Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): is cases involving misrepresentations. See, e.g., DeWolfe v. Hingham Centre Ltd., 464 Mass. 795, 799 n.9, 985 N.E.2d 1187 (2013). 9 . This approach accords with decisions by the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court in the residential mortgage context. While serving as a Justice of the Superior Court, he rejected the suggestion that "stated income” loans are inherently unfair, as they "are no more prone to foreclosure than full documentation loans if the statements in the application are accurate.” Commonwealth v. Fremont Inv. & Loan, 2008 WL 517279, at *11 (Mass. Super. Ct. Feb. 26, 2008) (Gants, J.); see Commonwealth v. H&R Block, Inc., 2008 Mass. Super. LEXIS 427, at *27-29 (Nov. 28, 2008) (Gants, J.); see also Forbes, 87 Mass.App.Ct. 1122, 2015 WL 2365497, at *2 (<HOLDING>); id. at *1 & n.5 (observing that the plaintiff 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the foreigndefendant seller was not subject to personal jurisdiction in michigan since the only reason it had contact with the state was because the plaintiff chose to reside there (B) holding that net farm income when applied to a producer in the fishing industry means net income from all fishing activity not just that income from a particular commodity and further providing that the regulations make it reasonably clear that the determination of   net fishing income is not to be made solely on the basis of tax return information if other information is relevant to determining the producers net income from all   fishing sources (C) holding that the judge reasonably concluded that because forbes chose to state and to continually verify his false income information  countrywide was entitled to rely on it in determining the debttoincome ratio and otherwise  (D) holding that the bia is entitled to rely heavily on state department reports (E) holding that it was not error plain or otherwise for a judge to rely on an unsubstantiated summary of a state indictment contained in the psr to determine that the prior offense was a crime of violence even though the defendant had not admitted that the summary of the indictment was correct
Output (English): holding that the foreigndefendant seller was not subject to personal jurisdiction in michigan since the only reason it had contact with the state was because the plaintiff chose to reside there