Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the Golf Course.” However, because the study was conducted without notice to the Board or community, the observation points upon which its conclusion was based were limited to locations accessible to the public— mostly public roads — and no observations were made from the residents’ backyards, much less from their second story windows. Moreover, the study suffered from the further defect that it failed to consider the tower’s visibility in winter, when deciduous trees are bare. Accordingly, the study did not foreclose a finding that the tower would be widely visible. Second, the Board was not bound to accept Omnipoint’s expert testimony simply because (as Omnipoint contends) it was insufficiently contested by properly credentialed expert testim Beach, 155 F.3d 423, 430 (4th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). In this case, some of the residents’ comments 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that citys enforcement of the entire state penal code would not constitute a city policy because the city was required to follow state law (B) holding that violation of city ordinance does not constitute negligence per se (C) holding city could not enforce through administrative adjudication a city ordinance limiting vehicle weight (D) holding that an employment contract between an outgoing city council and the city manager was void on public policy grounds because it attempted to take away the governmental or legislative power of the incoming council to appoint and remove public officers (E) holding that neighbors aesthetic concerns could constitute compelling evidence for a city council
Output (English): holding that violation of city ordinance does not constitute negligence per se