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: enter a residence without a warrant if an objectively reasonable basis exists for the officer to believe that there is an immediate need for police assistance for the protection of life or substantial property interests.” Seibert v. State, 923 So.2d 460, 468 (Fla. 2006) (citing Rolling v. State, 695 So.2d 278, 293-94 (Fla. 1997)). Whether an emergency actually existed is immaterial “so long as the officer reasonably believes it to exist because of objectively reasonable facts. The officer’s conclusion then may be based on a combination of the ‘objective’ nature of the circumstances and the officer’s ‘subjective’ perception of those circumstances.” State v. Boyd, 615 So.2d 786, 789 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); see also Missouri v. McNeely, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 1559, 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013) (<HOLDING>). The record supports that law enforcement 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the reasonableness inquiry is based upon the totality of the circumstances in determining whether or not a search was reasonable (B) holding that in determining prejudice a court hearing an ineffectiveness claim must consider the totality of the evidence before the judge or jury (C) holding that the court must consider the totality of the circumstance when determining whether a law enforcement officer faced an emergency that justified acting without a warrant (D) holding that the district court should consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the patentee acted in subjective bad faith and should consider whether circumstantial evidence would support an inference of bad faith (E) holding a search permissible where the officer reasonably believed he faced an emergency situation that would result in the destruction of evidence

SOLUTION: (C)

PROBLEM: by a party under this section which is not accepted and the party recovers a judgment which is greater than or equal to the amount specified in the offer of settlement, the party is entitled to interest at the annual rate of 12% on the amount recovered from the date of the offer of settlement until the amount is paid. Interest under this section is in lieu of interest computed under ss. 814.04 (4) and 815.05 (8). 2 The parties do not attempt to draw a distinction between a reasonable degree of professional certainty on the one hand, and a reasonable degree of professional probability on the other — Casimere v. Herman, 28 Wis. 2d 437, 445-446, 137 N.W.2d 73, 77 (1965), uses the phrases as apparent synonyms. See also Hennekens v. Hoerl, 160 Wis. 2d 144, 166, 465 N.W.2d 812, 821 (1991) 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the phrases can be used interchangeably (B) holding that statements taken in violation of massiah can be used for impeachment purposes (C) holding floor can be used as deadly weapon (D) holding that rule 35a can be used to challenge sentences that are not authorized by the judgment of conviction (E) recognizing that there can be compelling circumstances in which a trial court can determine that neither party prevailed in a contract case

SOLUTION: (A)

PROBLEM: the forum State.”). TH Agric. & Nutrition, LLC v. Ace Eur. Grp. Ltd., 488 F.3d at 1287-88. Thus, to establish specific personal jurisdiction that satisfies due process, a plaintiff must present evidence of “three salient factors that together indicate ‘purposeful direction’: (a) an intentional action ... that was (b) expressly aimed at the forum state ... with (c) knowledge that the brunt of the injury would be felt in the forum state.” Shrader v. Biddinger, 633 F.3d at 1239-40 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court of the United States has held, however, that the mere foreseeability of harm occurring in a particular forum will not support a finding of minimum contacts. See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 295, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980)(<HOLDING>). In Roberts v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 100 N.M. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that although an automobile is mobile by its very design and purpose thus indicating that it is foreseeable that a particular automobile may cause injury in a forum state  foreseeability alone has never been a sufficient benchmark for personal jurisdiction under the due process clause (B) holding that foreseeability of causing injury in forum state is not sufficient for specific personal jurisdiction (C) holding that an exercise by the state of its police power is presumed to be valid when it is challenged under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment (D) holding that choiceoflaw provisions are alone insufficient to establish jurisdiction although they can reinforce a deliberate affiliation with the forum state and the reasonable foreseeability of possible litigation there (E) holding ejven though it is foreseeable that injury may arise by the negligent issuance of a credit card foreseeability alone does not give rise to duty

SOLUTION:
(A)