Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): ability to avail itself of the court system to enforce its private restrictions and regulations is state action. In support of this position, Mr. Westphal cites Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948). In contrast to Mr. Westphal’s claim, the Supreme Court in Shelley did not hold that the ability of a private entity to avail itself of the court system to enforce any private restriction is state action. Rather, the Court, held that the enforcement of racially restrictive covenants by state courts was a state action and, by granting judicial enforcement of the racially restrictive covenants, the state violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Shelley, 334 U.S. at 18-20, 68 S.Ct. at 844-45. See Fed. Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n v. Howlett, 521 S.W.2d 428, 437 (Mo. banc 1975) (<HOLDING>) Here, there was no judicial enforcement of a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the question of whether the defendant knew his actions were legal demanded a conclusion as to the legality of the defendants conduct which is unhelpful to the jury under rule 701 (B) holding that the state attorney generals duty to support the constitutionality of challenged state statutes and his duty to defend actions in which the state is interested do not constitute enforcement of the statute in question (C) holding that the timing of the alleged actions of the prosecutor supported the courts conclusion that the prosecutors actions were associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process instead of the investigatory phase because the conduct occurred one month before plaintiffs trial and more than five years after the grand jury indicted plaintiff (D) holding that shelley does not support the conclusion that mere availability of the courts means that the actions of the individuals with respect to the contract in question involve state action (E) holding that it is well established that whether an employees actions were within the scope of employment is a question of fact and even if some of the actions were unauthorized the question of whether the actions were within the scope of employment is for the jury
Output (English): holding that it is well established that whether an employees actions were within the scope of employment is a question of fact and even if some of the actions were unauthorized the question of whether the actions were within the scope of employment is for the jury