Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): § 240(c). Thus, unlike section 166i, when a person dies, the distribution of that person’s property must, at a minimum, invoke the jurisdiction of the court. 15 V.I.C. § 167 (administration of an estate in a summary manner). The Legislature has outlined in detail the duties of a executor or administrator in administering an estate and the process by which a creditor should seek to satisfy his claim, all under the guidance and review of the Superior Court. See 15 V.I.C. § 394; 15 V.I.C. § 240(c). Theref early identical statute — section 115.325 of the Oregon Revised Statutes, which requires a creditor to present his claim to the executor or administrator before filing an action with the court — to be non-jurisdictional. Balthrop v. Berryman, 96 Ore. App. 354, 772 P.2d 955, 956-57 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Stevens v. Scanlon, 248 Ore. 229, 430 P.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that seventh amendment right to jury trial not violated by courts dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to rule 12b6 because as a matter of law complaint faded to present an issue for trial (B) holding that plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim under section 1 of the sherman act (C) holding that a failure to accommodate claim is separate and distinct from a claim of discriminatory treatment under the ada and pointing out that a failure to accommodate claim and a claim of discriminatory treatment under the ada are not like or reasonably related to one another and one cannot expect a failure to accommodate claim to develop from an investigation into a claim that an employee was terminated because of a disability (D) holding that a court should not dismiss a complaint pursuant to rule 12b6 for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief  (E) holding that although section 115325 is nonjurisdictional failure to present a claim to the estates executor or administrator constituted an insufficiently pleaded complaint for failure to state ultimate facts sufficient to constitute a claim citing meissner v murphy 58 ore app 174 647 p2d 972 973 1982
Output (English): holding that a failure to accommodate claim is separate and distinct from a claim of discriminatory treatment under the ada and pointing out that a failure to accommodate claim and a claim of discriminatory treatment under the ada are not like or reasonably related to one another and one cannot expect a failure to accommodate claim to develop from an investigation into a claim that an employee was terminated because of a disability