TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: box, .was too small to fit an assault rifle. 2. The package was not immediately recognizable as contraband, preventing seizure under the plain-view doctrine. 3. Deputy Barker could discover whatever lay in the back of the trunk by leaning over the speaker box and searching with his hands. 4. The compartment behind the armrest (where the cocaine was found) was'too small to contain an assault rifle. 5. Deputy Barker did not know whether the car had a trunk-access panel. We reject Mr. Mirabais first argument. Deputy Barker testified based on his mili tary experience and familiarity with assault rifles. In light -of this experience, he testified that a rifle could have fit behind the speaker box. See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996) (<HOLDING>). The district court had little reason to 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that police officers can draw inferences from prior experience (B) holding courts are obligated to draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor (C) holding court obligated to draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor (D) holding that triers of fact may draw only reasonable inferences (E) holding that courts are obligated to draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor

SOLUTION: (A)

PROBLEM: Salt Lake City Corp. v. Property Tax Div. of Utah State Tax Comm’n, 979 P.2d 346, 351 (Utah 1999) (ruling that continuing denial of a benefit to which a party is entitled provides a basis for standing to obtain judicial review of an administrative rule). The plaintiffs claim that he would be “directly and immediately better off — in the emphatically concrete sense that ... he would have more money in his pocket sooner — if he could obtain relief through the Notice procedure ... without sacrificing a major portion of his claim,” Pl.’s Opp’n at 5, is “[n]o reasonable mind could doubt ... a judicially cognizable injury sufficient to satisfy the injury in fact test for Article III standing,” see Ontario Forest Industries Assoc. v. United States, 444 F.Supp.2d 1309, 1323-24 (CIT 2006) (<HOLDING>) (citing Gen. Motors Corp. v. Tracy, 519 U.S. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that declaratory judgment requiring party to pay a specific sum of money is properly characterized as a money judgment (B) holding that taking money from a victim offering the money out of fear of violence can be larceny from the person because there is no consent and the money was removed from the actual possession or custody of the person or his immediate pres ence viz the area within his control (C) recognizing that delay of refund deprives plaintiffs of the timevalue of money  and may  deprive plaintiffs of money (D) holding that exhaustion is required under the plra even if the plaintiff seeks only money damages and money damages are not available as relief (E) recognizing that an action will lie for conversion of money when its identification is possible and there is an obligation to deliver the specific money in question or otherwise particularly treat the specific money

SOLUTION: (C)

PROBLEM: termination of parental rights and temporary commitment of the child to an agency or to a person deemed competent by the court, including petitioners, will be for the welfare of the child, the court may order the child to be so committed and may terminate the parental rights of the parents and declare the child a ward of the court or, if it is not so proved, the court may enter such other order as it shall deem necessary and advisable.” 750 ILCS 50/13(B)(d) (West 2006). Clearly, the Adoption Act, when read as a whole, supports the conclusion that a trial court, as part of an adoption proceeding, may determine whether the natural parent is unfit and may terminate a natural parent’s parental rights. But compare Johnson v. Burnett, 182 Ill. App. 3d 574, 579, 538 N.E.2d 892, 895 (1989) (<HOLDING>), with In re Petition of Filippelli, 207 Ill. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a single partial payment of 36 within the oneyear period prior to the filing of the adoption petition qualified as support and maintenance requiring natural parents consent as prerequisite to adoption (B) holding that single partial payment of 20 within the oneyear period prior to the filing of the adoption petition was de minimis and did not make natural parents consent necessary for the adoption (C) holding that parties not related to the child could not file an adoption petition and later prove the unfitness of the natural parents because the child was not available for adoption as defined in the adoption act parents had to be found unfit before petition could be filed (D) holding that natural parents consent for an adoption is required so long as the parent complies with the duty to support for any period during the oneyear preceding the filing of the adoption petition (E) holding prior to adoption of child support guidelines that a credit was discretionary

SOLUTION:
(C)