Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): is supported by the weight of authority from other states. Com. v. Dent, 992 A.2d 190, 192 (Pa. Super. 2010), is the most recent and definitive case on the issue. In Dent, the Pennsylvania court was confronted with this question in the specific context of Texas Hold’Em. The court applied the predominate-factor test. 992 A.2d at 192-93. After reviewing the existing case law on whether poker was a game of chance or skill, the court found that “while the outcome of poker may be dependent on skill to some degree, it is predominately a game of chance. . . . [While] skill can determine die outcome in a poker game, players are still subject to defeat at the turn of the cards.” 992 A.2d at 196. See also Plato’s Cave Corp. v. State Liquor Authority, 115 App. Div. 2d 426, 496 N.Y.S.2d 436 (1985) (<HOLDING>). In Joker Club, L.L.C. v. Hardin, 183 N.C. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that deference to the guidelines depends on the thoroughness of the commissions analysis and the validity of its reasoning (B) holding that the outcome of the case could have been different if the trial court had imposed the appropriate burden (C) holding that the outcome depends materially on the draw of the cards (D) holding that the inquiry into whether an employee was acting within the scope of his employment depends on the respondeat superior law of the state in which the tort occurred (E) holding that a predominance finding depends on a courts choice of law analysis
Output (English): holding that the inquiry into whether an employee was acting within the scope of his employment depends on the respondeat superior law of the state in which the tort occurred