Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): contractual obligation where ordinance provided for payment of health premiums, stating that “Plaintiffs’ interpretation of the 1966 ordinance would impose future liability upon the City by requiring subsequent councils to annually appropriate the fun 2d 1160, 1161 (Ind.Ct.App.1981) (discontinuation of college incentive pay program upheld even though employees allegedly worked in reliance on the program); Beckham v. City of Bowling Green, 743 S.W.2d 858, 860 (Ky.App.1987) (disallowing police officers’ attempt to parlay probable cause statutory provisions regarding reduction of salary into prohibitions against city’s “right and duty to fix the compensation of its employees based on the resources available to it.”); Watkins v. Josephine County, 243 Or.App. 52, 259 P.3d 79, 85-86 (2011) (<HOLDING>): Alston v. City of Camden, 322 S.C. 38, 471 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where the murder and robbery occurred in one county but the plan was hatched in another county and the body was subsequently returned to that other county both counties had jurisdiction to try the appellant (B) holding that the grant county prosecutor had a statutory duty to be legal advisor to the county clerk even though she was not embroiled in litigation in which the county was the real party in interest (C) recognizing county officers as  those whose general authority and jurisdiction are confined within the limits of the county in which they are appointed who are appointed in and for a particular county and whose duties apply only to that county and through whom the county performs its usual political functions  (D) holding that no contractual obligation was created and county was not required to refrain from amending personnel benefits resolution stating that county never promised the permanence of the disputed benefits  (E) holding that both saline county and grant county had jurisdiction to try the appellant for murder where the actual killing occurred in one county but the acts requisite to the consummation of the murder and the subsequent disposal of the body occurred in the other county
Output (English): holding that where the murder and robbery occurred in one county but the plan was hatched in another county and the body was subsequently returned to that other county both counties had jurisdiction to try the appellant