (reviewing alleged impropriety that was not objected to at trial solely for the purpose of determining if a death sentence was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor in violation of ocga § 17-10-35 (c) (d). 9. in addition to his claim above regarding unsworn and allegedly false testimony, martin argues that the trial court erred by permitting victim impact testimony that was improper in other ways. because martin failed to both raise objections and obtain rulings on them regarding any of the allegedly objectionable statements, he has forfeited his right to appeal under ordinary appellate review standards. see smith, 287 ga. at 30 (3) (<holding>). furthermore, we conclude under the “plain Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 appellants failure to obtain a ruling at the trial level even on a constitutional issue precluded review on appeal B. holding that the supreme court will not address an argument on appeal if a party has failed to obtain a ruling below C. holding that a party may not raise a claim on appeal that was not presented to the trial court D. holding that a party must obtain a distinct ruling on an issue in order to raise it on appeal E. holding that a party may not raise an issue for the first time on appeal. Answer:

D. holding that a party must obtain a distinct ruling on an issue in order to raise it on appeal

Consider the following statement: Twice for the same offense arising from the same act. see state v. craft, 685 so.2d 1292 (fla.1996). accordingly, because appellant was twice convicted for the same offense arising from a single episode, we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court vacate appellant’s conviction on count i. we also remand for recalculation of the score sheet and re-sentencing since the vacated conviction will result in a reduced sentencing range. see johnson v. state, 744 so.2d 1221 (fla. 4th dca 1999)(re-manding for re-sentencing where one of defendant’s convictions was vacated and the appellate court was unable to conclude that the defendant’s sentence would have been the same had the trial court used a properly prepared score sheet); roy v. state, 711 so.2d 1848 (fla. 1st dca 1998)(<holding>). affirmed in part; reversed in part; 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 habitual offender sentence rendered any errors in guidelines score sheet harmless B. holding that resentencing is required C. holding that seventh application for postconviction relief which was rejected because evidence on which it was based was not properly authenticated was properly filed D. holding that on a motion for postconviction relief defendant was entitled to reduction of points based upon a vacated conviction which resulted in a reduced sentencing range which required resentencing with a corrected score sheet E. holding defendant sentenced to term equal to maximum guidelines sentence under improperly calculated sentencing guidelines scoresheet was not entitled to be resentenced because defendant was habitualized such that sentencing guidelines score sheet was irrelevant and the sentence imposed was not illegal. Answer:

D. holding that on a motion for postconviction relief defendant was entitled to reduction of points based upon a vacated conviction which resulted in a reduced sentencing range which required resentencing with a corrected score sheet

Consider the following statement: Interpreted asa holding that a gold tooth equates with a stereotypical belief as a matter of law. see george v. state, 263 ga. app. 541, 545 (2) (b) n. 13 (588 se2d 312) (2003) (summarizing our holding in rector as “improper stereotyping where state failed to explain how prospective juror’s gold tooth related to case”), disapproved on other grounds, littlejohn v. state, 320 ga. app. 197, 202 (1) (c) n. 3 (739 se2d 682) (2013) (noting that george is overruled to the extent it was based upon standard disapproved in toomer, supra). clearly, our decision in rector rested upon the state’s failure to provide a case-related explanation for its peremptory strike. but the supreme court of georgia has now expressly disapproved of that portion of the decision. toomer, supra, 292 ga. at 54 (2) (b) (<holding>) (footnote omitted; emphasis supplied). after Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 written statement could not be regarded as an affidavit sufficient in law for any purpose because it was not sworn to by any one or before any officer B. holding explanation need not even be caserelated and stating any statements to the contrary in four identified cases and any other georgia case are hereby disapproved C. holding an auditors review and approval of quarterly financial statements nonactionable under 10b and stating that because defendant did not actually engage in the reporting of the financial statements but merely reviewed and approved them the statements are not attributable to defendant and thus defendant cannot be found liable for making a material misstatement D. holding that courts are not bound to decide any particular jurisdictional question before any other E. recognizing that subject matter jurisdiction can be questioned at any time and with respect to any claim. Answer:

B. holding explanation need not even be caserelated and stating any statements to the contrary in four identified cases and any other georgia case are hereby disapproved

Consider the following statement: (1) legal fees incurred to repossess the equipment; (2) investigator’s fees expended to track down the equipment hidden by paul; (3) devaluation of the market price of the recovered equipment; and (4) loss of some of the equipment hidden by paul. mullins has challenged the inclusion of consequential damages in the restitution award and the failure of the court to make findings as to his ability to pay. the amount of restitution that may be awarded under the vwpa is specifically described: the order may require that such defendant— “(1) in the case of an offense resulting in damage to or loss or destruction o n effect, even if costs that are not included would appear to be justified as a way of making the victim whole. united states v. mitchell, 876 f.2d 1178, 1184 (5th cir.1989) (<holding>). in cases involving the damage, loss, 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 restitution under the vwpa was more akin to compensation for actual loss than a criminal penalty that may not bear interest B. holding that equitable restitution is available but that legal restitution is not C. holding that restitution for lost income in property cases was improper under the plain language of the statute because restitution for lost income is authorized only for victims of bodily injury D. holding that where the government has not presented evidence at the hearing concerning the appropriate amount of restitution the imposition of the restitution order constitutes plain error E. holding that restitution for lost income is not authorized for offenses resulting in damage to loss of or destruction of property the fact that the goals of the vwpa may be thwarted by denying lost income restitution does not authorize us to ignore the plain language of the statute. Answer:

E. holding that restitution for lost income is not authorized for offenses resulting in damage to loss of or destruction of property the fact that the goals of the vwpa may be thwarted by denying lost income restitution does not authorize us to ignore the plain language of the statute

Consider the following statement: A judicially created doctrine in this state. the action existed at common law, and was adopted into the jurisprudence of this state. see, e.g., beach v. brown, 20 wash. 266, 55 p. 46 (1898). the legislature of this state has not specifically provided for an action for alienation of affections. no doubt has ever been expressed regarding the courts' power to abolish this judicially created action for alienation of a spouse's affections. our original decision in this case recognized that "a rule of law which has its origins in the common law and which has not been specifically enacted by the legislature may be modified or abolished by the courts when such revision is mandated by changed conditions." wyman v. wallace, 91 wn.2d at 318-19. see also freehe v. freehe, 81 w 9, 134 (iowa 1978) (<holding>). in the instant case, the question 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. recognizing the cause of action B. holding that where the question to be resolved in the declaratory judgment action will be decided in a pending action it is inappropriate to grant a declaratory judgment C. holding that the question whether a cause of action exists is not a question of jurisdiction and therefore may be assumed without being decided D. recognizing that the question of abolition of the action for alienation of affections is a matter that can be decided by the state courts and then holding that the action will continue to exist E. holding that it may be decided as a matter of law. Answer:

D. recognizing that the question of abolition of the action for alienation of affections is a matter that can be decided by the state courts and then holding that the action will continue to exist

Consider the following statement: Have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of these claims. igra requires the secretary to review a tribe’s distribution plan and approve it, if it meets the requirements of 25 u.s.c. § 2710(b)(3). the secretary complied with this requirement, determining that the community’s plan — including its provision that “[t]he decision as to those persons entitled to share in community gaming profits is strictly an internal tribal matter and an inherent right and power of the tribe,” (amend.compl. ex. i, § 14.5, pt. a) — was “adequate.” the “adequacy” of a tribal gaming ordinance falls within the expertise of the bia and the nigc, and as such, is entitled to significant deference. see 5 u.s.c. § 706(2)(a); lile v. university of iowa hosp., 886 f.2d 157, 160 (8th cir.1989) (<holding>). plaintiffs have not demonstrated the federal Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that deference to an agency interpretation is not appropriate where a statute is administered by more than one agency B. recognizing that courts accord significant deference to an agency decision where agency expertise is involved C. holding deference to agency methodology appropriate unless agency failed to address an essential factor D. holding an agency decision is not final during the time the agency considers a petition for review E. holding that agency interpretation which is reasonable is entitled to deference. Answer:

B. recognizing that courts accord significant deference to an agency decision where agency expertise is involved

Consider the following statement: To any portion of the twenty percent contingent fee arrangement? in its panel opinion, the veterans court ruled that under new york law the termination extinguished mason’s right to a contingent fee. the en banc court, however, vacated the panel decision when it granted rehearing en banc. ordinarily state law controls the attorney-client relationship. see baird v. koerner, 279 f.2d 623 (9th cir.1960). here, however, a federal statute provides for and governs the twenty percent contingent fee arrangement and the secretary’s payment of the fee to the attorney out of the proceeds of the past benefits awarded. in that situation, should not federal rather than state law govern those aspects of the relationship? cf. howard v. lyons, 360 u.s. 593, 597, 79 s.ct. 1331, 3 l.ed.2d 1454 (1959) (<holding>). of course, such federal standards may reflect Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 rights and duties of the united states on commercial paper which it issues are governed by federal law and that in the absence of an applicable act of congress it is for the federal courts to fashion the governing rule of law according to their own standards B. holding that the burden is on the defendants to establish the existence of absolute legislative immunity C. holding that the validity of government officials claim of absolute immunity for statement allegedly defamatory under state law must be judged by federal standards to be formulated by the courts in the absence of legislative action by congress D. holding that private rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by congress courts may not create a cause of action absent statutory intent E. holding that ejxcept in matters governed by the federal constitution or by acts of congress the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state. Answer:

C. holding that the validity of government officials claim of absolute immunity for statement allegedly defamatory under state law must be judged by federal standards to be formulated by the courts in the absence of legislative action by congress

Consider the following statement: ... to trigger the [iad], and that he did request, as he was required to do, a trial within the time period.” subsequently, the judge denied the state’s motion for reconsideration. the state appeals, contending that the motion judge erred in dismissing the indictment and that the iad was not applicable. under the iad, a person who is imprisoned in one state, who has, pending in another state which is a party to the agreement, an “untried indictment, information or complaint on the basis of which a detainer has been lodged against” him, must “be brought to trial within 180 days after he [has] caused to be delivered to the prosecuting officer and the appropriate court of the prosecuting officer’s jurisdiction written notice of the place of his imprisonment and his request for a fin ) (<holding>). here, the state never filed a detainer. “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 a defendant is not entitled to dismissal of an indictment under the iad as no detainer had been lodged against him B. holding that indictment sufficiently informed defendant of the charge against him so as to enable him to prepare a defense and thus there is no claim that he was surprised at trial C. holding that if the time limits of the iad have been violated the charges underlying the detainer must be dismissed D. holding that the 180day time period in article 111a of the iad does not commence until the prisoners request for final disposition of the charges against him has actually been delivered to the court and prosecuting officer of the jurisdiction that lodged the detainer against him E. recognizing that under fex prisoners request for final disposition requires actual delivery to court and prosecuting officer of jurisdiction that lodged detainer against him. Answer:

A. holding that a defendant is not entitled to dismissal of an indictment under the iad as no detainer had been lodged against him

Consider the following statement: Of the leases is fatal to their appeal. see loven v. greene county, 94 s.w.3d 475, 478 (mo.app. s.d.2003) (“an appellant’s failure to challenge a finding and ruling that would support the conclusion complained about is fatal to an appeal.”). it is the appellants’ “burden on appeal to demonstrate that the trial court’s judgment was incorrect on any basis supported by the record and the applicable law.... as such, the [appellants’] failure to properly challenge a finding and ruling of the trial court that would support its judgment ... would be fatal to [their] appeal.” landry v. miller, 998 s.w.2d 837, 840 (mo.app. w.d.1999) (abrogated on other grounds) (internal citation omitted); see also city of peculiar v. hunt martin materials, llc, 274 s.w.3d 588, 590-91 (mo.app. w.d.2009) (<holding>); houston v. roadway express, inc., 133 s.w.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 erroneous findings of fact not necessary to support the judgment of the court are not grounds for reversal B. holding that the statement of specific grounds in a motion for a new trial waives all other grounds not specified C. holding that where specific grounds for an objection are stated at trial all other grounds are waived and will not be considered for the first time on appeal D. holding that summary judgment must be affirmed where multiple grounds are asserted and the appellant does not attack all grounds on appeal E. holding that to establish grounds for reversal an appellant must challenge all grounds on which the trial court ruled against it. Answer:

E. holding that to establish grounds for reversal an appellant must challenge all grounds on which the trial court ruled against it

Consider the following statement: Any court.” this court con- eludes that section 440(a) expressly repeals all federal court jurisdiction over the deportation orders of the defined class of criminal aliens, including jurisdiction under § 2241. nevertheless, because the fifth circuit said in williams that the constitution prevents congress from suspending the writ of habeas corpus for the class of criminal deportees to which olvera belongs, 114 f.3d at 84, the court must assume that habeas jurisdiction is constitutionally required in this case despite the language of section 440(a). iii. scope of review among the district courts that have found jurisdiction to review deportation orders under § 2241, there has been considerable debate over the proper scope of review. see, e.g., mbiya v. ins, 930 f.supp. 609 (n.d.ga.1996) (<holding>); mojica v. reno, 970 f.supp. 130 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 federal court cannot review claim procedurally defaulted in state court absent showing of either cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice B. holding that in the case of state procedural default a federal habeas review of the claims is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate among other things that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice C. holding that courts may only review claims for fundamental miscarriage of justice D. holding that issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered absent exceptional circumstances of plain error or fundamental miscarriage of justice E. holding that fundamental miscarriage of justice standard requires petitioner to make threshold showing of actual innocence. Answer:

C. holding that courts may only review claims for fundamental miscarriage of justice

Consider the following statement: A preponderance of the evidence either that he or she had no knowledge of the illegal activity, or, in the alternative, that he or she did not consent to such activity occurring. united states v. 141st street corporation, by hersh, 911 f.2d 870, 878 (2d cir.1990). this “innocent owner” defense is an affirmative defense that must be proven by the claimant. united states v. one parcel of property, located at 755 forest road, northford, conn., 985 f.2d 70, 72 (2d cir.1993). whether the claimant must prove absence of actual knowledge of the illegal activity or the more demanding burden of absence of constructive knowledge of the illegal activity is a split issue amongst the circuits. compare united states v. four million, two hundred. fifty-five thousand, 762 f.2d 895, 906 (11th cir.1985) (<holding>) with one parcel of property, located at 755 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding plaintiff can prove foreseeability by showing the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the assailants violent nature B. recognizing that duty to warn of dangerous conditions could be based on constructive knowledge of that condition as well as actual knowledge C. holding that constructive knowledge satisfies the reason to know standard D. holding that the innocent owner defense hinges upon the claimants actual not constructive knowledge E. holding stock dividend payable to actual owner not owner of record. Answer:

D. holding that the innocent owner defense hinges upon the claimants actual not constructive knowledge

Consider the following statement: Alan pardofigueroa appeals from the district court’s judgment and 27-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction to conspiracy, in violation of 18 u.s.c. § 371, fraud and misuse of documents, in violation of 18 u.s.c. § 1546(a), and false statements, in violation of 18 u.s.c. § 1001. we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 1291, and we affirm. pardofigueroa contends that the district court erred by applying a preponderance of the evidence standard, rather than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, when determining whether the factual predicate for a sentencing enhancement had been met. this contention is foreclosed by united states v. kilby, 443 f.3d 1135, 1143 (9th cir.2006) (<holding>). pardofigueroa also contends that the district Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding guidelines to be only advisory B. holding that the preponderance standard is generally appropriate in guidelines sentencing C. recognizing that sentencing facts are based on the evidence and testimony presented at sentencing under a preponderance of the evidence standard D. holding that the district court determines the amount of loss under the preponderance of the evidence standard E. holding that under the advisory guidelines a district court should resolve factual disputes at sentencing by applying the preponderance of the evidence standard. Answer:

E. holding that under the advisory guidelines a district court should resolve factual disputes at sentencing by applying the preponderance of the evidence standard

Consider the following statement: 289, 292 (5th cir.1981)] or (3) when the government no longer has a mortgage or a lien upon the property in dispute when the suit was filed, [citing koehler, 153 f.3d at 266-67].” hussain, 311 f.3d at 629-30. furthermore, if the complaint or pleading does not set forth with particularity the nature of the government’s interest showing that it has or claims to have a lien or mortgage against the property that is the subject of the suit, the complaint fails to satisfy the conditions necessary to waive the sovereign immunity of the united states and invoke federal jurisdiction. 28 u.s.c. § 2410(b) (“the complaint or pleading shall set forth with particularity the nature of the interest or lien of the united states.”); see also dahn v. united states, 127 f.3d 1249, 1251 (10th cir.1997) (<holding>); macklin v. united states, 300 f.3d 814, 821 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) 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 united states is liable for interest only in the event of a clear statutory waiver of sovereign immunity B. holding that a complaint that fails to meet the pleading requirements does not invoke the statutory waiver of sovereign immunity C. holding that the waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal D. holding that the ada does not contain a waiver of sovereign immunity and thus does not apply to the federal government E. holding where party fails to challenge specificity of pleading it waives right to claim that pleading fails to meet legal requirements. Answer:

B. holding that a complaint that fails to meet the pleading requirements does not invoke the statutory waiver of sovereign immunity

Consider the following statement: To doj before the ic’s appointment that she will not recover under the act. based on the foregoing, we conclude that mullins would not have incurred the attorneys’ fees and expenses for which she seeks reimbursement “but for” the requirements of the act. d. fees are “reasonable" under the act 1. attorneys’fees as we have often observed, the fee petitioner bear rneys’ fees and expenses and we will review each bill separately to ensure that all items sought are reimbursable under the act and are reasonable. the january 1993 bill totals $22,322.50 and mullins subtracts $6,800 for representation prior to ic digenova’s appointment on december 14, 1992, and $632.50 for research in connection with recovering attorneys’ fees, which is not reimbursable under the act. see gadd, 12 f.3d at 257 (<holding>). we find reasonable the remaining fees 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 fees for fees are not reimbursable under 28 usc 593f1 B. holding that bank was entitled to attorney fees on appeal when agreement did not prohibit such fees C. holding a bankruptcy court is not a court of the united states entitled to waive filing fees pursuant to 28 usc section 1915a D. holding that a case awarding fees under 42 usc 1988 has no application in a private claim for attorneys fees sounding in mississippi contract law E. holding that lexis fees are not taxable as costs but reserving ruling on whether such fees are recoverable as attorneys fees. Answer:

A. holding that fees for fees are not reimbursable under 28 usc 593f1

Consider the following statement: The debtor, who could with impunity demand the return of property repossessed pre-petition informally, realizes that it cannot prevail and thus declines to file an adversary proceeding to recover the property. order pursuant to the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is the order of this court that defendant, which repossessed debtor’s vehicle pre-petition, did not violate the automatic stay by refusing to voluntarily return the vehicle to debtor after the chapter 13 case was filed. therefore, the clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the defendant. 1 . of course sometimes creditors are told by debtors or individuals acting on a debtor’s behalf that a case is pending when in fact it has not been filed. see in re karis, 208 b.r. 913 (bankr. w.d.wis.1997) (<holding>). sometimes this representation is innocent as Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding a tape of a telephone call was admissible because one party to the call consented to the recording B. holding that utility customers mailing of a petition did not constitute the filing of the petition as filing was not effectuated until the petition was received by the clerk C. holding that telephone call from debtors attorney did not constitute notice of bankruptcy filing because petition had not in fact been filed D. holding that a debtors entitlement to an exemption under 522d1 is determined as of the filing date of a bankruptcy petition E. holding pursuant to bankruptcy rule 7004b9 that because the creditor mailed the complaint and summons to the debtors attorney and to the address listed in the debtors bankruptcy petition service of process was sufficient even if the debtors were out of the country and did not actually receive notice of the complaint and summons. Answer:

C. holding that telephone call from debtors attorney did not constitute notice of bankruptcy filing because petition had not in fact been filed

Consider the following statement: Parents, they obtained the ptsd diagnosis and the prescription for homebound placement, and they largely refused to cooperate with the ard committee. marc’s parents should have cooperated with the ard committee in addressing the homebound placement issue, the ptsd diagnosis, and the related mistreatment allegations. e. plaintiffs ada, section 1983, and section 504 claims based on alleged violations of the idea occurring between august 13, 2003 and august 13, 2004 fail as a matter of law because plaintiffs’ idea claim has failed. since defendants complied with the idea during the relevant time period, plaintiffs cannot prevail on their derivative section 1983, section 504, and ada claims as a matter of law. pace v. bogalusa city sch. bd., 403 f.3d 272, 297 (5th cir.2005) (en banc) (<holding>). additionally, the individual defendants are Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. recognizing that a school district must be a prevailing party in order to be entitled to attorneys fees under the idea B. holding in the alternative that plaintiffs establishment clause claims were barred by laches C. holding that a school district was not required to move a nurse to a students neighborhood school to comply with the idea D. recognizing that idea is simply not an antidiscrimination statute so that pure discrimination claim was not barred by parents failure to exhaust remedies under idea E. holding that plaintiffs redundant nonidea claims were barred by issue and claim preclusion where there were administrative findings that the school district complied with the idea. Answer:

E. holding that plaintiffs redundant nonidea claims were barred by issue and claim preclusion where there were administrative findings that the school district complied with the idea

Consider the following statement: That district court’s claim-by-claim description of the frivolous nature of the plaintiffs’ complaint demonstrated clearly that their “widespread charges of racial discrimination [were leveled] without any regard for the truth ... in order to harass and embarrass the personnel at fort bragg”). the third and fourth instances of bad faith were predicated on the district court’s belief that both david and samuel sprafldn had offered testimony that “simply was not credible.” we have no doubt that when a party has materially perjured himself, this, standing alone, is sufficient grounds for finding bad faith. see chambers, 501 u.s. at 46, 111 s.ct. at 2133 (noting that the “inherent power extends to a full range of litigation abuses); see also perichak, 715 f.2d at 84-85 & n. 9 (3d cir.1983) (<holding>); carrión v. yeshiva university, 535 f.2d 722 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that even if defendants knew that the company had inventory problems that fact standing alone does not show that defendants knew that the statements in their prospectus or other representations were materially false or misleading at the time the material statements were made B. holding that the defendants materially false statements made under oath are having been critical to the success of his case alone enough to support a finding of bad faith C. holding that in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary a defendant is bound by statements made under oath during his plea colloquy D. recognizing that the sixth circuit has folded the absence of bad faith in under the inadvertence prong made the determination of whether there was evidence of a motive or intention to conceal the potential claim critical to a finding of bad faith and has held that in a particular case numerous attempts by the plaintiffs to cure an initial omission provided evidence that the omission was inadvertent not intentional E. holding that a bad faith claim is a tort. Answer:

B. holding that the defendants materially false statements made under oath are having been critical to the success of his case alone enough to support a finding of bad faith

Consider the following statement: She could not perform the quintessential function of regularly attending work. cf. wimbley v. bolger, 642 f.supp. 481, 485 (w.d.tenn.1986) (stating an employee “who does not come to work cannot perform any of his job functions, essential or otherwise”), aff'd, 831 f.2d 298 (6th cir.1987). other jurisdictions agree that irregular attendance renders a person unqualified for most types of employment and thus susceptible to legitimate termination. cf. carr v. reno, 23 f.3d 525, 529-30 (d.c.cir.1994) (affirming district court’s holding that plaintiffs prolonged, frequent, and unpredictable absences rendered her unqualified for any government job because “coming to work regularly” is an “essential function”); tyndall v. national educ. ctrs. inc. of california, 31 f.3d 209, 213 (4th cir.1994) (<holding>); tuttle v. henry j. kaiser co., 921 f.2d 183, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that even though instructor possessed the necessary teaching skills and performed well when she was at work her frequent absences rendered her unable to function effectively as a teacher B. holding the employee was clearly within the zone of her employment even though not at her work station because she was on the universitys premises the campus C. holding that allegations that employees supervisors yelled at her told her she was a poor manager and gave her poor evaluations chastised her in front of customers and once required her to work with an injured back were insufficient to state title vii claim D. holding that because the plaintiffs skills had deteriorated during the period she claims she was paid less than a male employee who performed equal work the plaintiff was not entitled to proceed further under the epa E. holding that relative to the threat that she posed physically separating tina cortez from her telephone taking her by the arm escorting her from her home taking the keys to her home and locking the door and placing her in the locked back seat of a patrol car was excessive force as well as an unlawful seizure under the fourth amendment. Answer:

A. holding that even though instructor possessed the necessary teaching skills and performed well when she was at work her frequent absences rendered her unable to function effectively as a teacher

Consider the following statement: Veterans court, including a challenge to the constitutionality of the npwe under the equal protection and due process clauses of the fifth amendment. id. in january 2014, the atlanta va regional office issued a statement of the case regarding payne’s termination and attached instructions for completing an appeal. payne immediately filed an “emergency motion for the [veterans] court to issue an order declaring the ‘signed’ statement of the case ... a legal nullity and does not moot the petition for a writ of mandamus full relief stated and requested.” id. at *2. on january 28, 2014, the veterans court denied the petition. id. relying on the standard outlined in cheney v. united states district court for district of columbia, 542 u.s. 367, 380-81, 124 s.ct. 2576, 159 l.ed.2d 459 (2004) (<holding>), the veterans court noted 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 a court may grant a writ of mandamus if 1 the petitioner demonstrates that he lacks an adequate alternative 2 the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to the writ and 3 the court is convinced that issuing the writ is warranted B. holding that a trial court had no discretion to enter a writ of replevin after finding that the statutory requirements for issuing the writ had been met even though the statute provided that a circuit court may issue a writ of replevin reasoning that based on the context may implied an imperative obligation C. holding that common pleas erred in setting aside the writ of execution on the basis that the union erroneously filed a writ of execution instead of filing a writ of mandamus D. holding that notice of condemnation and availability of a state court injunction writ of mandamus and writ of certiorari in an eminent domain case satisfied due process E. holding that to grant a writ of mandamus a court in the exercise of its discretion must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. Answer:

A. holding that a court may grant a writ of mandamus if 1 the petitioner demonstrates that he lacks an adequate alternative 2 the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to the writ and 3 the court is convinced that issuing the writ is warranted

Consider the following statement: Hewitt v. state, 242 md. 111, 113-14, 218 a.2d 19, 20-21 (1966) (specifically holding that a double jeopardy issue may not be raised for the first time on appeal pursuant to then rule 885); iozzi v. state, 224 md. 42, 46, 166 a.2d 257, 260 (1960) (not reaching a claim that the defendant was not allowed his right to counsel when his attorney was not present at a portion of the trial, citing rule 885 and stating, “[i]n the absence of anything to show a request to the trial court or a ruling thereon, there is nothing before us to consider”) (alteration added); kirby v. state, 222 md. 421, 425, 160 a.2d 786, 788 (1960) (stating that “cases almost uniformly hold that the right to a speedy trial ... like other statutory or constitutional rights, may be waived and that it 363, 365-66 (1982) (<holding>); see also johnson v. state, 138 md.app. 539, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal 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 even constitutional issues may be waived if not properly raised at the trial court level pursuant to rules 885 and 1085 both predecessors to current md rule 8131a B. holding issues not raised at trial level cannot be argued for the first time on appeal C. holding that we consider issues not raised at administrative level waived D. holding that issues not raised in the trial court may not be raised later on appeal E. holding that exhaustion of issues is waived if not raised by the government. Answer:

A. recognizing that even constitutional issues may be waived if not properly raised at the trial court level pursuant to rules 885 and 1085 both predecessors to current md rule 8131a

Consider the following statement: Decision that detective clark was not entitled to rely in good faith on the warrant issued by the commissioner. whether a law enforcement officer reasonably relied upon a subsequently invalidated search warrant is a legal question which we review de novo. see united states v. koerth, 312 f.3d 862, 865 (7th cir.2002). a. the foundations and purpose of the exclusionary rule simply stated, “[t]he exclusionary rule operates to prevent the government from using evidence seized as the result of an illegal search in a subsequent criminal prosecution.” united states v. mcgough, 412 f.3d 1232, 1239 (11th cir.2005). it has existed, in some form, as part of our constitutional jurisprudence for over one hundred years. see boyd v. united states, 116 u.s. 616, 638, 6 s.ct. 524, 29 l.ed. 746 (1886) (<holding>). although commentators have articulated Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding statute requiring parties in tax suit to take notice of subsequent pleadings was not unconstitutional when city failed to take such notice B. holding that where it was erroneous for the district court to take judicial notice it certainly cannot be said that such notice was mandatory and therefore ire 201d is inapplicable C. holding that a notice to produce personal papers was unconstitutional and void and that the inspection by the district attorney of said invoice when produced in obedience to said notice and its admission in evidence by the court were erroneous and unconstitutional proceedings D. holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner E. holding that a defendant is not entitled to relief from default judgment because notice to an attorney of filing of motions and orders is constructive notice to the client even when the client did not have actual notice. Answer:

C. holding that a notice to produce personal papers was unconstitutional and void and that the inspection by the district attorney of said invoice when produced in obedience to said notice and its admission in evidence by the court were erroneous and unconstitutional proceedings

Consider the following statement: Profanity or vulgarity may constitute sufficient grounds for a denial of unemployment compensation to an individual discharged for using such language, most of the cases in which a claimant’s vulgar or profane language has been held to be a basis for the denial of benefits have involved a combination of factors, of which the claimant’s use of offensive language was only one. id. at 110 (footnote omitted). a finding of willful misconduct necessarily depends upon the particular circumstances of the case. here, we must consider the circumstances attending the alleged misconduct to determine whether the words spoken were of such a nature to evince a willful disregard of the employer’s interests and the employee’s duties and obligations. see israel, 7 va. app. at 175, 372 s.e.2d at 210-11 (<holding>). accordingly, our inquiry will focus on “the Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate retaliation for activities that occurred two years prior to the termination B. holding two instances of violating 148 were two offenses because thirty minutes elapsed between the two incidents and in the intervening space of time the defendant had completely calmed down and ceased his criminal activity C. holding that the evidence supported two separate convictions and punishments for two attempted robberies of two different victims who suffered separate and distinct harms D. holding that where truck driver had two accidents within two weeks the circumstances failed to demonstrate a willful disregard of employers interests or employees duties and obligations E. holding that two robberies of different people at the same time are two separate offenses calling for two judgments and two sentences when the defendants were convicted of taking a grandfathers wallet pistol and car and taking a grandsons fishing equipment. Answer:

D. holding that where truck driver had two accidents within two weeks the circumstances failed to demonstrate a willful disregard of employers interests or employees duties and obligations