In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
--------
Question: he called the dispatcher for assistance, the occupants had already been handcuffed. And the record provides no indication that the occupants threatened his safety. Moreover, if Reilly had not been concerned that the occupants would discard evidence, he and Horn could have driven the four, two to a car. Instead, he opted to wait for separate transportation, so the suspects could not leave contraband in the patrol car and possibly blame their fellow passengers. Reilly also had an objective reason to believe that Voichahoske was concealing evidence and that given the opportunity, he might destroy it. Reilly already had probable cause to believe Voichahoske was concealing drugs on his person, which, in turn, justified his arrest. See State v. Dussault, 193 Neb. 122, 225 N.W.2d 558 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Because a search of his person was 
 Holding statements: (A) holding fourth amendment protects right to be free from arrest without probable cause (B) holding invalid warrant did not create probable cause for arrest (C) holding that probable cause is a complete defense to an action for false arrest (D) holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same (E) holding that warrantless arrest based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment

Answer: (D)


Question: adopted by this court. Atel Fin. Corp. v. Quaker Coal Co., 321 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir.2003). On this record, the district court did not err when it determined that Roberts had not offered evidence that the monitor was defective. Roberts presented only circumstantial evidence that the monitor was defective. Nevada courts have never directly held that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove a defect, yet some Nevada cases have relied on circumstantial evidence to establish the existence of a defect. See Van Duzer v. Shoshone Coca Cola Bottling Co., 103 Nev. 383, 741 P.2d 811, 812-14 (1987) (finding that a bottle was unreasonably dangerous and defective based on supermarket customer’s testimony); Stackiewicz v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A., 100 Nev. 443, 686 P.2d 925, 928 (1984) (<HOLDING>). In this case, even if circumstantial evidence 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for district court to allow a mechanical engineer to give expert testimony about a machine with which the engineer had no design experience (B) holding that drivers and witnesses testimony about car steering malfunction could be proof of defect without establishing the mechanical cause of the malfunction (C) holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial (D) holding that a district court was entitled to accept or reject testimony on the basis of the witnesses demeanor and candor or lack thereof and contradictions in the witnesses testimony (E) holding that a cause of action does not arise in negligence when a product malfunctions or is defective and the malfunction or defect results in damage only to the product itself and produces only economic loss

Answer: (B)


Question: was unable to meet its burden of showing that remedy under § 1581(c) was manifestly inadequate. Id. at 964. Having found that the plaintiff-appellant could not establish standing under either § 1581(c), nor § 1581(i), the Miller court dismissed the Complaint. Id. Here, NuFarm is seeking to have its potential class members assert jurisdiction under § 1581(i), while NuFarm itself has already established jurisdiction under § 1581(a) for identical claims. See Plaintiffs Motion at 20 (stating “it appears that the great majority of the members of the class have jurisdiction for their claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i). . . .”) Under Miller, the scope of § 1581(i) jurisdiction is “strictly limited.” Norcal/Crosetti Foods, Inc. v. United States, 963 F. 2d 356, 360 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (<HOLDING>). The Court of Appeals in Thomson examined a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the remedy under another subsection of  1581 is not manifestly inadequate because  1581s builtin safeguards and limitations    are not to be dismissed because they are inconvenient (B) holding that decisions that lie within the trial courts discretion are to be sustained unless manifestly erroneous (C) holding that if the federal claims are dismissed before trial  the state claims should be dismissed as well (D) holding that surveys are admissible only if they are conducted with proper safeguards to insure accuracy and reliability (E) holding that legislative regulations are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary capricious or manifestly contrary to the statute

Answer:
(A)