Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Right of First Refusal from the Weises to Faulkner is void as a matter of law due to the fact that the legal description of the property conveyed in the document is legally inadequate. On February 18, 1977, more than 20 years before Reiland’s purchase, the Weis-es created a Right of First Refusal in which they granted to Beverly Faulkner, Trustee, her successors or assigns the right of first refusal to purchase the property identified as being 3.0152 acres adjoining on the east side that certain 1.984 acre tract conveyed by Leonard Bythel Weis and wife, Marjorie K Weis to Beverly Faulkner, Trustee on or about February 18,1977. The tract is further identified as being 3.0152 acres in the William Walters Survey, Abstract 851, Harris Count (Tex.App.-Eastland 1987, writ refd n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>). If the descriptions “are insufficient to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that disability determinations must be made with reference to corrective measures (B) holding that a single implicit reference to the email in which the complaint makes no explicit reference to nor does it quote at all from is insufficient to establish that the email was incorporated by reference into the complaint (C) holding that the nature of the taxpayers legal interest in the subject property is determined by reference to state law (D) holding that reference to ordinance is not improper reference to an external document because injunction sufficiently describes the act sought to be enjoined and reference to the ordinance as stated in the injunction is merely to give further notice as to the enjoined conduct but the reference was unnecessary to give the appellants sufficient notice of that conduct (E) holding that if property description is to be supplied by writing to which reference is made in deed reference must be adequate to identify writing
Output (English): holding that reference to ordinance is not improper reference to an external document because injunction sufficiently describes the act sought to be enjoined and reference to the ordinance as stated in the injunction is merely to give further notice as to the enjoined conduct but the reference was unnecessary to give the appellants sufficient notice of that conduct