Datasets:

quyanh

/

lexglue-cot-dpo-test

like 0

Consider the following statement: For — the peremptory challenge. mj: captain [k] [trial counsel]’s been very forthright with the court in the past. i assume, captain [k] that you’re, likewise, being forthright this time; that you have no other reason for substituting — or for excusing this member? tc: no, sir, we do not. mj: and it’s particularly not race — although i do note that [of 11 members] there are several other minority members on the panel, including the sergeant major who was just in, as well as one female member— tc: sir, sergeant first class [b] and sergeant first class [ka]. atc: and, for the record, sir, lieutenant colonel [b] is also a minority member, based on his worksheet. mj: okay. well, i’m satisfied that the government has exercised its peremptory challenge on a non-discriminato d.texas 1994) (<holding>). discussion the fifth amendment guarantees due Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding lack of factual basis for preemptory challenge renders avowed reason for challenge a pretext B. holding raceneutral basis for preemptory challenge was pretext where stated reasons for challenge not supported by venirepersons statements C. holding that right to challenge factual basis is waived by guilty plea D. holding that a reason cannot be proved to be a pretext for discrimination unless it is shown both that the reason was false and that discrimination was the real reason E. holding that if a race or genderneutral reason for a peremptory challenge is apparent from the record the trial court may deny an objection to the challenge without requiring the party exercising the challenge to articulate a race or genderneutral reason. Answer:

A. holding lack of factual basis for preemptory challenge renders avowed reason for challenge a pretext

Consider the following statement: Grown by independent farmers were processed by the employer prevented it from receiving the “secondary agriculture” exemption); skipper v. superior dairies, inc., 512 f.2d 409, 411-12 (5th cir.1975) (employees who delivered and disposed of dairy products did not fit within the primary or secondary meaning of agriculture); brennan v. sugar cane groivers co-op. of fla., 486 f.2d 1006, 1011 (5th cir.1973) (camp cooks for sugar cane workers fell within the secondary meaning of agriculture); hodgson v. ewing, 451 f.2d 526 (5th cir.1971) (clerical work performed for a contractor primarily engaged in leveling agricultural land was not within the secondary meaning of agriculture, as most of that clerical work took place off the farm); nlrb v. hudson farms, inc., 681 f.2d 1105, 1106 (8th cir.) (<holding>); valmac indus., inc. v. nlrb, 599 f.2d 246, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that farm workers who voluntarily choose to ride employers bus to and from field were engaged in noncompensable travel B. holding that employees who transported live poultry from an independent growers farm to their employers processing plant were not agricultural laborers C. holding that the antiretaliation provision must protect employees who complain about violations to their employers D. holding that employers are not liable for conduct of ordinary employees because an ordinary employees conduct will normally be so unrelated to the employers business that it cannot be deemed in furtherance thereof E. holding that atwill employees have no contractual relationship with their employers to support a cause of action under section 1981. Answer:

B. holding that employees who transported live poultry from an independent growers farm to their employers processing plant were not agricultural laborers

Consider the following statement: Converted the motion for judgment on the pleadings into a motion for summary judgment. this argument marries with marrero’s contention that factual issues existed on the merits of her section 1983 claim. marrero, consumed by her belief that such factual issues existed, concludes that the district judge must have converted the motion for judgment on the pleadings into a motion for summary judgment in order to dismiss the case. there is, however, no support that such a conversion occurred. the record shows that the district court properly considered the matter as a motion for judgment on the pleadings. the defendants did not attach any documents or exhibits outside their pleadings, and the district court never allowed the parties to supplement the record. see collier, 158 f.3d at 603 (<holding>). of course, the implication of this holding 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 a court may consider materials outside the pleadings to determine its jurisdiction B. holding that in ruling on a rule 12b1 motion the court may consider exhibits outside the pleadings to resolve factual disputes regarding jurisdiction C. holding that on a rule 12b1 motion challenging subjectmatter jurisdiction the court has authority to consider matters outside the pleadings D. holding that a trial court entered judgment on the pleadings where the decision did not depend on any document outside the pleadings E. holding that such a conversion is proper in order to consider materials outside the pleadings. Answer:

E. holding that such a conversion is proper in order to consider materials outside the pleadings

Consider the following statement: V. webb, 194 f.3d 1116, 1132 n. 8 (10th cir.1999) (noting that, once an employee notifies an employer of a disability and requests reassignment, both parties should “interact in good faith to determine how to reasonably accommodate the employee”). we begin by recognizing that a request for reassignment may constitute protected activity under the ada. we have treated requests for reasonable accommodation as protected activity under the ada. see selenke v. med. imaging of colo., 248 f.3d 1249, 1265 (10th cir.2001); butler v. city of prairie vill., 172 f.3d 736, 752 (10th cir.1999). and a request for reassignment to a vacant position is a request for a reasonable accommodation. 42 u.s.c. § 12111(9)(b); see also smith v. midland brake, inc., 180 f.3d 1154, 1167 (10th cir.1999) (en banc) (<holding>). hence, if mr. jones had a reasonable, good Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that when an employer takes steps to accommodate an employees restrictions it is not thereby conceding that the employee is disabled under the ada or that it regards the employee as disabled B. holding that employers must when appropriate accommodate a disabled employee by reassignment to a vacant position if employee cannot be accommodated in existing job C. holding that an employer does not necessarily regard an employee as disabled simply by finding the employee to be incapable of satisfying the singular demands of a particular job D. holding that the employers willingness to accommodate the employee undercut the employees claim of constructive discharge E. holding that an employee whose disability is related to his ability to perform the duties of his position is not disabled under the act and therefore an employer has no duty to accommodate. Answer:

B. holding that employers must when appropriate accommodate a disabled employee by reassignment to a vacant position if employee cannot be accommodated in existing job

Consider the following statement: In a separate and clear finding,” id. at 95, 113 s.ct. at 1117, the court may nevertheless make the upward adjustment whenever it finds all three elements of perjury. here, the district court found that queen’s testimony was “false” and that queen gave this false testimony, “knowing it to be false and material.” that, we conclude, is sufficient. accordingly, we affirm queen’s conviction and sentence. affirmed. 1 . we have found over 60 published opinions since 1990 addressing the rule. 2 . federal rule of evidence 404(b) provi efendant's previous sexual advances towards women admissible to show motive in fraudulent scheme to use company funds for personal relationships); united states v. ford, 88 f.3d 1350, 1362 (4th cir.), cert. denied, - u.s. —, 117 s.ct. 496, 136 l.ed.2d 388 (1996) (<holding>); united states v. hayden, 85 f.3d 153, 159 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that evidence that defendants had participated in several prior drug transactions was properly admitted to establish defendants intent to distribute narcotics B. holding that a prior conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine is admissible under rule 609 C. holding that prior drug trafficking conviction was admissible to prove intent to distribute D. holding prior arrest in connection with an undercover drug buy admissible to show intent to distribute narcotics E. holding that evidence of a 10yearold drug conviction was properly admitted to show intent in a prosecution for possession with intent to distribute. Answer:

D. holding prior arrest in connection with an undercover drug buy admissible to show intent to distribute narcotics

Consider the following statement: We review de novo.” see franks inv. co. llc v. union pac. r.r. co., 593 f.3d 404, 407 (5th cir.2010) (en banc) (citation omitted). that standard, however, is only the beginning of the analytical rules we must apply. the nature of the appellees’ lawsuit — a facial, prospective challenge — and the character of the ordinance — a housing regulation that falls within the city’s police power — necessarily affect our analysis. a. salerno principle regarding facial challenges that the appellees waged a facial, prospective challenge to the ordinance invokes standards of judicial restraint designed to further the interests of federalism and deference to duly passed legislation. see wash. state grange v. wash. state republican party, 552 u.s. 442, 451, 128 s.ct. 1184, 1191, 170 l.ed.2d 151 (2008) (<holding>). pursuant to united states v. salerno, 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 there were at least four amendments submitted to the people in a single proposition and for that reason the amendments were not submitted in accordance with the constitution and notwithstanding the action of the legislature in inserting them in the constitution are null and void and form no part of said constitution B. holding that the plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants contacts with the united states as a whole support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the constitution and laws of the united states C. recognizing that fees of 2030 are generally awarded in this circuit D. recognizing that facial challenges are generally disfavored because they threaten to short circuit the democratic process by preventing laws embodying the will of the people from being implemented in a manner consistent with the constitution E. holding that because the due process clause in the federal constitution is applicable to the states under the fourteenth amendment the right is also guaranteed to defendants pursuant to the identical provision in article i section 5 of the hawaii constitution. Answer:

D. recognizing that facial challenges are generally disfavored because they threaten to short circuit the democratic process by preventing laws embodying the will of the people from being implemented in a manner consistent with the constitution

Consider the following statement: Support this conclusion, and nothing points the other way. first, rico’s statutory scheme resembles the epca more than the rcra. both rico and the epca stand alone in grappling with a broad social issue, whereas the rcra had a closely related statute on which the court in meghrig relied heavily. second, as in both porter and mitchell, the government brought the suit rather than a private party like the meghrig plaintiff, and porter makes clear that district courts may have “even broader and more flexible” equitable powers where the public interest is involved, 328 u.s. at 398, 66 s.ct. 1086. this point has particular traction if the government is the only party that may seek equitable relief under rico. see religious tech. ctr. v. wollersheim, 796 f.2d 1076, 1083-89 (9th cir.1986) (<holding>). but see nat’l org. for women, inc. v. Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that equitable relief is not available to an individual under this section of the fdcpa B. holding that private plaintiffs can seek equitable relief under rico C. holding that damages are not relief that is available under the idea D. holding that equitable relief under rico is available only to the government E. holding that claims for equitable relief under 502a3 are only available when a plaintiff has no other relief under erisa. Answer:

D. holding that equitable relief under rico is available only to the government

Consider the following statement: Who are part of the public.” summary judgment was therefore appropriately granted to the town. given that conclusion, there is no need to address vsc’s argument that the court erred in evaluating a different portion of the “public use” test set forth in american museum of fly fishing. affirmed. 1 it is true, as the dissent posits, that the meaning of the term “public use” has been fleshed out through our case law, and there is little statutory language to be construed. nonetheless, the court is bound to construe tax exemptions strictly against the taxpayer lest all taxpayers be burdened with the costs of conferring a benefit to select individuals rather than to the public at large. see, e.g., delta psi fraternity v. city of burlington, 2008 vt 129, ¶ 14, 185 vt. 129, 969 a.2d 54 (<holding>). 2 we are not persuaded, as the dissent 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 one who claims tax exemption has burden of showing entitlement to exemption B. holding a debtors claim for loss of consortium to be entitled to an exemption under the oklahoma exemption statute and collecting other bankruptcy decisions recognizing a debtor spouses loss of consortium as the basis for allowing an exemption under federal and various state exemption statutes C. holding that when interpreting tax exemption statutes we strictly construe the statute in favor of taxation and against exemption D. recognizing that the right to hold land without being subject to taxation may constitute a substantial detriment to the affected locality and a significant advantage to the landowner and that land use ought not to result in exemption from taxation absent the conferral of a substantial public benefit such as the tax exemption law was designed to foster quotation omitted E. holding act qualifies as exemption statute under exemption 3. Answer:

D. recognizing that the right to hold land without being subject to taxation may constitute a substantial detriment to the affected locality and a significant advantage to the landowner and that land use ought not to result in exemption from taxation absent the conferral of a substantial public benefit such as the tax exemption law was designed to foster quotation omitted

Consider the following statement: Or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court’s resolution of disputed facts.” ramming, 281 f.3d at 161 (citing barrera-montenegro v. united states, 74 f.3d 657, 659 (5th cir.1992)). when a defendant submits a factual attack on the complaint, he must provide support with “affidavits, testimony, or other evidentiary materials.” paterson v. weinberger, 644 f.2d 521, 523 (5th cir.1981). given the burden of proof on the party asserting jurisdiction, the plaintiff must submit evidence to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the court does have jurisdiction based on the complaints and evidence. id. courts are to hold pro se litigants to less stringent pleading standards than other parties. see estelle v. gamble, 429 u.s. 97, 106, 97 s.ct. 285, 50 l.ed.2d 251 (<holding>); see also haines v. kerner, 404 u.s. 519, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant 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 pro se complaints are liberally construed issues not raised in the district court are deemed waived B. holding that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed C. holding that although pro se briefs are liberally construed even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them D. recognizing courts special duty to construe liberally a pro se plaintiffs pleadings E. holding that pleadings under the rico act are to be liberally construed. Answer:

B. holding that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed

Consider the following statement: Asserts, without citation, that “when the patent discloses method and apparatus claims, if only method claims are asserted in the lawsuit and only method claims are found to be infringed, then the marking limitation does not apply.” halliburton’s motion to dismiss (docket no. 152), p. 4. where a patent contains both method and apparatus claims, and there is a tangible item by which notice of the asserted method can be given, the patentee must mark the tangible item to comply with the marking statute, 35 u.s.c. § 287. american medical systems, inc. v. medical engineering corp., 6 f.3d 1523, 1538-39 (fed.cir.1993); honeywell international inc. v. hamilton sundstrand corp., 2001 wl 66345, *4 (d.del.2001); mosel vitelic corp. v. micron technology, inc., 2000 wl 1728351 (d.del.2000) (<holding>). the federal circuit set forth this principle Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that after reading the patent a person of skill in the art would not understand the patentee to have invented a generic method where the patent only disclosed one embodiment of it B. holding that missouris good samaritan rule which incorporates section 323 comes into play only where the plaintiff is the intended beneficiary of the defendants action C. holding that the only time that the notice provisions of the federal statute do not come into play is when the patent is directed to only a method or process D. holding patent policy incorporated by reference into patent agreement E. holding that 1338a jurisdiction inures when a complaint establishes that federal patent law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law in that patent law is a necessary element of one of the wellpleaded claims. Answer:

C. holding that the only time that the notice provisions of the federal statute do not come into play is when the patent is directed to only a method or process

Consider the following statement: Plaintiff filed the motion to remand presently before the court. plaintiff contends that this suit “arises under” alabama’s workers’ compensation laws and, as a result, its removal to federal court is barred by 28 u.s.c. § 1445(c). discussion under 28 u.s.c. § 1445(c), “[a] civil action in any state court arising under the workmen’s compensation laws of such state may not be removed to any district court of the united states.” the issue before the court is whether a claim for retaliation for the exercise of rights under alabama’s workers’ compensation laws “arises under” those laws, precluding its removal to federal court. a number of courts have considered this question and the decisions go both ways. see, e.g., humphrey v. sequentia, inc., 58 f.3d 1238, 1246 (8th cir.1995) (<holding>); spearman v. exxon coal usa, inc., 16 f.3d Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that 255111 claim does not arise under alabamas workers compensation laws B. holding that retaliation claim did not arise under states workers compensation laws C. holding that missouris cause of action for retaliation does arise under its workers compensation laws D. holding action did not arise under the patent laws E. holding the retaliation claim did arise under states workers compensation laws. Answer:

C. holding that missouris cause of action for retaliation does arise under its workers compensation laws

Consider the following statement: Buy. agent snedeker and pope discussed in detail the location of the drug buy, the price, the quantity, and the availability of drugs for future purchase. considering these factors, the statements made by pope to agent snedeker were not testimonial in nature. therefore, it is immaterial whether the declarant was unavailable or whether the defendant had an adequate opportunity to cross examine the declarant. furthermore, the statements made by pope to agent snedeker fall outside the long- rt intended to overrule its precedent regarding the admissibility of co-conspirator statements. any ambiguity regarding the admissibility of co-conspirator statements in the wake of crawford has been firmly resolved by the fourth circuit. see united states v. sullivan, 455 f.3d 248, 258 (4th cir.2006) (<holding>); see also united states v. canady, 139 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding statements by coconspirator nontestimonial and thus admissible B. holding testimony admissible as showing context of relationship with coconspirator prior to conspiracy C. holding that bruton does not apply to nontestimonial codefendant statements D. holding that voluntary statements to police initiated by witness are not interrogation and therefore are nontestimonial E. holding that driving records were nontestimonial. Answer:

A. holding statements by coconspirator nontestimonial and thus admissible

Consider the following statement: Able [to] control.” later, the petitioners note that the bia’s rejection of their “particular social group” definition “was challenged ... in [the] motion to reconsider ... which stressed [that] ... young women in general are a particular group that has characteristics which are indisputable and not subject to change.” finally, the petitioners assert that the bia’s description of kuci’s definition as “simply too broad” is “obviously erroneous, especially when you consider the fact that women in albania are being kidnapped and threatened to be sold as prostitutes to this day, no matter their age.” but the petitioners have failed to elaborate on these statements, none of which explains how the bia erred in its legal analysis. see lunderstadt v. colafella, 885 f.2d 66, 78 (3d cir.1989) (<holding>). the government recognizes that this court has Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that vague conclusory statements are insufficient B. holding a onesentence conclusory objection to an issue in the magistrates recommendation insufficient to preserve that issue for appeal C. holding that scattered statements in the appellants briefs are not enough to preserve an issue for appeal D. holding defendant failed to preserve burden of proof issue for appeal E. recognizing that conclusory statements do not preserve an issue for appeal. Answer:

E. recognizing that conclusory statements do not preserve an issue for appeal

Consider the following statement: By eleventh circuit case law. as discussed above, the eleventh circuit has found that a statute may refer to a class of persons or entities and require the government to take action relative to those persons or entities, but still not contain rights-creating language. see arrington, 438 f.3d at 1345 (“[e]ven though [the statute] contain[s] language requiring the state to take certain actions relative to individual foster children (e.g., the state shall file a petition [to terminate the parental rights of the child’s parents], we determined [the statute] do[es] not have the kind of foeused-on-the-individual, rights-creating language required by gon-zaga.”) (quoting 31 foster children v. bush, 329 f.3d 1255, 1272 (11th cir.2003)). see also coutu, 450 u.s. at 771-73, 101 s.ct. 1451 (<holding>). next, the present case is distinguishable Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court to determine B. recognizing 1 of the davisbacon act is a minimum wage law designed for the benefit of construction workers but finding the act does not contain rightscreating language C. holding that 301 of the labor management relations act of 1947 29 usc 185 does not preempt claims brought under washingtons minimum wage act chapter 4946 rcw D. holding retroactive application of the act to prosecution that was pending before the effective date of the act was precluded because the act is prospective E. holding that claim construction is an issue of law for the court not a question of fact for the jury. Answer:

B. recognizing 1 of the davisbacon act is a minimum wage law designed for the benefit of construction workers but finding the act does not contain rightscreating language

Consider the following statement: That this court must find that it is without subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs first amendment claim. because title vii is the exclusive judicial remedy for claims of employment discrimination based on national origin, plaintiffs first amendment claim is preempted. cf. thorne v. cavazos, 744 f.supp. 348, 352 (d.d.c.1990) (finding that the remedial provisions of adea [or in this case title vii] provides plaintiff with sole remedy for constitutional claims). therefore, plaintiffs first amendment claim should be dismissed. b. civil service reform act preemption. even if plaintiffs first amendment claim is considered separate and apart from his title vii claim, it is still preempted by the civil service reform act of 1978, pub.l. no. 95-454, 92 stat (n.d.ohio 1988) (<holding>). therefore, even if plaintiffs claim 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 federal employee could not sue supervisors for discharge alleged to have violated her first amendment rights B. holding plaintiff may sue federal agents for money damages for violation of his constitutional rights C. holding that search of middle school student violated her fourth amendment rights D. holding that due to the csra a federal employee has no independent right of action for damages against a supervisor who improperly disciplined the employee for exercising his first amendment rights E. holding that employers have standing to sue. Answer:

A. holding that federal employee could not sue supervisors for discharge alleged to have violated her first amendment rights

Consider the following statement: ” id. at 1281 (quoting compact art. vii(d)(l)), to hold that the eis must include “at a minimum, a ‘reasonably complete’ discussion of mitigation measures including ‘analytical data’ regarding whether the available measures would achieve the required result,” id. two caveats must accompany the league court’s articulation of what constitutes an adequate discussion of mitigation measures under the compact. first, while nepa caselaw may provide persuasive authority for interpreting the compact, it is not controlling. under nepa, the duty to study possible mitigation measures stems from the statute’s requirement that the unavoidable adverse effects of a project be studied. see robertson v. methow valley citizens council, 490 u.s. 332, 351-52, 109 s.ct. 1835, 104 l.ed.2d 351 (1989) (<holding>). under the compact, an eis needs to include Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant 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 eis must consider the extent to which adverse effects can be avoided by discussing possible mitigation measures B. recognizing that mitigation of damages is an affirmative defense a party must plead and prove C. holding that mitigation of damages is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded D. holding that an adverse credibility determination must be supported by a true inconsistency E. holding that perfunctory description of mitigation measures was inadequate. Answer:

A. holding that an eis must consider the extent to which adverse effects can be avoided by discussing possible mitigation measures

Consider the following statement: Serving a sentence. id. at 793. thus, it held loss of an opportunity for an earlier supervised release “does not constitute a substantial penalty for purposes of the fifth amendment.” id. the court, however, specifically listed revocation of probation as a substantial penalty “that cannot be imposed * * * because a witness elects to exercise his fifth amendment privilege not to give incriminating testimony against himself.” id. (quoting united states v. frierson, 945 f.2d 650, 658 (3d cir.1991)). this is supported by the united states supreme court’s statements in murphy. in explaining under what circumstances the fifth amendment privilege becomes self-executing, the court stated: a state may require a probationer to appear and discuss matters that affect his probationar 13-15 (1996) (<holding>); state v. cate, 165 vt. 404, 683 a.2d 1010, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that defendant could be required to reimburse state for buy money in drug case as a condition of probation B. recognizing that probation condition required probationer to enter into and successfully complete a sex offender treatment program but finding that no condition of probation was imposed that required him to admit to a counselor the sexual acts charged C. holding defendant was placed in classic penalty situation when he was required as condition of probation to participate in treatment program that required participants to disclose their offense history D. holding defendants fifth amendment rights had been violated when his probation was revoked based on his failure to complete a sexual treatment program that required incriminating admissions E. holding that when the district court imposed drug testing in connection with a special condition of substance abuse program participation it was not required to specify the number of drug tests a defendant must undergo as a part of the treatment program. Answer:

C. holding defendant was placed in classic penalty situation when he was required as condition of probation to participate in treatment program that required participants to disclose their offense history

Consider the following statement: Further notes that the jury was given extensive instructions on evaluating inconsistent statements and evaluating the credibility of witnesses generally, which, collectively, sufficiently addressed the conflicts in the cooperator testimony. id. at 138. the court has assessed the testimony summarized by demerieux and concludes that the conflicts in testimony do not rise to the level of a due process violation. demerieux correctly states that, under napue, a “conviction obtained through the use of false evidence ... must fall under [the due process clause],” and that “it is of no consequence that the falsehood bore upon the witness’ credibility rather than directly upon defendant’s guilt.” see napue, 360 u.s. at 269-70, 79 s.ct. 1173; see also agurs, 427 u.s. at 103, 96 s.ct. 2392 (<holding>). but as a threshold matter, demerieux must Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that false arrest and false imprisonment claim were not duplicative B. holding that a conviction obtained through the knowing reckless or negligent use of false testimony must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury C. holding that false arrest is one means of committing false imprisonment D. holding that prosecutor cannot obtain conviction with the aid of false testimony where the prosecutor knows such testimony is false E. holding that the knowing use of false testimony to obtain a conviction violates due process. Answer:

B. holding that a conviction obtained through the knowing reckless or negligent use of false testimony must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury

Consider the following statement: The defendant knows to be otherwise illegal, while in the case of entrapment by estoppel, because of the statements of an official, the defendant believes that his conduct constitutes no offense. see 53 am.jur. proof of facts 3d 249 proof of defense of entrapment by estoppel § 20 (1999). neither defense implicates the defendant’s mens rea, except in the rare case in which mistake of law negates the required mental state of the offense. in such case the defense of entrapment by estoppel also could constitute a failure of proof "defense” because the government agent's misstatement of the law would lead the defendant to believe that there was nothing criminal about his conduct under any circumstances. see generally cox v. louisiana, 379 u.s. 559, 571, 85 s.ct. 476, 13 l.ed.2d 487 (1965) (<holding>); raley v. ohio, 360 u.s. 423, 437-39, 79 s.ct. Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that an exercise by the state of its police power is presumed to be valid when it is challenged under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment B. holding that the state police is a state agency C. holding that appellants fourteenth amendment due process claim did not require reversal where they failed to show that they were prejudiced D. holding that it would offend due process to permit the state to sanction individuals from demonstrating in an area where police told them they could hold their demonstration E. holding that the denial of the motions for summary judgment precludes a sanction on the ground that the claims against them were legally insufficient and that a sanction is generally improper where a successful motion could have avoided any additional legal expenses by defendants emphasis in original. Answer:

D. holding that it would offend due process to permit the state to sanction individuals from demonstrating in an area where police told them they could hold their demonstration

Consider the following statement: At 659 (citing 10 c.f.r. at § 211.61 (1975)). the government also promulgated mandatory petroleum price regulations that applied to “each sale, lease or purchase of a covered product in the united states.” id. (citing 10 c.f.r. § 212.2). “oil from stripper well leases, which represented ‘probably a majority’ of the production at the osage reservation, was exempt from price controls under § 4(e)(2) of the epaa.” id. (internal citation omitted). for the three tranche one trial months that fell within the time period when price controls were in effect — january 1976, may 1979 and november 1980 — the court found that, in addition to the “offered price” breach, the osage agency had misapplied price controls to its calculation of royalties owed to the tribe. osage ii, 72 fed.cl. at 661 (<holding>). the court rejected the united states’ Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant 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 did not have jurisdiction over tribe where tribe paid into workers compensation program but had not waived sovereign immunity B. holding that where defendant objected in the district court only to the loss calculation and not specifically to the calculation of restitution the issue of restitution was not properly presented to the district court C. holding that conversion theory of recovery does not extend to money owed on a debt or to general damages D. holding that price controls did not extend to the calculation of royalty owed to the osage tribe under the 1974 regulations E. holding that waiver in a sue and be sued clause is limited to actions involving the corporate activities of the tribe and does not extend to actions of the tribe in its capacity as a political governing body. Answer:

D. holding that price controls did not extend to the calculation of royalty owed to the osage tribe under the 1974 regulations

Consider the following statement: In a lineup or photospread, but forgets, or changes, his testimony at trial.” id.; see, e.g., united states v. o’malley, 796 f.2d 891, 898-99 (7th cir.1986) (allowing fbi agent to testify regarding witness’s prior identification of defendant after witness recanted at trial). the better course, obviously, is to provide the photo array or other evidence of the prior identification immediately, while the declarant is still on the witness stand. but events at trial sometimes make the better course impractical. in such circumstances, a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine a declarant regarding his prior identification is enough to satisfy the requirements of rule 801, even if the defendant chooses not to use the opportunity. see united states v. elemy, 656 f.2d 507, 508 (9th cir.1981) (<holding>). the district court provided foster such a Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that the principal is liable for an agents acts committed within the scope of the agents employment B. holding that fbi agents testimony regarding witnesss pri or identification was admissible where nothing in the record suggested that the declarant was unavailable for reexamination after the agents testimony C. holding that agents testimony as to witnesss identification was not hearsay D. holding that an absent witnesss statements are admissible under the confrontation clause only where the declarant is unavailable and only where the defendant had a prior opportunity to crossexamine E. holding that the victims prior videotaped testimony from a preliminary hearing was admissible as testimony at trial where the victim was unavailable to testify. Answer:

B. holding that fbi agents testimony regarding witnesss pri or identification was admissible where nothing in the record suggested that the declarant was unavailable for reexamination after the agents testimony

Consider the following statement: The most succinctly: “first, there must be either a show of authority or a use of force; and second, the show of authority or use of force must have caused the fleeing individual to stop attempting to escape.” united states v. bradley, 196 f.3d 762, 768 (7th cir.1999). with respect to when a seizure occurs by physical force, the supreme court has clarified that a seizure only occurs “when there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied.” br (9th cir.1994) (finding no seizure where an officer drew his gun at a suspect who subsequently fled, and explaining that “a seizure does not occur if an officer applies physical force in an attempt to detain a suspect but such force is ineffective”); cole v. bone, 993 f.2d 1328, 1332-33 (8th cir.1993) (<holding>). in the cases in which no physical force 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 no seizure occurred where officer approached the suspect at the bus stop mentioned that he was investigating a bank robbery asked the suspect what he was doing in the area and for his identification and otherwise gave no indication that the suspect was not free to leave or to refuse to respond to questioning B. holding that where the police roadblock was intended to stop brower by physical impact and did so a seizure occurred C. holding no seizure occurred when after defendant began to walk away officer directed him to stop D. holding a seizure occurs when a passenger of a car is hit by a bullet that is meant to stop him E. holding that no seizure occurred where shots were fired at a truck but did not hit the suspect because they failed to produce a stop. Answer:

E. holding that no seizure occurred where shots were fired at a truck but did not hit the suspect because they failed to produce a stop

Consider the following statement: To the employment contracts of seamen. as adopted by congress, the convention is part of title 9 of the united states code, 9 u.s.c. § 1, et seq. (“title 9”). according to 9 u.s.c. § 1, the general provisions of title 9 do not apply to seamen’s employment contracts. however, there is no indication that the convention excludes seamen’s employment contracts from its purview. instead, the convention states that “an arbitration agreement... arising out of a legal relationship, whether contractual or not, which is considered as commercial.. .falls under the convention.” 9 u.s.c. § 202. numerous courts have held in accordance with this inclusive language that the convention applies to the employment contracts of seamen e.g., francisco v. stolt achievement mt, 293 f.3d 270, 272 (5th cir.2002) (<holding>); bautista, et al. v. star cruises and Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that this boilerplate language conflicts with the regulations and rulings B. holding that first and most importantly the language of the claim defines the scope of the protected invention C. holding that a rule that conflicts with a subsequent adopted statutory amendment may not be enforced D. holding that the most significant relationship test as espoused in the restatement of conflicts governs conflicts cases sounding in tort in case where automobile collision occurred in mexico E. holding that 9 usc 1 conflicts with the inclusive language of the convention and thus may not restrict its scope. Answer:

E. holding that 9 usc 1 conflicts with the inclusive language of the convention and thus may not restrict its scope

Consider the following statement: 83 . staggs v. state, 804 p.2d 456, 458 (okl.cr.1991). see also shelton v. state, 793 p.2d 866, 870 (okl.cr.1990) (concluding that “[t]his court does not encourage the use of photographs taken of victims before their demise and we caution prosecutors to first seek other forms of proof which are less prejudicial.”); rawlings v. state, 740 p.2d 153, 161-62 (okl.cr.1987) (finding that "[ajlthough this court does not favor admissions of photographs showing the victim alive, we are of the opinion that the photograph was relevant as to its existence and the location of its discovery.”); boutwell v. state, 659 p.2d 322, 326 (okl.cr.1983) (concluding photos showing victim while alive were not relevant because victim's identity was not at issue). 84 . see rawlings v. state, 740 p.2d at 160 (<holding>). 85 . see hayes v. state, 738 p.2d 533, 538-39 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that evidence should be excluded where the likelihood that it would confuse the jury and protract the proceedings outweighs its probative value B. holding probative value of evidence must be balanced against any prejudicial effect C. holding that prior conviction shall be admissible evidence for impeachment purposes unless danger of undue prejudice substantially outweighs probative value D. holding that trial court has discretion to determine whether probative value of photo outweighs prejudicial effect E. holding that inextricably intertwined evidence is intrinsic evidence that is admissible if its probative value outweighs the danger of prejudice. Answer:

D. holding that trial court has discretion to determine whether probative value of photo outweighs prejudicial effect

Consider the following statement: 10 . plaintiff avers incorrectly that the logo provision becomes inoperative upon receipt of full funding under the contract. rather, because this is a fixed-price contract, the logo clause remains operative with regard to work under the original scope of the contract or any subsequently executed bilateral modification. 11 . defendant argued that the logo and fp limitations on liability would preclude plaintiff from recovery even in the event of breach. defendant's argument is curious. the court will not interpret these clauses to reach an unjust or impractical result. it is axiomatic that either party would be entitled to some recovery in the event of a breach of the contract. see raymond constructors of africa, ltd. v. united states, 188 ct.cl. 147, 166, 411 f.2d 1227, 1237 (1969) (<holding>); solar turbines, 26 cl.ct. at 1276 (finding Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding confrontation clause inapplicable at sentencing B. holding that bankruptcy court could not enter judgment for 7402564 under 107a for incurred costs when such costs had not been incurred C. recognizing that the contractor may recover costs when loss of productivity results from the governments actions D. holding limitation clause inapplicable where contractor incurred additional costs as a result of governments failure to perform E. holding that the government could not charge contractor excess cost of relet contract where government caused a delay in contract performance in which contractor was to use his own equipment original contractors costs increased and government refused to allow original contractor to perform at cost but allowed new contractor to use government equipment and paid new contractor a different rate. Answer:

D. holding limitation clause inapplicable where contractor incurred additional costs as a result of governments failure to perform

Consider the following statement: Evaluation was then forwarded to the fws, which issued a re-concurrence stating “[w]e have reviewed your november 1 biological evaluation and concur with your determination that hazing operations conducted under the management plan may affect, but are not likely 'to adversely affect grizzly bears.” in conducting a second consultation and biological evaluation on the impact of the management plan on yellowstone grizzly bears, and obtaining a second concurrence from the fws, the federal defendants completed the reinitiation of consultation required by the esa. see 50 c.f.r. § 402.16(b). reinitiation of consultation is the precise relief sought by alliance. accordingly, alliance’s section 7 claim is moot. see friends of the earth, inc. v. bergland, 576 f.2d 1377, 1378-79 (9th cir.1978) (<holding>). iv. the esa claims a. the 60-day notice Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding the case to be moot where construction of the pro ject had been entirely completed B. holding that a challenge to a mining plan was moot where the action sought to be enjoined hadbeen completed C. holding substantive reasonableness sentencing challenge to be moot when defendant had completed prison sentence but addressing challenge to supervised release conditions D. holding that a first amendment challenge to an expired restraining order which had enjoined a rally was not moot E. holding that injunctive claim was rendered meaningless since the state action sought to be enjoined has irretrievably occurred. Answer:

B. holding that a challenge to a mining plan was moot where the action sought to be enjoined hadbeen completed

Consider the following statement: Dhhs focused only on sarah. 2 dhhs’s assumption is faulty, in light of the current state of arkansas law as to the collateral-estoppel effect of a guilty plea in a subsequent civil proceeding. in zinger v. terrell, 336 ark. 423, 985 s.w.2d 737 (1999), the supreme court overruled prior case law and held that the criminal conviction of a life-insurance beneficiary of first-degree murder of the insured following a trial collaterally estopped the retrial of certain issues in a later civil trial concerning the disposition of the proceeds of the insurance policy. the court cautioned that it did not address the issue of collateral estoppel for criminal convictions other than murder and that it did not overrule washington national insurance co. v. clement, 192 ark. 371, 91 s.w.2d 265 (1936) (<holding>). 3 in its statement of the case, dhhs states: Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding the same for malicious prosecution B. holding that states nonproseeution agreement did not bar subsequent federal prosecution C. holding that a judgment in a criminal prosecution for dwi did not bar a subsequent civil proceeding founded on the same facts D. holding that a criminal acquittal does not have collateral estoppel effect on a later civil forfeiture proceeding based on the same conduct E. holding that foreign states prosecution did not bar subsequent florida prosecution for same conduct. Answer:

C. holding that a judgment in a criminal prosecution for dwi did not bar a subsequent civil proceeding founded on the same facts

Consider the following statement: Find, as we did in dicicco, that respondent’s conduct frustrated the purpose of mrpc 1.15(a) and in so doing violated the rule. similarly, in using his attorney trust account to pay personal and business debts, respondent violated md. rule 16-607, requiring that “[t]he portion [... of funds] belonging to the attorney [...] shall be withdrawn promptly when the attorney [...] becomes entitled to the funds ...,” and rule 16-609 prohibiting an attorney from “pledging] any funds required by these rules to be deposited in an attorney trust account....” in the present case, respondent withdrew client funds from his attorney trust account, to which he was in no way entitled, in violation of maryland rule 16-607 and 16-609. see attorney griev. comm’n v. herman, 380 md. 378, 844 a.2d 1181 (2004) (<holding>). mr. clarke had a child support obligation, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that there was no presumption of a gift where the wifes money was used to make the purchase but title was placed in the name of the husband and finding the facts sufficient to establish a purchase money resulting trust in favor of the wife B. holding in case where stock was purchased but held in suspense account pending repayment of loan from seller that the fact that the money to purchase the now worthless stock was borrowed does not mean that money was not lost C. holding that a law firm receiving funds for a client was not an initial transferee because the firms role with respect to the received money was to accept the funds in settlement of its clients case deposit the money in trust keep as fees only what the the clients agreed to and pay the rest to the bank on behalf of the clients in satisfaction of their loan D. holding the general rule is that money paid to another under a mistake of fact may be recovered because the money belongs in equity and good conscience to the person who paid it E. holding that it was a violation of maryland rules 16607 and 16609 for an attorney to borrow money in the form of a home equity loan and to then deposit the borrowed money into his trust account in order to pay the amount owed to his client. Answer:

E. holding that it was a violation of maryland rules 16607 and 16609 for an attorney to borrow money in the form of a home equity loan and to then deposit the borrowed money into his trust account in order to pay the amount owed to his client

Consider the following statement: Challenge, we consider and weigh all the evidence, both supporting and contradicting the finding. mar. overseas corp. v. ellis, 971 s.w.2d 402, 406-07 (tex.1998). we set aside the fact finding only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. pool v. ford motor co., 715 s.w.2d 629, 635 (tex.1986). initially, we note that the jury was asked to determine grace’s damages for the breach of contract the court had found. the question was worded as follows: what sum of money, if any, if paid now in cash, w pp.houston [14th dist.] 2008, no pet.) (measuring sufficiency of damages evidence against commonly understood meaning of undefined term used in charge); see also equistar chems., l.p. v. dresser-rand co., 240 s.w.3d 864, 868 (tex.2007) (<holding>); tribble & stephens co. v. consolidated Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding on habeas review that counsels failure to object to improper argument at trial did not prejudice petitioner where other evidence supported a guilty verdict and the jury was told closing argument was not evidence B. holding argument not waived for failure to object where party previously raised argument and district court considered and rejected it C. holding complaint that sentence violated equal protection was waived because of failure to object at trial D. holding that a defendant waived a sentencing issue by failing to object in district court E. holding argument that charge submitted improper measure of damages was waived by failure to object in trial court. Answer:

E. holding argument that charge submitted improper measure of damages was waived by failure to object in trial court

Consider the following statement: Imputed to employer); canutillo indep. sch. dist. v. nat’l union fire ins. co. of pittsburgh, pa, 99 f.3d 695, 703 (5th cir.1996) (“where the legal claims asserted by the plaintiffs are not independent and mutually exclusive, but rather related to and dependent upon excluded conduct, the claims are not covered, even if asserted against an insured who did not himself engage in the prohibited conduct.”); old republic ins. co. v. comprehensive health care assoc., inc., 786 f.supp. 629, 632 (n.d.tex.1992), aff'd on other grounds, 2 f.3d 105 (5th cir.1993) (finding no duty to defend insured against claim of negligent hiring when the claim of negligent hiring arises out of agent’s intentional sexual harassment); columbia, mut. ins. co. v. fiesta mart, inc., 987 f.2d 1124, 1128 (5th cir.1993) (<holding>); huey t. littleton claims, inc. v. employers Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant 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 proceeds of a liability insurance policy were not property of the estate B. holding that trustee and personnel liability policy only covered the trustees and not the school itself C. holding warranty liability and strict liability were both shown by proof a product was defective D. recognizing in context of general liability policy if petition contains allegations which when fairly and reasonably construed state cause of action potentially covered by policy insurer has duty to defend insured in underlying suit E. holding that under texas law where liability of insured and liability of its agent were related and interdependent court must look to whether agents fraud was covered by policy. Answer:

E. holding that under texas law where liability of insured and liability of its agent were related and interdependent court must look to whether agents fraud was covered by policy

Consider the following statement: With other free individuals — was unknown through much of history and is unknown even today in many parts of the world. like other aspects of personal autonomy, it is too easily smothered by government officials eager to tell us what’s best for us. the recent tendency of judges to insinuate tort causes of action into relationships traditionally governed by contract is just such overreaching. it must be viewed with no less suspicion because the government officials in question happen to wear robes. ill fortunately, the tide seems to be turning. the california supreme court is once again leading the way. foley v. interactive data corp., 47 cal.3d 654, 765 p.2d 373, 254 cal.rptr. 211 (1988), has taken a bite out of seaman’s by holding that tort remedies are 805, 195 cal.rptr. 421 (1983) (<holding>). at long last, however, we seem to be moving Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that plaintiffs unjust enrichment claim was predicated on tort and that it was therefore subject to the statute of limitations for tort actions B. holding the government liable to plaintiffs for breach of contract C. holding that there must be a tort distinguishable from or independent of the breach of contract in order for a party to bring a valid claim in tort based on a breach in a contractual relationship D. recognizing that there can be compelling circumstances in which a trial court can determine that neither party prevailed in a contract case E. holding that a party can be liable in tort for actions authorized by the contract. Answer:

E. holding that a party can be liable in tort for actions authorized by the contract

Consider the following statement: These circumstances, and after extensive consideration, defendants elected to force the sale of all remaining employer stock in the 401(k) plan. yet in most cases involving similar claims and similar financial uncertainty, fiduciaries reached the opposite decision. in other words, despite their knowledge that a company was in financial trouble, thereby potentially leading to a decline in value of the company st 995) (remanding case for further proceedings where, in the context of employee stock ownership plans ("esops’’), court found that a fiduciary’s continuing investment in company stock despite substantial financial difficulties could be sufficient to overcome the presumption of prudence that applies to esops); difelice v. u.s. airways, inc., 397 f.supp.2d 758, 773-74 (e.d.va.2005) (<holding>). while this contrast of facts does not Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that a trial courts refusal to allow the defendant to attend the jury view was not prejudicial B. holding defendants were fiduciaries because they had discretion to determine the extent of the companys annual contribution to the plan and whether the contribution would be made in stock or cash C. holding that factors such as the possibility of us airways bankruptcy throughout the class period the companys known cash flow problems and its unresolved longterm financial problems following an unsuccessful merger were sufficient to allow a jury to question the prudence of the decision to continue to allow the plan to invest in us airways parent companys stock D. holding that the trial court should conduct a hearing to allow the parties to be heard including the defendant in person and to allow presentation of additional evidence before sentencing E. holding that to preserve an issue a party must object with sufficient specificity to allow the trial court to address it. Answer:

C. holding that factors such as the possibility of us airways bankruptcy throughout the class period the companys known cash flow problems and its unresolved longterm financial problems following an unsuccessful merger were sufficient to allow a jury to question the prudence of the decision to continue to allow the plan to invest in us airways parent companys stock

Consider the following statement: Relevant to the qualified immunity defense are seriously disputed, a court may not reach the ultimate legal question of whether a reasonable police officer should have known that he acted unlawfully. lennon, 66 f.3d at 421 (citing warren v. dwyer, 906 f.2d 70, 76 (2d cir.1990), and oliveira v. mayer, 23 f.3d 642, 649 (2d cir.1994)). c. the plaintiffs section 1983 excessive force claim brown and etherton argue that brown’s use of deadly force in response to the perceived threat posed by rasanen was objectively reasonable and that they are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. here, there is no question that the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly-established constitutional right in contending that brown used excessive force in shooting rasanen. see thomas, 165 f.3d at 143 (<holding>). the question for the court on summary Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. recognizing that the fourth amendment protects against the use of excessive force by police officers in carrying out an arrest B. holding fourth amendment protects right to be free from arrest without probable cause C. holding fourth amendment protects against use of force while in arresting officers custody until arraignment or formal charge D. holding that excessive force claims are to be treated under the fourth amendment E. recognizing that police officers may use reasonable force to make a lawful arrest. Answer:

A. recognizing that the fourth amendment protects against the use of excessive force by police officers in carrying out an arrest

Consider the following statement: Witness list (contrary to his assertion at trial that the presiding officer “didn’t say anything”) this was not an arraignment. rather, this was a preliminary and informal meet ing to establish what would be required for the scm trial proceeding. we find this to be no different than a military judge requiring counsel to submit a docketing request that includes anticipated pleas and forum, and proposed trial dates. see army reg. 27-10, legal services, military justice, para. 5-21 (16 nov. 2005). as indicated by the lack of a recorder and the informality of the meeting, the purpose of the initial meeting was not to formally call upon appellant to enter pleas, but to properly prepare the presiding officer for what he would need in order to conduct the scm. see jackson, 41 c.m.r. at 681 (<holding>). see also, r.c.m. 904 discussion (“the accused Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant 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 discussion concerning pleas at an offtherecord rcm802 session did not constitute an arraignment B. holding that an additional remedy does not constitute an additional requirement C. holding that the claim that the defendants negligently provided investment advice did not constitute an accident D. holding that the injunction did not constitute a claim E. holding that district courts discussion of an alternative ground for its decision did not undermine its ruling that appellants claim was untimely raised. Answer:

A. holding that a discussion concerning pleas at an offtherecord rcm802 session did not constitute an arraignment

Consider the following statement: Cir.2000) (citing williams v. taylor, 529 u.s. 362, 410, 120 s.ct. 1495, 146 l.ed.2d 389 (2000)). murphy argues that the state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law when it dismissed the lone holdout juror during deliberations after the trial judge concluded that the juror refused to deliberate. murphy, however, cites no supreme court case which holds that the dismissal of a juror for refusing to deliberate violates a criminal defendant’s sixth amendment right. indeed, there are no supreme court holdings addressing the issue of whether a trial court’s discharge of a juror for refusing to deliberate violates the sixth amendment. we therefore reject murphy’s challenge under § 2254(d)(1). see carey v. musladin, 549 u.s. 70, 127 s.ct. 649, 654, 166 l.ed.2d 482 (2006) (<holding>). ill aedpa also provides that the court may Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that a state court cannot be said to have unreasonably applied clearly established federal law under 2254d1 when there are no holdings from the supreme court addressing the issue raised by the petitioner B. holding state court could not have unreasonably applied clearly established federal law given the lack of holdings from the supreme court regarding the potentially prejudicial effect of spectators courtroom conduct C. holding that where the supreme court has expressly left an open question circuit precedent is immaterial and there is no clearly established law for the state court to have unreasonably applied D. holding that state court could not have unreasonably applied federal law if no clear supreme court precedent existed E. holding that the language of 2254d1 expressly restricts the source of clearly established law to the supreme courts jurisprudence. Answer:

A. holding that a state court cannot be said to have unreasonably applied clearly established federal law under 2254d1 when there are no holdings from the supreme court addressing the issue raised by the petitioner

Consider the following statement: Resulting iep against a substantive standard.” rowley, 458 u.s. at 205, 102 s.ct. 8034. like that under the apa or the cripa, the idea’s exhaustion scheme was carefully designed to balance the individual complainant’s interest in retaining prompt access to a judicial forum and the countervailing institutional interests favoring exhaustion. see hoeft, 967 f.2d at 1303 (discussing policies served by the idea’s exhaustion requirement); cf. mccarthy, 503 u.s. at 145-149, 112 s.ct. 1081 (describing the balance of interests applicable in exhaustion determinations). courts therefore may not, consistent with the intent of congress, impose exhaustion requirements that “merely add additional steps not contemplated in the scheme of the act.” antkowiak v. ambach, 838 f.2d 635, 641 (2nd cir.1988) (<holding>); diamond v. mckenzie, 602 f.supp. 632, 639 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that due process requires a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case B. holding that district court may order hearing as remedy for termination of public employee without due process C. holding that state could not conduct sua sponte review of unappealed due process hearing order D. recognizing due process right to notice and informal hearing in school disciplinary process E. holding that there is no due process right to appellate review. Answer:

C. holding that state could not conduct sua sponte review of unappealed due process hearing order

Consider the following statement: States. the court held that if an alien’s 1-212 application is granted, he is no longer subject to the reinstatement pro vision, because he is no longer an illegal entrant. id. at 789. here, lino did not apply for a 1-212 application. consequently, her reliance on perez-gonzalez is misplaced. in any event, courts have questioned the perez-gonzalez outcome. see, e.g., lattab, 384 f.3d at 17 (“[w]e have grave doubts about the correctness of the perez-gonzalez court’s conclusion.”). although we recognize the unfortunate circumstances of this case, we have consistently held that “immigration policy ... is traditionally [within] the province of the political branches.” gomez-chavez v. perryman, 308 f.3d 796, 801 (7th cir.2002); see also sivaainkaran v. ins, 972 f.2d 161, 165 (7th cir.1992) (<holding>); urukov v. ins, 55 f.3d 222, 228 (7th Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that the flsa is not within the purview of section 5 of the fourteenth amendment B. recognizing that immigration policy is the clear purview of the legislative branch C. recognizing that legislative history is not used to create ambiguity where statutory language is clear D. recognizing that citizens who exercise their rights under the initiative provisions act as and become in fact the legislative branch of the municipal government E. holding that in the absence of a legislative invasion of constitutionallyprotected rights the judicial branch of government must respect and defer to the legislatures exclusive policy decisions. Answer:

B. recognizing that immigration policy is the clear purview of the legislative branch

Consider the following statement: Of all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. the prosecutor, in closing argument, may not try to interpret the meaning of a defendant’s not guilty plea by saying that defendant’s not guilty plea constitutes a “challenge” to the state to prove him guilty. state v. miles, 255 n.w.2d 48, 49 (minn.1977). it is just as improper for defense counsel to try to interpret the defendant’s not guilty plea for the jury. in this case, defense counsel arguably was trying to use defendant’s not guilty plea as an equivalent of or substitute for defend ant’s testifying. the trial court so concluded and, by these instructions, was trying to neutralize this. cf people v. finney, 88 ill.app.2d 204, 232 n.e.2d 247 (1967), cert. denied, 392 u.s. 936, 88 s.ct. 2304, 20 l.ed.2d 1394 (1968) (<holding>). since the trial court should be given some Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that defense counsel opened the door to the states rebuttal remarks when defense counsel raised the issue in his closing argument B. holding that comment by prosecutor in closing argument that defense counsel did not produce evidence of the defendants innocence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify C. holding that defense counsel opened the door to the prosecutions questioning of the defendant about prior convictions when defense counsel asked a prosecution witness whether he was aware that the defendant was a convicted felon D. holding it was improper for prosecutor to inject personal opinion in statements to the jury in closing argument E. holding that defense counsel opened the door to response by prosecutor when he tried to turn defendants failure to testify to his advantage in closing argument. Answer:

E. holding that defense counsel opened the door to response by prosecutor when he tried to turn defendants failure to testify to his advantage in closing argument

Consider the following statement: That case, national advertising co. v. city of miami, case no. 02-20556-civ-king ("national ii"), was filed on february 21, 2002 in response to the city’s rejection of seven permit applications to construct billboards. national i and national ii were consolidated in the district court below. however, we ordered the cases to be argued separately before this court. in this case we asked the parties to focus solely on the constitutionality of the zoning ordinance itself. in the companion case, national ii, the parties were asked to discuss the issues related to the permitting process in its entirety. 2 . although national's amended complaint added the county as a party, the record makes no mention of appearances by the county and they did n 09 s.ct. 2633, 2637-38, 105 l.ed.2d 493 (1989) (<holding>); princeton univ. v. schmid, 455 u.s. 100, 103, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that a commerce clausebased challenge to florida banking statutes was rendered moot by amendments to the law B. holding that universitys amendment of regulation made moot a challenge to regulations C. holding admission of videos containing child pornography was probative of intent to sexually assault a child D. holding that private possession of child pornography is not protected by the first amendment E. holding that an overbreadth challenge to a child pornography law was rendered moot by amendment to the statute. Answer:

E. holding that an overbreadth challenge to a child pornography law was rendered moot by amendment to the statute

Consider the following statement: Case represents the unusual situation in which a parent owning a building must include imputed rent as part of his income. see ogard, 808 p.2d at 819 (such rental value may be imputed to owner of apartment upon showing of special circumstances pursuant to civil rule 90.3(c)(1)(a)). the free apartment is a benefit tó joe provided by his business interest in renting out the triplex. this imputed rent is to be included with the cash rents received. (emphasis added.) 2 . eagley v. eagley, 849 p.2d 777, 780 n. 3 (alaska 1993) (quoting turner v. turner, 586 a.2d 1182, 1187 (del.1991)). see also ogard v. ogard, 808 p.2d 815, 819 (alaska 1991) ("depreciation is a means of reflecting on an annual basis the costs of capital equipment.”). 3 . see nass v. seaton, 904 p.2d 412, 416-17 (alaska 1995) (<holding>); eagley, 849 p.2d at 781 (allowing a deduction Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant 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 superior court erred in determining obligors adjusted income by disallowing straightline depreciation for that portion of the residence that obligor used in his machinery business B. holding plaintiff entitled to depreciation after repairs in determining the vehicles value at the time of the theft allowance must be made for depreciation then accrued C. holding that depreciation in land value caused by a material change in a highway grade which made access to the property difficult is compensable D. holding that under the facts of that case the action primarily involved a custody dispute and therefore that the trial court erred in determining the case by applying the dependency statute E. holding that court erred in admitting letters written in anticipation of litigation as business records. Answer:

A. holding that the superior court erred in determining obligors adjusted income by disallowing straightline depreciation for that portion of the residence that obligor used in his machinery business

Consider the following statement: Ana pozos appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of cory birnberg apc, in birnberg’s action to enforce an order awarding attorney fees pursuant to 33 u.s.c. § 928(c) in a long-shore and harbor workers compensation case. we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 1291. we review de novo, feiler v. united states, 62 f.3d 315, 316 (9th cir.1995), and we affirm. the district court properly granted summary judgment because birnberg’s attorney fee order was enforceable and the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain pozos’ challenges to the alj’s underlying decision. see thompson v. potashnick constr. co, 812 f.2d 574, 576 (9th cir.1987) (<holding>). affirmed. *** this disposition is not Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that a district court only has jurisdiction to order compliance with compensation orders entered by an administrative law judge alj and reviewed by the benefits review board and to screen for procedural defects but may not otherwise affirm modify suspend or set aside a compensation order based on the substantive merits of the aljs decision B. holding that a presumptive partial disability exists by virtue of the order to suspend compensation the employer can eliminate liability only by offering suitable work C. holding that an order in a criminal matter drafted by the prosecutor and signed by the circuit judge was in compliance with requirements of the law D. holding that an appellate court may not exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction to review a nonfinal district court order where the merits of the nonfinal order are not inextricably intertwined with the properly appealed collateral order or where review of the former is not necessary to ensure meaningful review of the latter E. holding that this court could not affirm the aljs finding of gross misconduct because the alj failed to make findings on every material contested issue of fact. Answer:

A. holding that a district court only has jurisdiction to order compliance with compensation orders entered by an administrative law judge alj and reviewed by the benefits review board and to screen for procedural defects but may not otherwise affirm modify suspend or set aside a compensation order based on the substantive merits of the aljs decision

Consider the following statement: Claim, even in jack’s absence. a review of the complaint indicates that solomon has sufficiently pled the existence and deprivation of a liberty interest, satisfying the first prong to state a due process claim. as to the second prong, solomon must allege that the deprivation did not comport with constitutionally due process. here, his claim fails. it is true that regardless of the state’s practices and procedures, “[w]hat process is due” is a question of constitutional law, not state law. cleveland bd. of educ. v. loudermill, 470 u.s. 532, 542, 105 s.ct. 1487, 84 l.ed.2d 494 (1985). when a state seeks to deprive a child of the liberty interest in being nurtured by their parent, it must provide procedures that are fundamentally fair. see santosky, 455 u.s. at 753-54, 102 s.ct. 1388 (<holding>). yet, the complaint fails to satisfy 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 could be liable under ada for inaccessibility of company it contracted with to provide state inmates with jobs B. holding that state law must give way to treasury department regulations governing survivorship rights in us bonds C. holding that while the state must provide a defendant access to procedures for making a competency evaluation it need not shoulder the burden of proof in convincing the trier of fact that the defendant is competent D. holding that when the state moves to destroy familial bonds it must provide parents with fundamentally fair procedures E. holding that the extradition procedures are a matter of state law. Answer:

D. holding that when the state moves to destroy familial bonds it must provide parents with fundamentally fair procedures

Consider the following statement: Helicopter was manufactured and delivered to the first purchaser on or before july 31, 1971, and that it has not modified the helicopter since delivery. further, it is undisputed that bell did not design, manufacture, sell, or install the engine or main fuel control unit that was in the helicopter at the time of the accident. because the accident occurred on june 1, 2000, more than twenty-eight years had passed since delivery of the helicopter to the first purchaser. thus, gara precludes plaintiffs from recovering against bell under texas state law for the following claims: (1) strict liability for defective design, manufacture, and marketing; (2) negligent design, testing, manufacture, and marketing; and (3) negligent failure to warn. see alter, 944 f.supp. at 536-41 (s.d.tex.1996) (<holding>); see also altseimer v. bell helicopter Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that convictions for both leaving the scene of an accident involving injury and leaving the scene of an accident involving property damage only were inconsistent and therefore could not be sustained B. 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 C. holding a limitation on damages arising out of bodily injury to one person involved in an accident applies to all claims arising from the death of that person D. holding the plaintiffs could not establish a valid claim in a lawsuit involving a helicopter accident because gara prohibits texas state law claims arising from design or manufacturing defects in an aircraft delivered more than eighteen years before the accident E. holding texass substantive law should apply rather than the law of the state where the accident occurred because texas has a particularly strong interest when the defective product in question was manufactured and placed in the stream of commerce in texas. Answer:

D. holding the plaintiffs could not establish a valid claim in a lawsuit involving a helicopter accident because gara prohibits texas state law claims arising from design or manufacturing defects in an aircraft delivered more than eighteen years before the accident

Consider the following statement: The burden of proof to the parents, but for a different reason. according to these circuits, because the statute relies on the expertise of education professionals in local school systems, their decisions about the substantive terms of an iep are owed deference; as a result, the parents bear the burden of proving why an iep is deficient. alamo heights indep. sch. dist. v. state bd. of educ., 790 f.2d 1153, 1158 (5th cir.1986); johnson v. indep. sch. dist. no. 4, 921 f.2d 1022, 1026 (10th cir.1990). on the other side the third circuit assigns the burden of proof to school systems when their ieps are challenged by parents in administrative proceedings. carlisle area sch. dist. v. scott p., 62 f.3d 520, 533 (3d cir.1995) (citing oberti v. bd. of educ., 995 f.2d 1204, 1219 (3d cir.1993) (<holding>)). three other circuits, the second, eighth, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. recognizing that the burden of proof is an essential element of the claim itself and that one who asserts a claim has the burden of proof that normally comes with it B. holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant C. holding that a rebuttable presumption in favor of the action of an administrative agency and the burden of proof is upon one challenging its action D. holding that the burden is on the defendant when the validity of the warrant is challenged E. holding that when an administrative decision upholding an iep is challenged in district court the school district has the burden of proof because of its expertise and access to information and witnesses. Answer:

E. holding that when an administrative decision upholding an iep is challenged in district court the school district has the burden of proof because of its expertise and access to information and witnesses

Consider the following statement: “i don’t recall the incident like that, but i do recall him putting it in the report like that,” id. at p. 36, lines 14-18. 3 the “sufficient notice” element of the standard requires the court to examine the situation from the objective perspective of “a reasonable person who has been subjected to the conduct which forms the basis for the plaintiffs complaint.” doe v. creighton, 439 mass. at 284 (quoting riley v. presnell, 409 mass. 239, 245 (1991)). 4 in his opposition to summary judgment, martin submitted an affidavit stating that he did not read the evaluation report until 2005. this affidavit squarely contradicts his deposition testimony as referenced in footnote 2, and is therefore not taken into consideration. see o'brien v. analog devices, inc., 34 mass.app.ct. 905, 906 (1993) (<holding>). 5 the further appellate review in doe v. Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that subsequent affidavit contradicting prior sworn testimony does not create genuine issue of fact B. holding that inconsistencies in the summary judgment evidence of a single witness create a fact issue C. holding that it is well settled that a plaintiff may not create a factual issue for the purpose of defeating a motion for summary judgment by filing an affidavit contradicting a statement the plaintiff made in a prior deposition D. holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment E. holding that a plaintiff cannot create an issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment through an affidavit that contradicts prior testimony. Answer:

E. holding that a plaintiff cannot create an issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment through an affidavit that contradicts prior testimony

Consider the following statement: Was not provided a pre-termination hearing. the united states supreme court has held that a public employee dismissible only for cause has a property interest in continued employment and that the due process clause prohibits such an employee from being terminated without a pre-termination hearing. see cleveland bd. of educ. v. loudermill, 470 u.s. 532, 546-547, 105 s.ct. 1487, 84 l.ed.2d 494 (1985). here, plaintiff was called into a meeting with bpw management, advised of the reasons he was to be terminated, and afforded an opportunity to respond. plaintiff offers no evidence to the contrary. therefore, because there are no issues of material fact in dispute, the court concludes that plaintiffs due process rights were not violated. see boals v.. gray, 775 f.2d 686, 690 (6th cir.1985) (<holding>). as such, summary judgment will be granted as Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that the absolutecertainty standard is similar to a finding that no violation had occurred at all rather than that any error was harmless B. holding that privilege applies in similar factual circumstances C. holding that there is no due process right to appellate review D. holding that similar allegations were insufficient to state a due process claim E. holding that in similar factual situation no due process violation occurred. Answer:

E. holding that in similar factual situation no due process violation occurred

Consider the following statement: Id. at ¶ 19, and that she “was not afforded the opportunity to transfer to another georgia-pacific office as were at least two other similarly situated male employees on prior occasions,” id. at ¶ 20. plaintiff alleges that georgia-pacific discharged her “because of her gender.” id. at ¶ 21. in count iv of her complaint, plaintiff seeks relief under section 102 of the civil rights act of 1991, p.l. 102-166, 105 stat. 1071 (nov. 21, 1991) (codified at 42 u.s.c. § 1981a) (“1991 act”), which provides, inter alia, for compensatory damages and punitive damages in employment discrimination cases and for the right to a jury trial if the plaintiff seeks either compensatory or pun as not addressed this issue. compare, e.g., bonilla v. liquilux gas corp., 812 f.supp. 286 (d.p.r.1993) (<holding>) (citing, inter alia, aledo-garcia v. puerto Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding section 102 of the cra creating the power to recover damages and providing for jury trial did not apply to case pending on appeal on the date of enactment B. holding no remedy available under amended provisions of title vii for violations occurring prior to date of amendment november 21 1991 where discriminatory acts did not continue into the postamendment period C. holding that congress intended the courts to apply the civil rights act of 1991 to cases pending at the time of its enactment and to preact conduct still open to challenge after that time D. holding that conduct prior to passage of the civil rights act of 1991 is admissible to provide context and background E. holding that the damages and jury trial provisions of the 1991 act apply to conduct occurring prior to the date of enactment. Answer:

E. holding that the damages and jury trial provisions of the 1991 act apply to conduct occurring prior to the date of enactment

Consider the following statement: A false statement in this bankruptcy case. jurisdiction this court has jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to judiciary code sections 157(b)(1) and 1334(b), and the standing order of reference dated august 28,1986, as amended by the order dated december 5, 2012, of the united states district court for the eastern district of new york. in addition, this court may adjudicate these claims to final judgment to the extent that they are core proceedings pursuant to judiciary code section 157(b), and to the extent that they are not core proceedings, pursuant to judiciary code section 157(c) because the parties have stated their consent to this court entering a final judgment. see wellness int’l network, ltd. v. sharif, — u.s. -, 135 s.ct. 1932, 1940, 191 l.ed.2d 911 (2015) (<holding>). background mr. cedillo’s chapter 7 bankruptcy Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that after stem bankruptcy judges have the authority to enter interlocutory orders in noncore proceedings and in core proceedings as to which the bankruptcy court may not enter final orders or judgment consistent with article iii absent consent B. holding that in a bankruptcy proceeding state law governs the rights of the parties with regard to interests in property C. holding that bankruptcy court possessed jurisdiction to enter money judgment in noncore proceeding against third party D. holding that a workers compensation proceeding is a legal proceeding E. holding that in a noncore proceeding a bankruptcy court may enter final orders with the consent of all the parties to the proceeding. Answer:

E. holding that in a noncore proceeding a bankruptcy court may enter final orders with the consent of all the parties to the proceeding

Consider the following statement: Preliminary activating domain of nf-éb are, in fact, separable or spatially distinct.” considering that the inventors of the '516 patent discovered nf-éb, if they did not know whether the two domains are distinct, one of ordinary skill in the art was at best equally ignorant. perhaps one of ordinary skill could discover this information, but this does not alter our conclusion that the description of the dominantly interfering molecules “just represents a wish, or arguably a plan” for future research. fiers, 984 f.2d at 1171; see eli lilly, 119 f.3d at 1567 (rendering obvious is insufficient for written description). nor is it sufficient, as ariad argues, that “skilled workers actually practiced this teaching soon after the 1989 application was filed.” see vas-cath, 935 f.2d at 1563-64 (<holding>). decoy molecules are “designed to mimic a Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that where accessible literature sources clearly provided a description of the teachings at issue the written description requirement does not require their incorporation by reference B. holding that section 10b violation occurs on date of alleged misrepresentation not the date of the sale or purchase of securities C. holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint D. holding that the creditors claim on the petition date for purposes of a 547b5 analysis was the unpaid balance of the store loans as of the filing date plus the total amount of the alleged preferential payments E. holding thata written description analysis occurs as of the filing date sought. Answer:

E. holding thata written description analysis occurs as of the filing date sought

Consider the following statement: Means is consistent with its goals. the purpose of the civil service act is “to secure efficient fire and police departments composed of capable personnel who are free from political influence and who have permanent employment tenure as public servants.” tex. loc. gov’t code ann. § 143.001(a). courts have interpreted the civil service act in a manner consistent with a legislative intent to protect the rights of persons serving as officers and employees of police departments and shield them from harassment. see bichsel v. carver, 159 tex. 393, 321 s.w.2d 284, 286 (1959) (recognizing legislative intent to shield “police and similar employees from harassment” and interpreting civil service act accordingly); carrollton v. popescu, 806 s.w.2d 268, 272 (tex.app.-dallas 1991, no writ) (<holding>); see also crawford v. city of houston, 487 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that legislative consent to suit must be by clear and unambiguous language in either a statute or by other express legislative permission B. holding that lands held by a municipality in its governmental capacity may not be lost by adverse possession C. holding that action of city legislative body may be judicially examined in light of its surrounding circumstances prior and subsequent actions of such legislative body and public policy in order to determine good faith of questioned action D. holding that statements and charges by municipality may not be amended in light of legislative purpose of shielding police and similar employees from harassment E. holding that a municipality may be held liable as a person under 1983. Answer:

D. holding that statements and charges by municipality may not be amended in light of legislative purpose of shielding police and similar employees from harassment

Consider the following statement: Would serve a significant public interest only where “there is compelling evidence that the agency denying the foia request is engaged in illegal activity,” and that the information sought “is necessary in order to confirm or refute that evidence.” davis, 968 f.2d at 1282. the plaintiff demonstrates no such public interest with respect to the third parties described above, including those of investigative interest or those merely mentioned in responsive records. the fbi’s and the eousa’s decisions to withhold the names of and identifying information about third parties of investigative interest and about individuals who merely are mentioned in these law enforcement records are fully supported by the case law. see, e.g., sussman v. u.s. marshals serv., 494 f.3d 1106, 1115 (d.c.cir.2007) (<holding>); rugiero v. u.s. dep’t of justice, 257 f.3d Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that exemption 7c protects the privacy interests of all persons mentioned in law enforcement records whether they be investigators suspects witnesses or informants and their names are generally exempt from disclosure B. holding that names and address of private individuals appearing in files within the ambit of exemption 7c are exempt from disclosure C. holding the governments prior disclosure of requested information could not waive individuals privacy interests under exemption 6 and collecting cases involving exemption 7c D. holding that nigcs individual background files are law enforcement records subject to exemption 7c and that in the absence of a waiver disclosure is not required by foia because individuals mentioned in law enforcement investigatory reports have a presumptive privacy interest in keeping their names undisclosed E. holding that in light of the stigma potentially associated with law enforcement investigations exemption 7c affords broad privacy rights to suspects witnesses and investigators. Answer:

A. holding that exemption 7c protects the privacy interests of all persons mentioned in law enforcement records whether they be investigators suspects witnesses or informants and their names are generally exempt from disclosure

Consider the following statement: Forum, there can be no-“parallel” state court litigation on the basis of which a federal court could exercise colorado river abstention). b. the federal and state proceedings at issue here clearly are not “parallel” under colorado river. as a general matter, a § 1983 action may be brought in either a state or federal forum. thus, conceivably, concurrent state and federal jurisdiction could exist over the marcuses’ damages claim. in the present case, however, the state action is criminal in nature and was initiated by the state of pennsylvania in its criminal court. pennsylvania law makes no provision by which the marcuses could raise their § 1983 claim in a state criminal forum. see hutchins v. commonwealth, pa. state police harrisburg, 145 pa.cmwlth. 635, 604 a.2d 1130, 1131 (1992) (<holding>). as a consequence, the pennsylvania criminal Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding a party cannot be joined to prevent removal where no cause of action can be brought against that party B. holding that a criminal statute does not provide a corresponding civil cause of action C. holding that a municipal corporation cannot form the requisite criminal intent and cannot be held liable under civil rico laws D. holding civil action cannot be joined to a criminal appeal E. holding a forfeiture provision to be a civil action despite its codification in the states criminal code. Answer:

D. holding civil action cannot be joined to a criminal appeal

Consider the following statement: This order followed a noticed hearing on appellee’s motion to hold appellant in contempt for allegedly disobeying the court’s order on visitation. no pleadings were filed requesting a change of custody nor was there any notice that any such change of custody would be heard or considered by the court. the trial court cannot modify a support order or other adjudicated right unless the court’s subject matter jurisdiction has been properly invoked by appropriate pleadings, and that invoked jurisdiction has been perfected by the proper service of process and due process notice and an opportunity to be heard on that issue has been had. this succinctly states the requirements of due process in cases such as the instant case. see also, fisher v. whiteside, 541 so.2d 1209 (fla. 2d dca 1988)(<holding>); brady v. jones, 491 so.2d 1272, 1273 (fla. 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 court lacked jurisdiction to modify visitation where it dismissed the modification petition B. holding that denial of petition for modification of maintenance was proper when the parties agreement prohibited modification of maintenance C. holding conclusory statements in visitation dispute were not adequate to support awarding visitation rights D. holding that uncertainty regarding amount of visitation ordered is fatal to the validity of a trial courts visitation award E. holding that court in habeas petition has no authority to condition visitation right of parent upon payment for support and maintenance. Answer:

A. holding that court lacked jurisdiction to modify visitation where it dismissed the modification petition

Consider the following statement: We perceive it appropriate in this instance to recognize, any increased protection as being afforded by our state constitution. u.s. const, amend. iv; wyo. const, art. 1, § 4; hinshaw. we next turn to the statutes relied upon by saldana, wyo.stat. §§ 7-3-601 to -611 (1987), to determine whether legislative discretion may have been invoked to expand the constitutional protection. sal-dana claims that, under this wyoming “wire-tapping” statute, the admission into evidence of his telephone records is prohibited. we rely upon the statute in the form that it had been adopted at the time of saldana’s conduct instead of at the later, and somewhat more expansive, version relied upon by saldana. see wyo.stat. §§ 7-3-601 to -610 (supp.1990). cf. dellapenta v. dellapenta, 838 p.2d 1153 (wyo.1992) (<holding>); wyoming refining co. v. bottjen, 695 p.2d 647 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding statutes are not applied retroactively absent clear legislative intent B. holding legislatures intent to change tax liability retroactively was permissive exercise of legislative power C. holding that absent clear legislative intent court will not apply statute retroactively even when it creates new remedy D. holding that a change of an element of an offense could not be applied retroactively to a crime committed prior to the statutes enactment E. holding that the narrowing of the use of parnar claims only applies absent a clear expression of legislative intent to the contrary and citing to hrs 37869 as an example of such legislative intent. Answer:

A. holding statutes are not applied retroactively absent clear legislative intent

Consider the following statement: To council members in violation of department and city policy, diminishing the level of protection his speech might otherwise enjoy. belcher’s interest in speaking privately to the council members must be weighed against the contrary interests of the city and the department in maintaining harmony among department employees. “when close working relationships are essential to fulfilling public responsibilities, a wide degree of deference to the employer’s judgment is appropriate.” koch v. city of hutchinson, 847 f.2d 1436, 1452 (10th cir. 1988) (quoting connick, 461 u.s. at 151—52, 103 s.ct. 1684). because such close relationships are necessary in a fire department, there is a “heightened governmental interest in maintaining harmony” among fire department employees. id. at 1452 n. 22 (<holding>). firefighters place their lives in each Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding routine exclusion of members of fire and police departments did not violate the faircrosssection requirement because it is good for the community that these workers not be interrupted in their work B. holding that fire departments are analogous to police departments in this respect C. holding that a police departments refusal to permit police affin ity group to march in parades was not a form of government speech D. holding that an expert established a national standard of care for police officer training by testifying that police departments throughout the country commonly trained officers to deal with mentally distuibed persons and by naming several departments that offered such training E. holding the evidence supported the police officers failure to follow the directives in the montgomery county police departments field operations manual. Answer:

B. holding that fire departments are analogous to police departments in this respect

Consider the following statement: More or better evidence.” (internal quotations omitted)); jones v. united states, 466 f.2d 131, 136 (10th cir.1972) (“evidence of this type is not the result of a different factual situation or changed circumstances. it is, instead, historical in nature and could have been admitted at the first trial if properly submitted. if the taxpayers’ case was not effectively presented at the first trial it wa -04 (2d cir.1999) (noting that the virtues of issue preclusion do not come without a price: “just as occasionally ‘the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong ... but time and chance hap-peneth to them all,’ ecclesiastes 9:11 (king james ed.), so too the results of an earlier resolution of an issue may simply be wrong.”); johnson v. watkins, 101 f.3d 792, 795 (2d cir.1996) (<holding>); james talcott, inc. v. allahabad bank, ltd., Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. recognizing that the doctrine of collateral estoppel represents an informed choice that the occasional permanent encapsulation of a wrong result is a price worth paying to promote the worthy goals of ending disputes and avoiding repetitive litigation B. recognizing the collateral order doctrine for the first time C. recognizing the doctrine of collateral estoppel in agency proceedings D. holding collateral estoppel elements met considering changed circumstances in the context of an exception to the general rule of collateral estoppel E. holding that the debtor has the burden of showing that collateral estoppel applies. Answer:

A. recognizing that the doctrine of collateral estoppel represents an informed choice that the occasional permanent encapsulation of a wrong result is a price worth paying to promote the worthy goals of ending disputes and avoiding repetitive litigation

Consider the following statement: Of the victim’s conduct. see § 90.405, fla. stat. (2009). there are, however, important distinctions and evi-dentiary requirements between reputation evidence and evidence of specific acts admitted under section 90.404(l)(b). grace v. state, 832 so.2d 224, 226 (fla. 2d dca 2002); pino, 389 so.2d at 1194. the purpose of introducing the reputation evidence in a self-defense case is to show that the victim was the initial aggressor. pino, 389 so.2d at 1194. reputation evidence is offered to show that the victim acted in conformity with a known character trait. because reputation evidence relates to the conduct of the victim, the defendant is not required to have had prior knowledge of the victim’s reputation in the community. see dwyer v. state, 743 so.2d 46, 48 (fla. 5th dca 1999) (<holding>) (citations omitted); melvin v. state, 592 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that evidence of assault on victim that was subsequent to the arson for which defendant was tried was admissible to show defendants bent of mind toward violence directed at the victim B. holding that uncharged sexual acts committed upon the same victim are admissible to show the conduct of the defendant toward the victim and to corroborate the evidence of the offense charged in the indictment C. holding that a defendant who alleges selfdefense can show through the testimony of another witness that the alleged victim had a propensity for violence thereby inferring that the alleged victim was the aggressor a defendants prior knowledge of the victims reputation for violence is irrelevant because the evidence is offered to show the conduct of the victim rather than the defendants state of mind D. holding that before a defendant is entitled to introduce evidence of the victims character for violence there must be sufficient evidence to support a finding that the victim was the first aggressor and that once the defendant testified that he was attacked and cut by the victim without provocation before using the victims utility tool to stab the victim the defendant was clearly entitled to question the victim about past acts of violence reflected in court documents from the state of oregon E. holding that corroborative evidence of prior specific acts of violence by victim may be admissible in selfdefense case where the defendant knew of the act. Answer:

C. holding that a defendant who alleges selfdefense can show through the testimony of another witness that the alleged victim had a propensity for violence thereby inferring that the alleged victim was the aggressor a defendants prior knowledge of the victims reputation for violence is irrelevant because the evidence is offered to show the conduct of the victim rather than the defendants state of mind

Consider the following statement: Tools or equipment necessary to provide chicken catching services. required tools or equipment, such as tracks, cages, and forklifts, were provided by the processors, and the catchers supplied themselves with hats, gloves, or boots, if they desired such items. see ce credits online, 946 a.2d at 1168; beacon flag car, 910 a.2d at 105. fourth, the joint venture did not provide training or instruction on how to catch chickens. see ce credits online, 946 a.2d at 1168; beacon flag car, 910 a.2d at 105. fifth, although the joint venture accepted jobs from processors, the time, place and location of each job was determined by the processors, not by the joint venture or the catchers, and, therefore, the joint venture did not dictate those terms of the job. see beacon flag car, 910 a.2d at 108 (<holding>). sixth, the joint venture did not supervise Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that failure to attach the aaa arbitration rules weighed in favor of a finding of procedural unconscionability B. holding that fact that client not employer controlled time manner and location of services to be performed weighed in favor of independent contractor status C. holding that an attorneys cause for services rendered over a period of time accrued when his services had been completely performed D. holding that texas law does not recognize an implied warranty that services incidental to helicopter maintenance will be performed in a good and workmanlike manner E. holding that ambiguous agreement between attorney and client must be construed in the clients favor. Answer:

B. holding that fact that client not employer controlled time manner and location of services to be performed weighed in favor of independent contractor status

Consider the following statement: Another department and had previously received ratings of "3” and "4 ". bob laird, who was also already a supervisor when he was transferred to be special services department supervisor had consistently received “4” ratings. chris scafidi, a caucasian male who has held the position since august 1994 had received only "3” and "4" ratings and had two years experience working at the special services desk. (home depot’s statement of undisputed material facts at pp. 7-9; teixeira aff. at ¶¶ 20-25). 9 . courts have commonly applied the same standard of liability for employment discrimination cases alleging title vii and section 1981 violations because the elements of each are the same. new york city transit authority v. beazer, 440 u.s. 568, 583, 99 s.ct. 1355, 1364-65, 59 l.ed.2d 587 (1979) (<holding>); lincoln v. board of regents, 697 f.2d 928 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that title vii precludes a claim under section 1981 for racial discrimination against a federal employee B. holding that section 1981 afford no greater substantive protection than title vii C. holding that plaintiffs claims under 42 usc 1981 are also governed by the special venue provision of title vii D. holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii E. holding that there is no individual liability under title vii. Answer:

B. holding that section 1981 afford no greater substantive protection than title vii

Consider the following statement: 321 s.w.3d at 682. a. citizenship and immigration status as noted above, appellant’s citizenship status is not in dispute. the record reflects, and the state acknowledges, that appellant is not a united states citizen. b. knowledge of immigration consequences before examining the strength of the evidence of the appellant’s guilt, we must examine the record for any indication that the defendant knew the consequences of his guilty plea. vannortrick, 227 s.w.3d at 713 (stating that the strength or weakness of the evidence against the appellant makes little difference to the harm analysis if the second factor above is not satisfied). to warrant reversal, the record must support an inference that the defendant did not know the consequences of his plea. burnett, .-dallas 2004, pet. ref'd) (<holding>). we do not have a silent record. as explained Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that the defendants guilty plea was valid where the district court carefully questioned the defendant about whether he understood the consequences of his guilty plea B. holding statements during voir dire and oral motion in limine were merely opaque references to deportation but silent about whether appellant was actually informed that a guilty plea could result in his deportation and insufficient to support inference appellant knew consequences of his plea C. holding trial judges statement during voir dire that appellant likely would be automatically deported if released on probation along with references to deportation by defense counsel and prospective jurors supported inference that appellant knew consequences of plea D. holding that appellant was harmed by trial courts failure to admonish him of deportation consequences of his guilty plea where the record was silent about whether he was ever specifically informed that his guilty plea could result in deportation and record showed that appellant moved to the united states from korea E. holding record insufficient to support inference appellant knew consequences of his plea when record is silent about whether appellant was actually informed that a guilty plea could result in his deportation. Answer:

B. holding statements during voir dire and oral motion in limine were merely opaque references to deportation but silent about whether appellant was actually informed that a guilty plea could result in his deportation and insufficient to support inference appellant knew consequences of his plea

Consider the following statement: Re dembiczak, 175 f.3d 994, 999 (fed.cir.1999). “the absence of ... a suggestion to combine is dispositive in an obviousness determination.” gambro lundia ab v. baxter healthcare corp., 110 f.3d 1573, 1579 (fed.cir.1997). 3. remaining issues of fact the parties dispute the extent to which the prior art could have suggested its combination to create the ’014 patent. (pl reply memo, on validity at 9; def. memo, on validity at 8). that determination, whether there is a suggestion or motivation to modify a prior art reference, is a question of fact to be decided prior to the ultimate conclusion of obviousness. sibia neurosciences, inc. v. cadus pharmaceutical corp., 225 f.3d 1349, 1356 (fed.cir. 2000); tec air, inc. v. denso manufacturing michigan, inc., 192 f.3d 1353, 1359 (fed.cir.l999)(<holding>). it must therefore be determined if 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 factual underpinnings of obviousness include whether reference provides motivation to combine its teachings with those of another reference B. holding that obviousness is determined entirely with reference to a hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art and the actual inventors skill is irrelevant to the obviousness inquiry C. holding of obviousness affirmed on the basis of the teachings of the prior art references in combination not on the basis of the contemporaneous invention D. holding that obviousness analysis may include recourse to logic judgment and common sense available to a person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion E. holding that reference to ordinance is not improper reference to an external document because injunction sufficiently describes the act sought to be enjoined and reference to the ordinance as stated in the injunction is merely to give further notice as to the enjoined conduct but the reference was unnecessary to give the appellants sufficient notice of that conduct. Answer:

A. holding that factual underpinnings of obviousness include whether reference provides motivation to combine its teachings with those of another reference

Consider the following statement: At the time of an accident. cf. argonaut insurance co. v. national indemnity co. (10th cir. 1971), 435 f.2d 718; hagans v. glen falls insurance co. (10th cir. 1972), 465 f.2d 1249; ryder truck lines v. carolina cas. ins. co. (ind.app.1978), 372 n.e.2d 504; allstate insurance co. v. federal insurance co. (1974), 23 md.app. 105, 326 a.2d 29. conversely, there are also numerous cases that reject the notion that the i.c.c. regulations are determinative. cf. allstate insurance co. v. liberty mutual insurance co. (3rd cir. 1966), 368 f.2d 121; wellman v. liberty mutual insurance company (8th cir. 1974), 496 f.2d 131; vance trucking company v. canal insurance company (d.s.c. 1966), 249 f.supp. 33, aff’d (4th cir. 1968), 395 f.2d 391, cert. denied, 393 u.s. 945, 89 s.ct. 129, 21 l.ed.2d 116 (<holding>). the most recent decision in the area, and one Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that a defendant must have notice that the trial court might sentence him to death B. holding that punitive damages are not duplicative since they are designed to punish rather than to compensate C. holding that icc regulations are not designed to excuse a party from liability he might otherwise have D. holding that when regulations are intended to have different purposes and are not dependent on each other they are not intertwined E. recognizing that prison regulations designed to provide security are not only legitimate but are central to all other correctional goals. Answer:

C. holding that icc regulations are not designed to excuse a party from liability he might otherwise have

Consider the following statement: Because the patentee cancelled a claim covering “triple superphosphate” and expressly disclaimed that compound in his arguments to the examiner to gain patent allowance. id. we reached a similar conclusion in ballard medical products v. allegiance healthcare corporation, 268 f.3d 1352, 1359-62, 60 uspq2d 1493, 1499-1501 (fed.cir.2001), which involved means-plus-function claims. there, the patentee asserted that the accused devices were equivalents, under paragraph 6 of section 112, to the claimed function’s corresponding structure. id. at 1359, 268 f.3d 1352, 60 uspq2d at 1499. we rejected that assertion on the basis of prosecution disclaimer: when a patentee advises the examiner (and the public after patent issuance) that a particular structure is not within his invention, the pate 7 (<holding>). to balance the importance of public notice Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal 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 due process right to notice and informal hearing in school disciplinary process B. holding regular use of process cannot constitute abuse of process C. holding that when a prisoners deliberate indifference claim is covered by the eighth amendment the substantive due process claims are duplicative and thus the substantive due process claims should be dismissed D. holding that to establish a claim for abuse of process a claimant must demonstrate an act in the use of the process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceedings E. holding that the limitation sputterdeposited dielectric excluded a twostep process because the patentee argued during prosecution that the metal oxide in the process was directly deposited and that the invention thus only covered a onestep process. Answer:

E. holding that the limitation sputterdeposited dielectric excluded a twostep process because the patentee argued during prosecution that the metal oxide in the process was directly deposited and that the invention thus only covered a onestep process

Consider the following statement: Tended to prove that dingle was credible in that it explained the inconsistencies in her statements. see lawhorne v. state, 500 so.2d 519, 520 (fla.1986) (“the credibility of witnesses is always in issue.” (citing charles w. ehrhardt, florida evidence § 401.1 (1984 ed.))). the probative value of the testimony was not outweighed by its prejudicial effect. this is especially so when compared to the cases approving such testimony in the context of gang activity, where, like the witness, the defendant is a member of the gang. moreover, in the above cases, there is usually something more — such as an express code of silence and a legitimate fear of retaliation — than the general reluctance to speak truthfully here. in those circumstances, the testimony, unlike the testimony here, 4) (<holding>). the instant case involves the admission 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 prosecutors reference to cooperation agreements with government witnesses was not plain error B. holding prosecutors reference to defendant being only witness in courtroom during testimony as tailoring opportunity not plain error C. holding under plain error review that prosecutions repeated references to defendants silence in a one day trial were not harmless despite defendants responsive comments on silence D. holding that prosecutors reference to code of silence among witnesses to shooting not plain error where argument finds support in record E. holding that prosecutors reference to the fact that not one white witness has produced contradictory evidence was plain error. Answer:

D. holding that prosecutors reference to code of silence among witnesses to shooting not plain error where argument finds support in record

Consider the following statement: 25 i. & n. dec. 850 (bia 2012), a precedential decision not cited by the bia here, the bia held that a “formal judgment of guilt entered by a court qualifies as a conviction under section 101(a)(48)(a) so long as it was entered in a ‘genuine criminal proceeding,’ that is, a proceeding that was ‘criminal in nature under the governing laws of the prosecuting jurisdiction.’ ” id. at 852 (quoting matter of rivera-valencia, 24 i. & n. dec. 484, 486-87 (bia 2008)); see id. at 853-55. because the bia did not consider cuellar-gomez when it found that moreno was ineligible for cancellation, we remand to the bia for it to consider in the first instance whether moreno’s infraction is a “conviction.” see ins v. ventura, 537 u.s. 12, 16-17, 123 s.ct. 353, 154 l.ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam) (<holding>); delgado v. holder, 648 f.3d 1095, 1108 (9th Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that when an agency has not reached an issue the proper course is to remand to the agency to address it in the first instance B. holding that this court has discretion to either address or remand arguments presented to it in the first instance provided it otherwise has jurisdiction over the claim C. holding that a court of appeals should remand a case to an agency for decision of a matter that statutes place primarily in agency hands D. holding that this court must remand to the bia to allow it to address in the first instance an issue that it has not yet considered E. holding deference to agency methodology appropriate unless agency failed to address an essential factor. Answer:

A. holding that when an agency has not reached an issue the proper course is to remand to the agency to address it in the first instance

Consider the following statement: And the application paragraph on murder as a party, neither specifically explained to the jury which facts it could properly consider to convict appellant as a party. in fact, the instructions were worse than that because, rather than merely withholding information from the jury, the application paragraph affirmatively misled the jury by telling the jury it could convict appellant for a murder committed by jermarxian green-even if appellant was not a party to the murder. this was a legally incorrect instruction that completely misstated the law, and to worsen matters, we cannot tell if the jury convicted appellant as a party based on the legally incorrect instruction or as a principal. see id. at 171-73; guevara v. state, 191 s.w.3d 203, 207 (tex.app.-san antonio 2005, pet. ref'd) (<holding>); see also campbell v. state, 910 s.w.2d 475, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding no legal duty exists to prevent unforeseeable criminal acts B. holding that the trial court committed reversible error in instructing the jury on a principals theory because there was no evidence that the appellant acted in concert with anyone in committing the charged offenses C. holding that instructing the jury on a legal duty theory when appellant had no legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense was error D. holding that the failure to plead a particular legal theory when the plaintiff pled two related legal theories was not a bar to recovery E. holding that counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a charge on the lesserincluded offense when the evidence showed either the commission of the completed offense as charged or the commission of no offense such that the defendant was not entitled to a charge on the lesser offense. Answer:

C. holding that instructing the jury on a legal duty theory when appellant had no legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense was error

Consider the following statement: Is equal to or greater than the amount of his debt, his right of possession ceases, and the grantor or his legal representatives, and, if none, his heirs, may bring an action to recover the land.”). “the right of the grantor to redeem by the payment of the debt is never barred, so long as the grantee recognizes a right to redeem, and equity would by analogy decree that the right to redeem would in no event be lost until after the expiration of 10 years from the date of the last recognition by the grantee of the right to redeem.” gunter, 38 s.e. at 374. while the transaction in the case sub judice is a security deed and not a mortgage, the debtor still has a right of redemption. see wynndam court apartment co. v. first fed. sav. & loan ass’n of atlanta, 204 ga. 501, 50 s.e.2d 611 (1948) (<holding>). in the case sub judice the letter sent Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant 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 assignment of rents clause contained in the mortgage was enforceable during the period of redemption for the purpose of securing the 300000 deficiency existing after foreclosure of the mortgage B. recognizing that the right to seek reformation of a deed is limited to the original parties to the deed and their successors in title C. holding that a mortgage or modification of a mortgage is not a good or a service under the dtpa D. holding that the right of redemption is treated the same whether in a mortgage or security deed E. holding that upon execution of the mortgage the mortgagor retains only an equity of redemption accompanied by a right to possession. Answer:

D. holding that the right of redemption is treated the same whether in a mortgage or security deed

Consider the following statement: Argument that defendants treated similarly situated white inmates more favorably than him to be unpersuasive. plaintiff asserts that the named white inmates must be considered similarly situated because they were found to be in violation of prison rules for playing either their television or radio too loudly. however, the decision as to what sanction to impose for a particular rule violation may be based on the factors set out in section iii(d)(12) of the isp handbook. giles has not shown himself to be similarly situated, considering such factors, with the three white inmates who received sanctions for playing either their television of radio too loud. see generally anderson v. university of wisconsin, 665 f.supp. 1372, 1395 (w.d.wis.1987), aff'd, 841 f.2d 737 (7th cir.1988) (<holding>). this conclusion is exemplified by the fact Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that comparison between plaintiff africanameriean law student who was expelled for academic reasons and white student with psychiatric disorder was like comparing apples with oranges B. holding that a white office was not similarly situated to a black officer who was charged with more offenses than the white officer C. holding that no special relationship existed between the school and student D. holding that juveniles use of the f word in dispute with principal and another student over whether student had stolen her money did not constitute fighting words E. holding proper remedy when a christian student newspaper was denied student activities funds was to make funds available to the religious paper not to deny funds to nonreligious student groups. Answer:

A. holding that comparison between plaintiff africanameriean law student who was expelled for academic reasons and white student with psychiatric disorder was like comparing apples with oranges

Consider the following statement: Section, referenced in 18 u.s.c. § 1960(b)(1)(b), defines a “money transmitting business” as any business required to file reports under 31 u.s.c. § 5313, which in turn relates to “domestic financial institution[s].” title 31 u.s.c. § 5312(b)(1) states that the term “domestic financial institution,” for purposes of that subchapter, “applies] to an action in the united states of a financial agency or institution.” because mazza-alaluf raised his title 31 argument in the district court only as it pertained to the government’s reliance on a § 1960(b)(1)(b) theory of guilt, we review his recasting of that claim to challenge his § 1960(b)(1)(a) conviction for plain error, and we identify none here. see fed.r.crim.p. 52(b); see also united states v. needham, 604 f.3d 673, 678 (2d cir.2010) (<holding>). mazza-alaluf contends that for him to be Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant 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 a defendant is able to show that there was a plain error that affected his substantial rights a court of appeals is not required to reverse a conviction unless it finds that the error seriously affected the fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings B. holding that a plain error did not seriously affect the fairness integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings even though the error was assumed to have affected substantial rights C. recognizing that plain error analysis requires 1 error 2 that is plain 3 that affects defendants substantial rights and 4 that seriously affects fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings D. holding that plain error will be identified only if 1 there is error 2 that is clear or obvious rather than subject to reasonable dispute 3 that affects defendants substantial rights and 4 that seriously impugns fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings E. holding that failure to charge drug quantity in the indictment and submit it to the jury seriously affects the fairness integrity and public reputation of judicial proceedings so that the court should exerciseits discretion to recognize the error. Answer:

C. recognizing that plain error analysis requires 1 error 2 that is plain 3 that affects defendants substantial rights and 4 that seriously affects fairness integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings

Consider the following statement: See, e.g., sbkc serv. corp. v. 1111 prospect partners, l.p., 105 f.3d 578 (10th cir.1997); milk ‘n’ more, inc. v. beavert, 963 f.2d 1342 (10th cir.1992), all involve situations where a case ended up in a forum that a party argued was not contemplated by the forum-selection clause in question. for example, in the k & v scientific case, the plaintiff filed an action in new mexico, but the clause in question stated that “[jurisdiction for all and any disputes arising out of or in connection with this agreement is munich.” k & v scientific, 314 f.3d at 496. likewise, in excell, the plaintiff challenged removal to a federal district court in light of contract language which named the state court as the proper venue. excell, 106 f.3d at 320; see also milk ‘n’ more, 963 f.2d at 1343, 1346 (<holding>). none of these cases involve the situation Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant 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 forumselection clause was mandatory because it provided for exclusive jurisdiction and venue in a particular court B. holding that remand to state court was appropriate where mandatory forumselection clause placed venue in a specified county of the state C. holding that a forumselection clause was mandatory where it stated that for any action brought to enforce such terms and conditions venue shall lie exclusively in clark county washington D. holding that venue in the district identified in 9 was mandatory E. holding that if a modification petition is filed in a county where venue is appropriate it is improper to transfer the venue to another county merely because venue also would have been proper in the other county however once an enforcement proceeding is undertaken in an appropriate venue venue is improper in a different county over a subsequently filed petition to modify the decree which was the subject of the enforcement proceedings. Answer:

B. holding that remand to state court was appropriate where mandatory forumselection clause placed venue in a specified county of the state

Consider the following statement: Must comply with that section. statutory provisions creating rights and remedies are mandatory and exclusive and must be complied with in all respects. id. at 937. the court held that the notice requirements of section 42.21 are jurisdictional and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal. the court in poly-america distinguished its holding from the decision in corchine partnership v. dallas county appraisal district, 695 s.w.2d 734 (tex.app.—dallas 1985, writ ref’d n.r.e.) in that the plaintiffs in corchine had failed to give notice to the review board as required by section 42.06. however, the court in corchine found that section 42.06(b) notice requirements were jurisdictional as well. see also rockdale i.s.d. v. thorndale i.s.d., 681 s.w.2d 225 (tex.app.—austin 1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (<holding>). the property owner in herndon marine Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that regulatory requirements are not jurisdictional in nature B. holding that notice requirements of 4206a are jurisdictional C. holding service requirements under fedrcivp 4 to be jurisdictional D. holding that notice requirements under former rule 40b1 are jurisdictional E. holding that notice requirements under rule 252b3 are jurisdictional. Answer:

B. holding that notice requirements of 4206a are jurisdictional

Consider the following statement: Court may also depart if the government’s refusal to file a substantial assistance motion is attributable to bad faith, even when the plea agreement specifies that the decision whether to file is in the government’s sole discretion. see united states v. isaac, 141 f.3d 477, 484 (3d cir.1998). while mr. khan makes the assertion that he “vigorously assisted authorities,” he does not point to any concrete actions on his part other than bringing the authorities to the apartment in brooklyn where he received the heroin. see pet. mot. at 3. the government acknowledged this act but determined it was not sufficient to warrant a substantial assistance motion. mr. khan fails to allege any suspect motive on the part of the government. see united states v. higgins, 967 f.2d 841, 845 (3d cir.1992) (<holding>). given the quantity of heroin involved and Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent B. holding 404b evidence admissible under intent exception but not motive exception where motive not contested C. holding trial court improperly instructed jury in trial for possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute that evidence of defendants similar acts of possession was admissible to show motive where motive was not element of crime charged and defendant did not contest motive D. holding extrinsic evidence of defendants motive to possess gun inadmissible where defendant did not contest the issue of motive E. holding that the mere fact that a defendant provided assistance and the prosecutor did not file a motion is not sufficient evidence of suspect motive. Answer:

E. holding that the mere fact that a defendant provided assistance and the prosecutor did not file a motion is not sufficient evidence of suspect motive

Consider the following statement: It is established that when a hearing officer awards relief requested by the parents, the hearing officer’s decision constitutes an agreement between the state and the parents sufficient to change the placement of a child. see 34 c.f.r. § 300.518 (“if the hearing officer in a due process hearing ... agrees wit officer’s decision was incorrect, the district was not free to simply ignore its obligation to comply with the hod. under these circumstances, the parents were within their rights to enroll m.m. at ivym-ount, and are entitled to reimbursement for their expenses. see 20 u.s.c. § 1415(i)(2)(c)(iii) (authorizing court to grant relief “as the court determines is appropriate” in idea action); forest grove school dist. v. t.a., 557 u.s. 230, 246, 129 s.ct. 2484, 174 l.ed.2d 168 (2009) (<holding>); district of columbia v. vinyard, 901 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant 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 local educational agency is the appropriate target of a suit under the idea and that private entities cannot be held liable under the statute as the idea obligates the statenot the private schoolto ensure that such children are provided special education and related services in accordance with an individualized education program B. recognizing that a school district must be a prevailing party in order to be entitled to attorneys fees under the idea C. holding reimbursement for private tutoring available under the idea D. holding that court may order reimbursement of private school expenses incurred by parents of handicapped child in successful challenge to iep brought under eha predecessor to idea stating that it is beyond cavil that appropriate relief would include a prospective injunction directing the school official to develop and implement at public expense an iep placing the child in a private school and affirming reimbursement award against petitioner local school district E. recognizing that the idea authorizes courts to order reimbursement of the costs of private specialeducation services in appropriate circumstances. Answer:

E. recognizing that the idea authorizes courts to order reimbursement of the costs of private specialeducation services in appropriate circumstances

Consider the following statement: U.s. 159, 165-66, 105 s.ct. 3099, 3104-05, 87 l.ed.2d 114 (1985); will v. michigan dept’ of state police, 491 u.s. 58, 71, 109 s.ct. 2304, 2312, 105 l.ed.2d 45 (1989). section 1983 does not provide for a remedy against the state; such- an action is barred by the eleventh amendment. kentucky v. graham, 473 u.s. at 165-66, 105 s.ct. 3099; will, 491 u.s. at 71, 109 s.ct. at 2312. thus, to the extent the plaintiffs’ claims against sheriff ackal and deputy garcia are asserted against these defendants in their official capacities, such claims are barred by the eleventh amendment and are dismissed without prejudice herein. the court now turns to the defendants’ defense of qualified immunity in their individuals capacities. see, generally, kentucky v. graham, 473 u.s. at 166-67, 105 s.ct. 3099 (<holding>); sanders—burns v. city of plano, 594 f.3d 366, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding suits against state officials for prospective injunctive relief are permissible because they are in effect suits against the officials in their individual capacities B. holding that government entities may not assert qualified immunity C. holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity D. holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit E. holding officials in their individual capacities may be able to assert personal immunity defenses including qualified immunity that are not available in officialcapacity suits. Answer:

E. holding officials in their individual capacities may be able to assert personal immunity defenses including qualified immunity that are not available in officialcapacity suits

Consider the following statement: Situation.” id. at 396-97. nevertheless, the applicable standard is an objective one: “[t]he question is whether the officers’ actions are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.” id. at 397. in the present case, wilkey was not committing any crime when argo confronted him. nor was wilkey resisting arrest or even seeking to avoid an encounter with law enforcement officers. instead, he consented to a pat down search prior to argo’s use of force against him. this search revealed that wilke degree of force is necessary, gratuitous acts against a person who has been seized might violate the fourth amendment’s reasonableness standard. phelps v. coy, 286 f.3d 295, 297, 301-02 (6th cir.2002) (<holding>); santos, 287 f.3d at 853 (explaining that Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that suspect was not in custody when officer handcuffed him for officer safety while transporting him to police station B. holding that defendant was arrested when the police officer took physical custody of him by grabbing his arm and returned him to the hotel for detention there C. recognizing the necessity of analyzing officer coys use of force against phelps in segments where coy arrested phelps placed him in handcuffs took him to the police station for booking and then beat him after he raised his leg in a manner that coy perceived to be a threat to another police officer D. holding the defendant was not under arrest when police asked him to go to the station and then offered him a ride because he did not have transportation E. holding that police executed an illegal arrest when they took a teenage suspect from his home and brought him in handcuffs to the police station for questioning. Answer:

C. recognizing the necessity of analyzing officer coys use of force against phelps in segments where coy arrested phelps placed him in handcuffs took him to the police station for booking and then beat him after he raised his leg in a manner that coy perceived to be a threat to another police officer

Consider the following statement: App 8, 288 wis. 2d 804, 709 n.w.2d 497, the defendant bears a heavy burden in attempting to convince a reviewing court to set aside a jury's verdict on insufficiency of the evidence grounds. id., ¶ 22 (citing state v. allbaugh, 148 wis. 2d 807, 808-09, 436 n.w.2d 898 (ct. app. 1989)). ¶ 23. in booker's trial, the girls' and the detective's testimonies regarding the content of the tape were admitted to prove the "harmful material" element of wis. stat. § 948.11. all of the’ witnesses explained that the video's dominant focus was on nudity and explicit sexual acts and suggested that the video had no additional plot line, meaningful dialogue or other notable qualities or characteristics. the girls characterized it as a "porno" video. their descriptions of what they saw provi cir. 1969) (<holding>); state v. tee & bee, inc., 229 wis. 2d 446, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. recognizing that the dc circuit has stated that by attempting to evaluate the credibility of opposing experts and the persuasiveness of competing studies the district court conflates the questions of the admissibility of expert testimony and the weight appropriately to be accorded such testimony by a factfinder B. holding that issues of prurient appeal and offensiveness to contemporary community standards were appropriately decided by a jury notwithstanding the lack of expert testimony C. 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 D. holding expert testimony was not required where jury is capable of determining existence of duty E. holding that defendants truthfulness and the credibility of and weight to be given expert medical testimony are issues of fact for jury. Answer:

B. holding that issues of prurient appeal and offensiveness to contemporary community standards were appropriately decided by a jury notwithstanding the lack of expert testimony

Consider the following statement: Jobs are not the same; therefore, they are not equal. much of the precedent regarding unequal jobs involves comparing two jobs with a common core of duties, but with the higher-paid job having additional duties. see, e.g., horn v. univ. of minn., 362 f.3d 1042, 1045-46 (8th cir.2004) (finding that the jobs of two hockey coaches were not equal because the female hockey coach served as a public representative to the hockey team, in addition to the administrative duties she had in common with the male hockey coach), mclaughlin v. esselte pendaflex corp., 50 f.3d 507, 513-14 (8th cir.1995) (finding two jobs not equal because male employee performed other tasks in addition to the tasks female employee had previously performed), krenik v. county of le sueur, 47 f.3d 953, 961 (8th cir.1995) (<holding>). simpson did not attempt to prove that she 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 two maintenance employees jobs not equal where male maintenance engineer had supervisory duties in addition to the job functions that female assistant performed B. holding that a change in job duties was not an adverse employment action where the new job duties did not constitute qualitatively inferior work requiring any less skill or knowledge C. holding that under the first amendment speech can be pursuant to a public employees official job duties even though it is not required by or included in the employees job description or in response to a request by the employer D. holding that an employers policy requiring female employees to make larger pension fund contributions than male employees was discriminatory on its face in violation of title vii E. holding that garcetti barred claims involving speech not necessarily required by the plaintiffs job duties but nevertheless related to his job duties. Answer:

A. holding two maintenance employees jobs not equal where male maintenance engineer had supervisory duties in addition to the job functions that female assistant performed

Consider the following statement: Additionally, william's claims of procedural error are meritless. therefore, we affirm the decision of the superior court. 1 . as 22.20.020(c) states, in relevant part: if a judicial officer denies disqualification the question shall be heard and determined by another judge assigned for the purpose by the presiding judge of the next higher level of courts or, if none, by the other members of the supreme court,. 2 . capital info. group v. office of the governor, 923 p.2d 29, 41 (alaska 1996). 3 . r.j.m. v. state, 946 p.2d 855, 869-70 (alaska 1997) (internal quotation marks omilted). 4 . alaska r. civ. p. 52(a). 5 . as 22.20.020(a)(9). 6 . see amidon v. state, 604 p.2d 575, 578 (alaska 1979); perotti v. state, 806 p.2d 325, 327 (alaska app.1 , 767 so.2d 626, 627 (fla. 3d dca 2000) (<holding>); but see shank v. american motors corp., 575 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant 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 judge cannot consider factual statements of counsel in a motion for summary judgment B. holding that statements that employee was doing a good job are more akin to opinions than statements of fact and on this basis are not actionable in fraud and citing a state case as holding that neither opinions nor statement that are general and indefinite are representations of fact giving rise to a misrepresentation claim C. recognizing that under the rule of necessity where all judges would be disqualified in a suit brought against every district and circuit court judge in the circuit none are disqualified D. holding that judge should be disqualified for statements suggesting preexisting unfavorable opinions about the management and litigation tactics of the cruise line industry E. holding that an order or judgment issued by a disqualified judge is void but not because the court lacked jurisdiction. Answer:

D. holding that judge should be disqualified for statements suggesting preexisting unfavorable opinions about the management and litigation tactics of the cruise line industry

Consider the following statement: Instruction notes that if the defendant is not also charged with malice murder, the words in parentheses should be omitted. see id. in this case, although appellant was not indicted for malice murder, the trial court included the parenthetical words in its jury instruction on felony murder. the court also charged that if the jury found that appellant was “guilty of the offense of murder with malice af n that the state had to prove malice aforethought for appellant to be found guilty of felony murder made it harder for the state to make its case, since malice aforethought is not an element of felony murder (although it is not inconsistent with that crime). instructional errors that could only benefit a defendant are harmless. see sanders v. state, 283 ga. 372, 375 (659 se2d 376) (2008) (<holding>); brown v. state, 250 ga. 66, 72 n. 4 (295 se2d Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that trial court did not err in refusing to give charge because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his requested charge was tailored to the evidence B. holding that because a mutual combat charge authorizes a jury to find the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter in lieu of murder it is a charge that benefits a defendant and as such a convicted defendants complaint that it was improper to give the charge is without merit C. holding that because trial court actually gave part of a jury charge that appellant claimed was improperly omitted and because remainder of courts charge adequately defined one of the legal terms at issue the courts jury charge taken as a whole was not misleading and did not constitute reversible error D. holding that jurys failure to address first degree murder charge amounted to a verdict of not guilty on that charge E. holding that failure to charge jury that state had burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in the heat of passion was harmless because the evidence did not support a charge on passionprovocation manslaughter. Answer:

B. holding that because a mutual combat charge authorizes a jury to find the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter in lieu of murder it is a charge that benefits a defendant and as such a convicted defendants complaint that it was improper to give the charge is without merit

Consider the following statement: As 29.35.210(a)(4) (authorlzmg boroughs to provide garbage services, subject to as 29.35.050); as 29.35.050(a)(1) (authorizing garbage collection); as 29.35.050(a)(6) (authorizing garbage-collection fees); as 29.35.050(a)(7) (authorizing penalties for garbage-ordinance violations). 10 . as 29.35.400 ("a liberal construction shall be given to all powers and functions of a municipality conferred in this title."). 11 . kenai peninsula borough v. associated grocers, inc., 889 p.2d 604, 606 (alaska 1995). 12 . id. (quoting as 29.35.410). 13 . as 29.35.050(a)(5)-(6). 14 . see as 29.45.300(b) (providing property tax lien "is prior and paramount to all other liens or encumbrances against the property""). 15 . as 29.35.125. 16 . fairbanks n. star borough v. howard, 608 p.2d 32, 34 (alaska 1980) (<holding>). 17 . id. following our howard opinion, 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 iowa sales and use tax law as amended is of general application B. holding that forced sales of capital assets constitute sales for tax purposes and emphasizing salelike characteristics rather than voluntariness of transaction C. holding that states have authority to tax sales of cigarettes to nonmembers of the tribe D. holding property lien for nonpayment of sales tax was beyond boroughs authority to collect sales tax E. holding that the essential purpose of use tax is the recoupment of lost sales tax revenue. Answer:

D. holding property lien for nonpayment of sales tax was beyond boroughs authority to collect sales tax

Consider the following statement: That use of undisclosed information will violate due process because of the risk of error.” id. but the third mathews factor — the government’s interest in maintaining national security — supports ofac’s position. given the extreme importance of maintaining national security, we cannot accept ahif-oregon’s most sweeping argument — -that ofac is not entitled to use classified information in making its designation determination. see generally gen. dynamics corp. v. united states, — u.s. -, 131 s.ct. 1900, 1905, 179 l.ed.2d 957 (2011) (“[pjrotecting our national security sometimes requires keeping information about ou te, 327 f.3d 1238, 1241-43 (d.c.cir.2003) (following ncori and describing in detail its holding on this point); united states v. ott, 827 f.2d 473, 477 (9th cir.1987) (<holding>); cf. mohamed v. jeppesen dataplan, inc., 614 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant 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 right of access to government information or sources of information within the governments control is not mandated by the first or fourteenth amendments B. holding that states inadvertent or negligent destruction of evidence did not violate defendants due process rights C. holding that in a military criminal trial the governments use of classified information without permitting the defendant or his lawyers to view the information did not violate the defendants due process rights D. holding that due process was violated where a death sentence was imposed based on information in a presentence report and the defendant was not given an opportunity to deny or explain the information E. holding that in a designation of a foreign terrorist organization under the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996 aedpa the governments use of classified information without permitting the organization to view the information did not violate the organizations due process rights. Answer:

C. holding that in a military criminal trial the governments use of classified information without permitting the defendant or his lawyers to view the information did not violate the defendants due process rights

Consider the following statement: Plain error review available for errors relating to alleged improper remarks being made during closing argument, our prior case law relating to the waiver of issues on appeal stemming from improper closing arguments that were not objected to at trial remains unaffected by ocga § 24-1-103 of georgia’s new evidence code.”). further, this court is unswayed by durden’s claim that the prosecutor’s statement in closing argument amounts to an infringement on durden’s constitutional right to remain silent. because durden did not, in fact, testify at trial, the prosecutor’s rejoinder was a permissible attempt to correct defense counsel’s misstatement, rather than an impermissible effort to comment on durden’s failure to testify. see jones v. state, 123 ga. app. 310, 311 (180 se2d 603) (1971) (<holding>) (citation and punctuation omitted). further, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant 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 judges entry into the jury room constituted reversible error B. holding that error in denying such challenge is reversible error without demonstration of prejudice C. recognizing potential reversible error by disclosing defendants prior jury conviction D. recognizing that the mere fact that the jury is made aware that the defendant is making an unsworn statement does not result in reversible error E. holding that a failure to instruct the jury on additional uncharged conspiracies is not reversible error so long as the jury is instructed that the government has the burden to prove the charged conspiracy. Answer:

D. recognizing that the mere fact that the jury is made aware that the defendant is making an unsworn statement does not result in reversible error

Consider the following statement: Supra, a case which the majority addresses peripherally, we answered the question of whether the legislature’s delegation of the power to appoint commissioners serving on the commission on medical discipline to a private organization, violated the gubernatorial power provisions of the constitution and the separation of powers doctrine in the declaration of rights. chief judge murphy, writing for this court, summarized this court’s jurisprudence and succinctly and clearly articulated that the power of appointment is not an intrinsic executive function, but rather, that the legislature can modify, control, and abolish any office it has created: [this question] was considered by the court in davis v. state, 7 md. 151 (1854), and baltimore v , 164 md. 101, 105-07, 164 a. 155, 156-57 (1933) (<holding>). the majority’s haste to formulate an opinion Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that an employee had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his office even though the papers seized from the office were not the property of the employee B. recognizing that a prosecutors office is an entity and that information in the possession of one attorney in the office must be attributed to the office as a whole C. holding that the prohibition of section 35 article iii against the increase or diminution of compensation for public officers applied to the treasurer of calvert county and therefore even though the legislature retained the power to alter or abolish the office it could not change the treasurers salary while in office D. holding that the requirement that the county seek recommendations for appointments to a civil office from a private corporation was not constitutionally repugnant because where the office was created by the legislature the legislature retains the control over that offices method of appointment E. holding that the governor had no power to make the appointment of officer of the school commissioner for cecil county without the consent of the senate when the office was not vacant because the legislature which had created and therefore controlled the office had not delegated that power to the governor. Answer:

C. holding that the prohibition of section 35 article iii against the increase or diminution of compensation for public officers applied to the treasurer of calvert county and therefore even though the legislature retained the power to alter or abolish the office it could not change the treasurers salary while in office

Consider the following statement: Faked left syndrome accident. on appeal, the estate concedes that the instruction is a correct statement of the law and that it was not covered by other instructions. however, the estate contends that the instruction was not supported by the evidence in the record because the alleged sudden emergency was the faked left syndrome and the faked left syndrome does not apply to the accident in question. as discussed supra, no evidence was presented to support the applicability of the faked left syndrome, and the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the testimony regarding the faked left syndrome. consequently, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by instructing the jury regarding sudden emergency. see, e.g., collins v. rambo, 831 n.e.2d 241, 249 (ind.ct.app.2005) (<holding>). we address the ramifications of this abuse 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 trial court erred by instructing jury that employer would be liable under burk if plaintiff showed improper motive was a factor in the decision to discharge him rather than a significant factor B. holding that defendant failed to plead sufficient facts and instructing the trial court to dismiss the plaintiff from the case C. holding that sudden emergency is an affirmative defense which must be specifically plead D. holding that trial court erred by instructing jury regarding sudden emergency E. holding that trial court erred in instructing the jury on unavoidable accident when no evidence supported its submission. Answer:

D. holding that trial court erred by instructing jury regarding sudden emergency

Consider the following statement: Clock until august 21,2012. we further reject eccleston’s challenge to the delay occurring between the original august 21, 2012 trial date and the actual start of trial on september 11, 2012. ec-cleston apparently takes issue with government counsel’s request for this additional delay, even though government counsel indicated that he was willing to go forward with trial on august 21 if the court so ordered. the district court granted the government’s request due to counsel’s serious medical situation. unavoidable health concerns are a valid reason for granting a reasonable delay. united states v. trotman, 406 fed.appx. 799, 805 (4th cir.2011) (unpublished); see also united states v. hale, 685 f.3d 522, 535 (5th cir.2012); united states v. ditommaso, 817 f.2d 201, 210 (2d cir.1987) (<holding>). the district court did not clearly err in Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding ends of justice provision was intended to enable plaintiffs to bring all members of nationwide rico conspiracy before a court in a single trial B. holding that fivemonth openended continuance based on ends of justice did not violate speedy trial act C. holding that a new trial was warranted where the prosecutor stated as the bible says and the murderer shall be put to death D. holding that a seven week suspension of the speedy trial clock was warranted under the ends of justice provision where the chief prosecutor was ill and new assistant prosecutors required time to prepare for trial E. holding that speedy trial act requires that an ends of justice continuance be specifically limited in time. Answer:

D. holding that a seven week suspension of the speedy trial clock was warranted under the ends of justice provision where the chief prosecutor was ill and new assistant prosecutors required time to prepare for trial

Consider the following statement: Evans rationale would seem inapplicable whenever the mistake was instead attributable to the law enforcement agency”); cf. groh v. ramirez, 540 u.s. 551, 564, 124 s.ct. 1284, 157 l.ed.2d 1068 (2004) (stating, in the context of qualified immunity, that “because petitioner [police officer] prepared the invalid warrant, he may not argue that he reasonably relied on the magistrate’s assurance that the warrant contained an adequate description of the things to be seized”). but see united states v. de leon-reyna, 930 f.2d 396, 401 (5th cir.1991) (en banc) (applying good faith exception to a police officer’s m heard is at best ambiguous, and nearly nonsensical in light of the immediately preceding exchange. although antone’s sub sequent conduct concededly makes this a clos (d.c.cir.1991) (<holding>). moreover, as noted above, there was 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 cotenants consent to search valid where rodriguez who was asleep inside the house was not asked for his consent if police reasonably believed the consenter possessed common authority over the premises B. holding that the insurer is not bound by acts of the agent which are beyond the scope of his authority when the insured has notice of the limitations upon an agents authority or when the circumstances are sufficient to suggest that an inquiry should be made as to such limitations C. holding that a principal is not hable for the actions of an agent when these actions exceed the agents authority and the thirdparty has knowledge that the agent does not have the authority asserted D. holding that when an agent has limited authority and informs the third party of this limitation the principal is not bound by the agents actions that exceed that authority E. holding that the agents superficial and cursory questioning of the consenting party did not disclose sufficient information for the agent reasonably to believe that she had common authority over the premises and that further inquiry was required under rodriguez. Answer:

E. holding that the agents superficial and cursory questioning of the consenting party did not disclose sufficient information for the agent reasonably to believe that she had common authority over the premises and that further inquiry was required under rodriguez

Consider the following statement: Statements). even giving the confidential witness statements minimal weight, however, we do not doubt that sufficient facts have been presented to “raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence.” twombly, 550 u.s. at 556, 127 s.ct. 1955. we therefore conclude that plaintiffs have adequately met the particularity requirement of rule 9(b). b. plaintiffs also appeal the dismissal of their § 11 claim for gaap-based misstatements and omissions. the district court held that plaintiffs failed to plead knowledge of falsity and therefore failed to state a claim. defendants argue that we should affirm because the gaap allegations are based on “soft information.” cf. in re almost family, inc. sec. litig., no. 3:10— cv-00520-h, 2012 wl 443461, at *4 (w.d.ky. feb. 10, 2012) (<holding>). we disagree that plaintiffs’ gaap allegations Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that some gaap allegations were soft information because the allegations in plaintiffs complaint focused on defendants beliefs about accounting numbers not on the actual data they reported B. holding that the district court did not err in finding that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate notice of new allegations where the plaintiffs complaint gave the defendants no notice of the specific factual allegations presented for the first time in the plaintiffs opposition to summary judgment C. holding that allegations that defendants designed and implemented improper accounting practices failed to state claim for securities fraud in absence of allegations of particular facts demonstrating how defendants knew of scheme at time they made their statements of compliance that they knew the financial statements overrepresented the companys true earnings or that they were aware of a gaap violation D. holding that because the allegations purportedly suppressed by the government were not material an evidentiary hearing further exploring the allegations themselves and the governments knowledge of the allegations is unnecessary E. holding that the plaintiffs complaint was valid because despite general allegations it provided notice. Answer:

A. holding that some gaap allegations were soft information because the allegations in plaintiffs complaint focused on defendants beliefs about accounting numbers not on the actual data they reported

Consider the following statement: ‘a constitutional policy of finality for the defendant’s benefit.’ ” (citation omitted)). second, it prevents “[pros-ecutorial] overreaching.” johnson, 467 u.s. at 502, 104 s.ct. 2536. the defendant’s interests are balanced with the state’s “right to one full and fair opportunity to convict those who have violated its laws.” id. (citation omitted); see also richardson v. united states, 468 u.s. 317, 330, 104 s.ct. 3081, 82 l.ed.2d 242 (1984) (characterizing a “full and fair opportunity to convict the defendant” as the opportuni ty to “present constitutionally sufficient evidence” to achieve a conviction). the plea bargaining context is not immune from a double jeopardy, successive prosecution, analysis. kercheval v. united states, 274 u.s. 220, 223, 47 s.ct. 582, 71 l.ed. 1009 (1927) (<holding>); ricketts v. adamson, 483 u.s. 1, 8, 107 s.ct. Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that attorneys admission to an element of the offense in the petitioners presence at a deportation hearing was binding on the petitioners B. holding that factual basis had to be established at time of guilty plea not later in presentence investigation C. holding that the denial of petitioners appeal to the bia would have put a reasonable person in the petitioners position on notice that something was wrong with his attorneys preparation for the removal hearing D. holding that entering a guilty plea is an admission of guilt and a waiver of the right to jury trial E. holding petitioners initial guilty plea to mail fraud later vacated by district court at request of petitioner could not then be put before a jury at trial as evidence of petitioners guilt. Answer:

E. holding petitioners initial guilty plea to mail fraud later vacated by district court at request of petitioner could not then be put before a jury at trial as evidence of petitioners guilt

Consider the following statement: Similar results, generally holding that contingency fees are assets of the partnership. as an example, where one partner worked on contingency fee cases with which the clients indicated they wanted him to remain involved after dissolution, a court held that the contractual obligation to conclude the cases was part of the fiduciary duty owed amongst the partners. resnick v. kaplan, 49 md.app. 499, 434 a.2d 582, 585, 587 (1981). fees earned from cases pending at dissolution were partnership assets. id. at 587. the court also affirmed that, although a client has the right to select the attorney the client wants, the client’s right does not diminish or change the fiduciary duties of the partners. id. at 588. see also jewel v. boxer, 156 cal.app.3d 171, 203 cal.rptr. 13, 16-17 (1984) (<holding>); lafond v. sweeney, — p.3d -, -, no. 10ca2005, Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that when an attorney represents multiple clients and a dispute between the attorney and one client later occurs there is a waiver of the privilege but only by the client asserting the liability B. holding that an attorney may only undertake to represent a new client against a former client where there is no confidential information received from the former client that is in any way relevant to representation of the current client C. holding income generated through the winding up of unfinished cases is allocated to the former partners and the right of the client to select an attorney of ones choice is irrelevant to the rights and duties between the parties D. holding client is not liable for actions of attorney who misled client as to the status of case E. holding an attorney is an agent of the client and therefore cannot conspire with the client. Answer:

C. holding income generated through the winding up of unfinished cases is allocated to the former partners and the right of the client to select an attorney of ones choice is irrelevant to the rights and duties between the parties

Consider the following statement: Questions of law (including interpretation of the guidelines) and clear-error review of questions of fact,” united states v. legros, 529 f.3d 470, 474 (2d cir.2008). contrary to garcia’s assertion, the application of a base offense level increase by the district court without jury findings does not violate apprendi v. new jersey, 530 u.s. 466, 120 s.ct. 2348, 147 l.ed.2d 435 (2000). judicial factfinding that results in an offense level increase under the guidelines, which are now advisory, see united states v. booker, 543 u.s. 220, 125 s.ct. 738, 160 l.ed.2d 621 (2005), does not offend a defendant’s sixth amendment right to jury trial, as the guidelines do not alter statutory maximum or minimum penalties. see alleyne v. united states,—u.s.-, 133 s.ct. 2151, 2163, 186 l.ed.2d 314 (2013) (<holding>); see also united states v. singletary, 458 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that facts that increase mandatory minimum sentences must be submitted to the jury but emphasizing that its ruling does not mean that any fact that influences judicial discretion must be foundby a jury B. holding facts that increase the maximum penalty for a crime must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt C. holding that any fact that increases mandatory minimum is element that must be proved beyond reasonable doubt D. holding any fact other than prior conviction that increases statutory mandatory minimum is element of offense that must be submitted to jury and found beyond reasonable doubt E. holding any fact that increases the mandatory minimum is an element that must be submitted to the jury. Answer:

A. holding that facts that increase mandatory minimum sentences must be submitted to the jury but emphasizing that its ruling does not mean that any fact that influences judicial discretion must be foundby a jury

Consider the following statement: Of a firearm. and that conduct would not involve the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person for u.s.s.g. § 4b1.2(a)(l). by contrast, if the shooter ignored telltale signs of the vehicle’s occupancy, such as its presence at a toll booth where the shooter “reasonably should know” the vehicle is occupied, the shooter’s intentional or knowing discharge of a firearm in the direction of the vehicle would violate 720 ill. comp. stat. 5/24-1.2(a)(2) and in turn, such conduct would constitute a § 4b1.2(a)(l) “crime of violence.” although the shooter may not have known of the vehicle’s occupancy, the shooter still used, attempted to use, or threatened to use physical force against another person. cf. united states v. tapia, 610 f.3d 505, 513 (7th cir.2010) (<holding>); people v. juarez, 278 ill.app.3d 286, 214 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that there was sufficient evidence that the defendant was alleged to have violated 720 ill comp stat 52412a1 because the shooting occurred in the early hours of the morning when the home would likely be occupied and in fact was B. holding that the facts that the vehicle described in the tip was parked outside the home that allen gave inconsistent answers to officers questioning and that in addition the defendant fit the physical description of the suspect were sufficient to support the officers reasonable inference that the defendant was actually the suspect and therefore that there was probable cause to arrest him C. holding that the defendant lacked sufficient contacts with the forum state because there was no evidence the defendant knew where the product would be sold D. holding that even if the industry and federal regulations evidenced an inherent danger and the defendant knew or should have realized that the device was or was likely to be dangerous for the use for which it was supplied there was a complete absence of evidence that the defendant had reason to believe that the plaintiff or its employees would not realize the danger E. holding that reasonable suspicion existed for an investigatory stop of a vehicle the defendant was driving slowly in the early morning hours down a deadend street where businesses had previously been robbed where the defendant was dressed shabbily but the vehicle was real nice and where the defendant appeared to avoid the officers gaze in passing. Answer:

A. holding that there was sufficient evidence that the defendant was alleged to have violated 720 ill comp stat 52412a1 because the shooting occurred in the early hours of the morning when the home would likely be occupied and in fact was

Consider the following statement: Identification of respondent would generally be sufficient to establish probable cause. see escobedo, 623 f.2d at 1102 (relying on deposition of victim identifying petitioner after being shown a single photograph of petitioner in upholding finding of probable cause); see also cervantes valles, 268 f.supp.2d at 773 (“in the domestic law enforcement context, an ordinary citizen’s eyewitness account of criminal activity and identification of a perpetrator is normally regarded as sufficient to supply probable cause.”) (citing burbridge, 252 f.3d at 778). 3. credibility of witnesses respondent also questions the credibility of the witnesses that provided statements to mexican law enforcement. however, as discussed above, “an accused in an extradition hearing has 1131 (c.d.cal.2005) (<holding>). here, a witness’s lack of credibility may be Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that evidence not submitted to the district court cannot be part of the record on appeal B. holding that the government may not introduce evidence obtained through violations of the fourth amendment C. holding that respondent could not challenge the veracity or validity of a witnesss statement because a fugitive in international extradition proceedings is not permitted to introduce evidence that contradicts the evidence submitted by the requesting country D. holding that the admission of a report was not hearsay because it was not offered to prove its truth but to impeach the veracity of the witnesss direct testimony E. holding that trial court erred by not allowing the plaintiff to introduce evidence of prior dealings with the defendant. Answer:

C. holding that respondent could not challenge the veracity or validity of a witnesss statement because a fugitive in international extradition proceedings is not permitted to introduce evidence that contradicts the evidence submitted by the requesting country

Consider the following statement: One. we do not anticipate an escalation of such claims. the legislature has provided a remedy to members of the public injured by “failure on the part of a public entity to provide an emergency warning signal or device when a condition exists constituting a ‘trap’ to a person using a street or highway with due care.” n.j.s.a. 59:4-4 comment. but the legislature has closely limited that remedy by requiring compliance with n.j.s.a 59:4-2, which, among other things, requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition and that the public entity’s conduct was “palpably unreasonable.” those requirements are difficult to meet. see, e.g., debonis v. orange quarry co., 233 n.j.super. 156, 170-71, 558 a.2d 474 (app.div.1989) (<holding>). in addition, the legislature has recognized Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that warrantless search as probation condition was a valid limitation to the defendants fourth amendment rights when defendant asserted the condition was not reasonably related to rehabilitation B. holding that contractor owed general negligence duty to thirdparty by dangerous condition contractor created on road C. recognizing that duty to warn of dangerous conditions could be based on constructive knowledge of that condition as well as actual knowledge D. recognizing that before a special condition of probation may be imposed there must be an oral pronouncement of the condition at sentencing E. holding that countys general knowledge that stones from quarry would occasionally create dangerous condition on road surface was insufficient to impute to county constructive knowledge of condition of road at time of motorcyclists accident because condition was dynamic rather than static and was not predictably recurrent. Answer:

E. holding that countys general knowledge that stones from quarry would occasionally create dangerous condition on road surface was insufficient to impute to county constructive knowledge of condition of road at time of motorcyclists accident because condition was dynamic rather than static and was not predictably recurrent

Consider the following statement: Challenge a vehicle search from passenger standing to seek suppression of evidence discovered in a vehicle as the fruit of an unlawful stop, detention, or arrest.”). now, in response to the district court’s cue, defendant has raised for the first time on appeal the contention that he was unlawfully detained. in the ordinary civil case, we would have little trouble refusing to address a new argument on appeal under these circumstances. see, e.g., ramsey winch inc. v. henry, 555 f.3d 1199, 1204 n. 6 (10th cir.2009) (observing that an appellate court will generally “not resolve issues on appeal unless they are presented, considered, and decided by the district court”). but our criminal cases have been more cautious. see united states v. zubia-torres, 550 f.3d 1202, 1207 (10th cir.2008) (<holding>). because there is no evidence in this case Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that plain error review is appropriate unless there is some evidence that the defendant made a knowing and voluntary waiver of a particular argument B. holding a waiver of a substantial constitutional right must be a voluntary knowing and intelligent act C. holding that a defendant must demonstrate a knowing waiver D. recognizing that courts will enforce waiver of appeal rights when waiver is knowing and voluntary E. holding that under the sixth amendment a criminal defendant may waive his right to counsel if that waiver is knowing intelligent and voluntary. Answer:

A. holding that plain error review is appropriate unless there is some evidence that the defendant made a knowing and voluntary waiver of a particular argument

Consider the following statement: Of the court per curiam the appellee herein was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol in october of 1988. a motion in limine to exclude the results of the chemical breath test was made by the defense based on a lapse of two hours between arrest and test. said motion was granted. the state appeals. testing is unnecessary in order for the state to prove a case against a defendant charged with driving under the influence. see § 316.193(l)(a), fla. stat. (1987); layman v state, 455 so.2d 607 (fla. 5th dca 1984), cert. denied, 459 so.2d 1040 (fla. 1984) (<holding>). cf. state v mcintyre, 393 so.2d 16 (fla. 2d Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that the statute describes but one offense which can be committed by either or both of two methods B. holding that a statute must not be given the one of two reasonable interpretations which will render it unconstitutional C. holding that tex transp code ann 545060a describes one offense D. holding that counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a charge on the lesserincluded offense when the evidence showed either the commission of the completed offense as charged or the commission of no offense such that the defendant was not entitled to a charge on the lesser offense E. holding that a defendants sentence is controlled by the law in effect at the time he committed the offense. Answer:

A. holding that the statute describes but one offense which can be committed by either or both of two methods

Consider the following statement: Is, at best, in remission. a condition in remission is still a mental disease.” however, the state submitted no evidence that, at the time of the hearing, petitioner’s prior mental health disease was in remission. the only evidence submitted established that a year earlier petitioner had suffered from a medical disease. it is equally as inferable from that evidence that petitioner no longer suffers from a mental disease as it is that the disease continues but is in remission. once petitioner offered evidence at the hearing that established that he currently no longer suffers from the disease, the state had the burden to overcome that evidence and to show that petitioner still suffers from a mental disease that is in remission. see martin v. psrb, 312 or 157, 166, 818 p2d 1264 (1991) (<holding>). because the medical records do not suffice to Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that jeopardy does not attach in the administrative process preliminary to formal forfeiture proceedings even when the petitioner has filed a petition for remission or mitigation B. holding that the state courts determination that the petitioner could not show prejudice because he did not allege that the witness was available to testify was a reasonable application of federal law to the facts of the case C. holding that to continue jurisdiction over the petitioner it was necessary to show that he had a mental disease or defect which was in remission at the time of the hearing D. holding that the state court ruling was objectively unreasonable where prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence that the petitioner murdered a known drug dealer although the state established that the petitioner planned to rob drug dealers for drugs or money the victim was a known drug dealer who kept drugs in his freezer and that freezer was open and empty after the homicide the petitioner and the victim had engaged in drug transactions in the past the petitioner had a motive because he had seen the victim make a pass at the petitioners girlfriend and the petitioner had possessed and once purchased the murder weapon and a similar gun was seen in his home two weeks before the murder evidence placing the petitioner at the scene was conspicuously absent leaving only a reasonable speculation that the petitioner was present E. holding that trial court abused its discretion in denying petitioners request for counsel in evidentiary hearing where petitioner had requested counsel and had indicated in his motion that all documents had been prepared by prison law clerk he had only ninthgrade education he had no training in the law and he lacked the skills necessary to participate in hearing. Answer:

C. holding that to continue jurisdiction over the petitioner it was necessary to show that he had a mental disease or defect which was in remission at the time of the hearing

Consider the following statement: The intervention of a party with standing after an action has been filed “cannot cure any jurisdictional defect that would have barred the federal court from hearing the original action.” 7 charles alan wright, arthur r. miller, et al., federal practice and procedure § 1917 (3 brought this enforcement action, we lack jurisdiction. this conclusion un doubtedly applies to numerous other en- - forcement actions taken by the bureau for the 18 months of its existence before richard cordray was properly confirmed by the senate in july 2013. but while the supreme court understands the practical consequences of invalidating large numbers of agency actions, it has nevertheless done so when the law requires. see noel canning v. nlrb, 705 f.3d 490, 493 (d.c.cir.2013), aff'd 134 s.ct. 2550 (2014) (<holding>); see also new process steel, l.p. v. nlrb, 560 Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding employment contracts of former executive director of township community mental health board ultra vires and void ab initio though board members had staggered terms of appointment because the contracts extended beyond the term of the township supervisor in office at the time of the execution of the contracts and the board was appointed by the supervisor B. holding that an action taken in violation of the automatic stay is void ab initio C. holding void ab initio ordinance proscribing punishment in excess of that authorized in charter D. holding that the denial of enforcement on the basis that the board lacked a proper quorum did not deprive the board of jurisdiction to consider the case anew E. holding that because there was no quorum of validly appointed board members the nlrb lacked authority to act and the enforcement order was therefore void ab initio . Answer:

E. holding that because there was no quorum of validly appointed board members the nlrb lacked authority to act and the enforcement order was therefore void ab initio

Consider the following statement: Of a firearm during and in relation to the drug conspiracy and a carjacking incident) and count 10 (knowingly possessing a firearm in furtherance of the drug conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute). the pre-sentence report stated that the mandatory minimum terms for these convictions were ten and five years, respectively. the government objected, arguing that count 10 constituted a second conviction under 18 u.s.c. § 924(c) and therefore the mandatory minimum for count 10 should be 25 years. see 18 u.s.c. § 924(c)(1)(c)(i) (“in the case of a second or subsequent conviction under [18 u.s.c. § 924], the person shall ... be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 25 years.... ”); deal v. united states, 508 u.s. 129, 131-33, 113 s.ct. 1993, 124 l.ed.2d 44 (1993) (<holding>). the probation officer agreed with these Question: From the provided statement, which includes an excerpt from a court decision that references a specific case, the holding (short summaries of legal rulings) relevant to the current case is masked out. Select the correct answer that corresponds to the <HOLDING> mask from the options given. A. holding that 924cs enhanced penalty for a second or subsequent conviction applies when the defendant is convicted of multiple 924c counts in a single proceeding B. holding that post conviction hearing act is not available to juvenile proceeding since the child is not convicted of a crime C. 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 D. holding that where a statute provides for an enhanced penalty based on a defendants prior conviction the fact of conviction is a sentencing factor to be determined by the court rather than a jury E. 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. Answer:

A. holding that 924cs enhanced penalty for a second or subsequent conviction applies when the defendant is convicted of multiple 924c counts in a single proceeding

Consider the following statement: To the detriment of defendants, but also had ex post facto implications. fell, 209 ariz. at 80-81 ¶¶ 10-12, 97 p.3d at 905-06. no such concerns exist here. ¶ 16 we also reject the state’s argument, raised for the first time in its supplemental brief, that sb 1449 unconstitutionally disturbs victims’ rights “in the finality of a defendant’s conviction.” the arizona constitution provides that “a victim of crime has a right ... [t]o a speedy trial or disposition and prompt and final conclusion of [a] case after the conviction and sentence.” ariz. const, art. 2, § 2.1(a)(10) (“victims’ bill of rights”). but that provision does not give victims a vested right to sustaining a conviction on appeal. see state ex rel. thomas v. klein, 214 ariz. 205, 209 ¶ 14, 150 p.3d 778, 782 (app.2007) (<holding>). therefore, sb 1449 “is a valid exercise 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 unconstitutional definition of criminal offense in 1344016 insofar as it narrowed definition of victim in effect when victims bill of rights adopted B. holding that an award of restitution is only for the loss caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction C. holding that the victims negligence is not a defense to criminal conduct D. recognizing that the legislature may effectively limit the scope of the victims bill of rights by decriminalizing certain conduct or redefining the type of conduct that qualifies as a criminal offense E. holding that a sentencing court may consider acquitted conduct or uncharged criminal conduct. Answer:

D. recognizing that the legislature may effectively limit the scope of the victims bill of rights by decriminalizing certain conduct or redefining the type of conduct that qualifies as a criminal offense

Consider the following statement: Herself, to get her own meals, to perform household chores or to drive. similarly, at work gretillat found ways to perform tasks that otherwise might involve squatting, crouching, crawling or kneeling. for example, instead of squatting to get things out of the bottom of a refrigerator, gretillat would bend over sideways, get a pair of tongs or a long-handled spoon or ask a co-worker to help. gretillat’s admitted ability to compensate for her limitations weighs against a finding that she is disabled under the ada. see williams, 534 u.s. at 198, 122 s.ct. 681 (directing district courts to analyze “the extent of the limitation ... in terms of [the plaintiffs] experience” and the individual’s ability to compensate for the impairment) (citing albertson’s, 527 u.s. at 567, 119 s.ct. 2162) (<holding>); ristrom, 370 f.3d at 769 (holding 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 an individual is presumed to intend the natural consequences of the individuals actions B. holding that episodic multiple sclerosis is categorized as an impairment that will consistently meet the definition of disability and a ministroke is categorized as an impairment that may be disabling for some individuals but not for others C. holding that monocular vision is not invariably a disability but should be analyzed on an individual basis taking into account the individuals ability to compensate for the impairment D. holding that the determination of whether an individual is disabled should be made with reference to measures that miti gate the individuals impairment including in this instance eyeglasses and contact lenses E. holding that a claimants failure to list an impairment either in her application for disability benefits or through her testimony disposes of the claim because the alj was under no obligation to investigate a claim not presented at the time of the application for benefits and not offered at the hearing as a basis for disability. Answer:

C. holding that monocular vision is not invariably a disability but should be analyzed on an individual basis taking into account the individuals ability to compensate for the impairment