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: two for support). The fallacy of this position is that it confuses and commingles two conflicting strands of case law which follow opposing judicial routes. As noted above, in every case cited by the majority in footnote two, the fruits of a search were deemed admissible only after the search was found to be constitutional, i.e., distinctions as to admissibility of the fruits of a particular search against the consenting occupant and the nonconsenting occupant were never drawn. There is no authority for the majority’s proposition that the fruits of an unconstitutional search should be admitted into evidence. Indeed such a proposition violates one of the founding principles of the Fourth Amendment. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S. Ct. 407, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441 (1963) (<HOLDING>). Most commentators also agree failure to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that evidence obtained by improper search or seizure is inadmissible (B) holding that the physical fruits of a miranda violation must be suppressed (C) holding that evidence resulting from an unconstitutional search or seizure must be suppressed (D) holding that regardless of the applicable framework defendants statement must be suppressed (E) holding that the evidence obtained as part of an illegal stop should have been suppressed even where the defendants consented to the search

SOLUTION: holding that evidence obtained by improper search or seizure is inadmissible

PROBLEM: court is without power to extend that authority beyond the scope granted by the statute, and no District of Columbia court has ever found service upon such an unauthorized official to be valid against a foreign corporation. Accordingly, we conclude that service upon the Director was ineffective to bring Am-eritrade within the jurisdiction of the district court. Finally, Gorman urges that it would be unfair if a foreign corporation, lawfully subject to the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia because it does business here, could evade that jurisdiction by keeping its agents out of the District and hence beyond the range of effective service of process. If such a loophole does exist, the legislature can, of course, remove it by amending § 13-384 to provide an alternative method 1) (<HOLDING>); Oriental Trading Co. v. Firetti, 236 F.3d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that making phone calls and sending facsimiles into the forum may be sufficient to confer specific jurisdiction (B) holding that purposeful availment may exist when a defendant makes phone calls and sends facsimiles into the forum state and such communications form the bases for the action of an intentional tort (C) holding that the defendant companys action in sending a representative to ohio to negotiate a resolution of a prior dispute did not confer personal jurisdiction (D) holding that foreseeability of causing injury in forum state is not sufficient for specific personal jurisdiction (E) holding that phone and facsimile communications to the forum purchase orders and payments sent to the forum a choice of law clause within the contract regarding the forum state and delivery of the product within the forum state were not enough to satisfy minimum contacts

SOLUTION: holding that purposeful availment may exist when a defendant makes phone calls and sends facsimiles into the forum state and such communications form the bases for the action of an intentional tort

PROBLEM: attorney’s fees as § 507(a)(2) expenses and General Order 2007-6 details debtors’ attorney’s fees as § 330(a) expenses. BAPCPA amended § 1326(b)(1) by replacing the reference to § 507(a)(1), with § 507(a)(2). [B]y striking out the reference to § 507(a)(1) and replacing it with a reference to § 507(a)(2), the subsection that now governs administrative claims, including attorney’s fees ... [t]he court can only conclude that Congress made the affirmative decision to maintain the pre-BAPCPA treatment of administrative claims in Chapter 13 plans. In re Reid, 2006 WL 2077572, at *2 (Bankr.M.D.N.C.2006). Based upon the plain language of § 1326(b)(1), § 507(a)(2) claims must be paid before, or concurrently with, payments to other creditors. See In re Boler, 2008 WL 205579, at *3 (M.D.Ala.2008) (<HOLDING>). Accord In re Brown, 2008 WL 205578, at *3 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an award for medical expenses is proper when the expenses have been incurred but not paid (B) holding that an agreement to pay sons college education expenses was nondischargeable support even though arkansas law does not require payment of such expenses (C) holding that quarterly fees are administrative expenses like  503b claims and must be subordinated to chapter 7 administrative expenses (D) holding plain language of  1326b1 requires administrative expenses to be paid before such domestic support obligations (E) holding that the plain language of the regulations requires a claimant to have an intent to file a claim for va benefits

SOLUTION:
holding that an award for medical expenses is proper when the expenses have been incurred but not paid