Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 951, 953 (5th Cir.1967) (distinguishing nexus between tenant and landlord from absence of nexus between tenants in same building); Thompson v. Butler, 214 Iowa 1123, 243 N.W. 164, 167 (1932) (noting service on servant may be valid due to relationship of confidence or personal interest); Plushner v. Mills, 429 A.2d 444, 446 (R.I.1981) (concluding service on defendant’s daughter was valid because she was trusted member of household and had substantial nexus with defendant). In addition, the duration of an individual’s presence, the frequency of the presence, or the intent to return may also establish nexus between the individual and defendant. See Sangmeister v. McElnea, 278 So.2d 675, 676-77 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1973) (stating one who resides or visits home o 42, 235 S.E.2d 672, 673 (1977) (<HOLDING>); Plushner, 429 A.2d at 446 (concluding 
 Holding statements: (A) holding tenday visitor not residing therein (B) holding babysitter was not residing therein (C) holding housekeeper did not reside therein (D) holding that a tenday visitor was not residing therein (E) holding fourmonth visitor was residing therein
Output (English): holding housekeeper did not reside therein