Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): v. Brehm, 74 Cal. App. 286, 240 R 529, 532 (Cal. Ct. App. 1925) (“[T]o acquire title to water by adverse possession .... [i]t is not necessary that a claimant should use the water all the hours of each day, or every day in the year for the prescribed statutory period, in order to establish uninterrupted or continuous use; it is only necessary that he shall have used it continuously during such portions of the day or year as is required for the beneficial use to which it is applied.”). We recognize that the record contains some evidence that Golden Resorts or the prior title owner may have, at various points, simultaneously occupied the land with Ridgway or otherwise regularly used the land. See Fairdealing Apostolic Church, Inc. v. Casinger, 353 S.W.3d 396, 396 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011) (<HOLDING>). For instance, in their respective affidavits, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that animal husbandry operations were included in the definition of farm even if the animals do not touch the ground graze on the land or feed from crops grown on the land and holding that land used to support buildings used in the production of agricultural products is a productive use of the land (B) holding that the inclusion of the terms use and possess in a state law prohibiting the possession storage use manufacture or sale of fireworks in counties exceeding a certain population do not render the states exercise of police power unduly oppressive or unconstitutional (C) holding the exclusivity element is satisfied by showing that others do not jointly possess or use the land (D) holding that a petitioner in a judicial review from the land use board of appeals had constitutional standing because the land use decision would affect her use and enjoyment of a nearby estuary that she used for passive recreation (E) holding land for speculation is a legitimate commercial use grazing on land so classified subject to a special use permit
Output (English): holding that a petitioner in a judicial review from the land use board of appeals had constitutional standing because the land use decision would affect her use and enjoyment of a nearby estuary that she used for passive recreation