Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): decision contained numerous citations to both federal precedent and state court decisions which were based on federal due process principles. In the FAR petition, Davis specifically noted the factual underpinnings of his claim: “[T]he prosecutors suppressed the fact that Frame ... refused to be interviewed by the defendants because of threats by Delinsky....” Pet’r’s Mem.Ex. A at 24. Davis focused his argument in the FAR petition, however, on the failure of the trial justice to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding this and other suppression claims. See id. at 25. Davis characterized his claims as “allegations of constitutional violations,” “allegations of constitutional dimensions,” and as a “Due Process” violation contrary to United States v. Dansker, 565 F.2d 1262 (3d Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>), cert. dismissed, 434 U.S. 1052, 98 S.Ct. 905, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment (B) holding nonmoving partys affidavit created genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of an employment relationship (C) holding that plaintiff failed to show genuine issue of material fact on equitable estoppel claim (D) holding that where affidavits raise a genuine issue of material fact as to a brady claim an evidentiary hearing should be conducted (E) holding that due process requires an evidentiary hearing when parties submissions in contempt proceedings raise disputed issue of material fact
Output (English): holding that due process requires an evidentiary hearing when parties submissions in contempt proceedings raise disputed issue of material fact