Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 295 Md. 67, 453 A.2d 814 (1982) (same); Hunter v. Board of Educ., Md.Ct.App., 292 Md. 481, 439 A.2d 582 (1982) (same); Swidryk v. Saint Michael’s Med. Ctr., N.J.Super.Ct.Law Div., 20l N.J.Super. 601, 493 A.2d 641 (1985) (same); Hoffman v. Board of Educ., N.Y.Ct.App., 49 N.Y.2d 121, 424 N.Y.S.2d 376, 400 N.E.2d 317 (1979) (same); Donohue v. Copiague Union Free Sch. Dist., N.Y.Ct.App., 47 N.Y.2d 440, 418 N.Y.S.2d 375, 391 N.E.2d 1352 (1979) (often-cited case refusing to recognize educational malpractice tort based on claim that school failed to adequately educate student); Poe v. Hamilton, Ohio Ct.App., 56 Ohio App.3d 137, 565 N.E.2d 887 (1990) (stating public policy precludes cause of action for educational malpractice); see also Ross v. Creighton Univ., 7th Cir., 957 F.2d 410 (1992) (<HOLDING>). 8 . In Moore, the Iowa Supreme Court 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that illinois supreme court would refuse to recognize the tort of educational malpractice (B) holding that the court of appeals lacks the authority to overrule decisions of the supreme court of north carolina and has a responsibility to follow those decisions until otherwise ordered by the supreme court (C) recognizing that only the illinois supreme court could finally resolve the issue of implicit repeal explaining the state must resolve this conflict internally (D) holding that district court opinion which cites controlling authority that is pending review in florida supreme court allows supreme court to exercise jurisdiction (E) holding that court was within its discretion to refuse to consider reports that did not meet the supreme courts standards for admitting reports into evidence
Output (English): holding that court was within its discretion to refuse to consider reports that did not meet the supreme courts standards for admitting reports into evidence