Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of an absolute bar to the availability of laches as a legal defense against the state has never been held by the Ohio Supreme Court. Adams Cty. Child Support Enforcement Agency v. Osborne (May 3, 1996), 4th Dist. No. 95CA592, 1996 WL 230038 (stating that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to find that the doctrine of laches bars CSEA from seeking child support under certain facts). Instead, it has been held that laches is not applicable under the specific facts of a case. Id., citing Athens Cty. Prop. Owners Assn. v. Athens (Aug. 26, 1992), 4th Dist. No. 1482, 1992 WL 209497. For example, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that laches may be applicable in parentage actions but only if material prejudice is shown. Wright v. Oliver (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 10, 12, 517 N.E.2d 883 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, the Fourth Appellate District 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the state police is a state agency (B) holding that an assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice (C) holding that a state agency created under state law was a state actor (D) holding that material prejudice was not present under the facts however an agency of the state was not a party to the action (E) 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
Output (English): 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