Task: Text Completion
Input (English): from Webster v. Reproductive Health Serv., 492 U.S. 490, 552, 109 S.Ct. 3040, 3075, 106 L.Ed.2d 410 (1989) (Black-mun, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)). The purported new rule finds a duty never before articulated by any other court. Added to that is that the purported duty, in many cases, may be almost impossible with which to comply. Who will agree that a four- or five-year-old child can be strapped in a seat belt for a three-to-five hour trip across country on a family vacation? Children are so full of energy that is impossible that they sit strapped to a seat for any substantial period of time. And what of the fifteen year old who unbuckles his seat belt 40 miles from any city or town? Does the parent beat him 89-193 and -195, published July 20, 1992) (Mills II) (<HOLDING>); Johnson v. State of Wyoming Hearing 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that employee must prove that the sole reason for their discharge was their filing of a workers compensation claim to prevail on a claim of wrongful discharge under marylands workers compensation act (B) holding that the coemployee immunity provision in workers compensation law was constitutional (C) holding that a contractors employees were not within the scope and course of their employment when they deviated from their work to shoot at squirrels (D) holding that prohibition may not be used to raise affirmative defense of workers compensation immunity (E) holding unconstitutional a workers compensation statute which granted immunity from suits by coemployees to employees who acted within the scope of their employment
Output (English): (E)