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. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
PROBLEM: documents that may be exempt from disclosure under the Sunshine Law. See Chasnoff v. Bd. of Police Comm’rs, 334 S.W.3d 147, 150 (Mo.App. E.D.2011) (noting trial court reviewed investigative file log of 59 documents in camera to determine disclosure under Sunshine Law); Bill, 935 S.W.2d at 663 (noting trial court granted in camera review of retirement benefit records of government employees; subsequently finding records exempt from disclosure under Sunshine Law); accord State ex rel. Lester E. Cox Med. Ctr. v. Keet, 678 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Mo. banc 1984) (in discovery context, trial court has discretion to examine privileged documents in camera to determine whether redaction and production of documents is appropriate); State ex rel. Fusselman v. Belt. 893 S.W.2d 898, 901 (Mo.App. W.D.1995) (<HOLDING>). In light of the Sunshine Law and the Missouri 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that trial court properly refused to permit disclosure of privileged communications in part because use of the privileged information was not essential to the defense (B) holding that where a party claims a document is privileged and the trial court fails to conduct an in camera review or balancing test the trial court has departed from the essential requirements of the law (C) holding the government has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant (D) holding in camera review by trial court to determine whether crime stoppers information contained brady information would meet the balance of defendants constitutional rights against the states interest in fostering law enforcement (E) holding trial court should have reviewed records requested by criminal defendant in camera to determine whether they contained exculpatory evidence while protecting against unnecessary publication of privileged information

SOLUTION: holding that trial court properly refused to permit disclosure of privileged communications in part because use of the privileged information was not essential to the defense

PROBLEM: their quest had generally confirmed their suspicion. Thereafter it was incumbent upon them to make a decision as to their course of action with “reasonable dispatch.” Occidental Life Ins. Co. of North Carolina v. Pat Ryan & Associates, Inc., supra, 496 F.2d at 1268; Johns Hopkins University v. Hutton, supra, 488 F.2d at 917; Baumel v. Rosen, supra, 412 F.2d at 574. The question, therefore, is whether plaintiffs were guilty of unreasonable delay during the period from May 20, 1969 to August 27, 1969. Considering the number of plaintiffs involved and the time necessary for counsel to research legal authorities and draft and prepare the original complaint, this Court concludes that there was no unreasonable delay. Cf. Johns Hopkins University v. Hutton, 343 F.Supp. 245, 255-56 (D.Md.1972) (<HOLDING>), rev’d, 488 F.2d 912 (4th Cir. 1973) (in jury 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that because the plaintiff had not perfected service within 120 days of filing the complaint the complaint was subject to mandatory dismissal (B) holding inter alia that 130 days was reasonable period for researching and drafting of complaint (C) holding that 120 days notice was satisfied by 30 days work plus 90 days pay (D) holding that delays of 115 days and 101 days were both substantial (E) holding that a difference between 384 days prepreference average number of days to payment and 547 days preference average number of days to payment did not make the payments out of the ordinary course of business

SOLUTION: holding that because the plaintiff had not perfected service within 120 days of filing the complaint the complaint was subject to mandatory dismissal

PROBLEM: 172, 30 N.E.2d 369 (1940) (applying the “general concept” that the distinction between an employee and an independent contractor turns on “the right of control over the [worker] in respect of the manner in which his work is to be done”); see also Restatement (SeCOnd) of Agency § 220(1) cmt. d (1958) (stating that “control or right to control the physical conduct of the person giving service is important and in many situations is determinative” of whether that person is an employee or independent contractor); Warren A. Seavy, Agenoy § 84, at 142 (1964) (observing that “the right to control the physical movements of the employee is [typically] the most important single element”); cf. Tieberg v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 2 Cal.3d 943, 88 Cal.Rptr. 175, 471 P.2d 975, 980, 982 (1970) (<HOLDING>). B. The District Court’s determination as to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a general contractors right to forbid the work from being performed in a dangerous manner and the fact that he would have stopped the work and required protective equipment had he seen the employee of the independent contractor not using such equipment merely showed the possibility of control not actual control (B) holding a defendant is liable as a control person if the defendant had the power to control the general affairs of the entity primarily liable at the time the entity violated the securities laws but declining to decide whether power to control means simply abstract power to control or actual exercise of the power to control internal quotations omitted (C) holding that the right to control the means by which the work is accomplished is clearly the most significant test of the employment relationship and observing that many of the other factors enumerated in the restatement second are merely evidentiary indicia of the right to control (D) holding that defendant was not an agent because alleged principal did not control means by which the defendants accomplished their duties (E) holding that the right to control is measured by considering 1 the independent nature of the workers business 2 the workers obligation to furnish necessary tools supplies and materials to perform the job 3 the workers right to control the progress of the work except as to the final results 4 the time for which the worker is employed and 5 the method of payment whether by unit of time or by the job

SOLUTION:
holding that a general contractors right to forbid the work from being performed in a dangerous manner and the fact that he would have stopped the work and required protective equipment had he seen the employee of the independent contractor not using such equipment merely showed the possibility of control not actual control