Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 1946, no writ). 20 . 113 S.W.2d 1018 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1938, writ dism’d). 21 . McClung, 430 S.W.2d at 181. 22 . Id. 23 . Ford v. Exxon Mobil Chem. Co., 235 S.W.3d 615, 617-18 (Tex.2007) (per curiam). 24 . See Shell Oil Co. v. Ross, 356 S.W.3d 924, 928 (Tex.2011). 25 . HECI Exploration Co., 982 S.W.2d at 887; Ford, 235 S.W.3d at 617-18 (public records in a grantor’s chain of title generally create an irrebuttable presumption of notice). 26 . Thigpen v. Locke, 363 S.W.2d 247, 251 (Tex. 1962). 27 . See In re Bank of Am., N.A., 278 S.W.3d 342, 345 (Tex.2009) ("The general rule is that in the absence of a showing of fraud or imposition, a party’s failure to read an instrument before signing it is not a ground for avoiding it.”). 28 . See HECI Exploration Co., 982 S.W.2d at 886 (<HOLDING>). 29 . Id. at 887. 30 . 457 S.W.3d 52, 59 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the governments interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse but also protecting childrens interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents (B) recognizing minnesotas interest in protecting the interests of the child (C) recognizing virginias interest in protecting defendants from claims and in holding down insurance costs (D) recognizing that mineral interest owners bear some obligation to exercise reasonable diligence in protecting their interests (E) holding that pennsylvanias interest in compensating victim of defamation outweighed new yorks interests in protecting free discussion and financial injury to defendant
Output (English): recognizing minnesotas interest in protecting the interests of the child