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: v. Pembroke Real Estate, Inc., 459 F.3d 128, 142 (1st Cir.2006). Moreover, the broad scope of the Copyright Act definitions may be of limited assistance as the court applies a "common sense" analysis of whether a particular unfinished work may be covered by VARA. One of the co-sponsors of VARA observed that "we have gone to extreme lengths to very narrowly define the works of art that will be covered.... The definition is not synonymous with any other definition in the Copyright Act...." H.R.Rep. No. 101-514, at 11. In Lilley v. Stout, 384 F.Supp.2d 83 (D.D.C.2005), the district judge noted that "VARA established a new and distinct genus of art: 'works of visual art,' which differs in many respects from the pre-existing categories in Section 102(a) of the Copyright Act." Id. at 86 (<HOLDING>). While this overview leaves much that is
Holding statements: (A) holding that a set of photographs taken to be used as studies for a painting did not qualify for vara protection (B) holding that the defendants evidence did not qualify as newly discovered evidence (C) holding negligence on the part of the attorney does not qualify for such relief (D) holding that use of a pretext phone call did not qualify for protection because the technique is generally known to the public (E) holding that purely reputational damage does not qualify for dueprocess protection

SOLUTION: (A)

PROBLEM: and, therefore, uninformed. We cannot agree. There is no statement of personal knowledge by the executrix stating whether Burnett consulted with legal counsel prior to executing the CSA or Guaranty. Plaintiff certified JTB, Inc. defaulted under the CSA and provided the documents supporting entry of judgment against it. JTB, Inc. never challenged the action or the relief sought. Proof of the Guaranty and its execution by Burnett was also provided to support judgment under the cognovit provision. Moreover, the Guaranty is clearly written and its waiver provisions are boldly identified, as is the confession of judgment clause. Importantly, plaintiffs action was based on the Guaranty, not the terms of its CSA with JTB, Inc. See Tam Enters., supra, 369 N.J.Super. at 59, 848 A.2d 27 (<HOLDING>). Further, the provision contains a succinct
Holding statements: (A) holding that selfserving deposition testimony standing alone is insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment (B) holding a guarantee of a note that contains a cognovit provision alone is insufficient to permit confession of judgment against the guarantors (C) holding that notice of judgment was insufficient (D) holding that a confessed judgment was not enforceable against a corporate president who individually guaranteed payment of corporate note signed by him in his capacity as president and which authorized confession of judgment (E) holding that adverse inference alone insufficient to support a motion for summary judgment

SOLUTION: (B)

PROBLEM: the merits of these motions were rendered moot by that order and are revived by this Court's vacating the new trial order. Therefore, the majority's opinion effectively deciding those motio ial while retaining jurisdiction over the proceedings necessarily mooted the pending motions for entry of judgment on the verdict and entry of JNOV. Under the mootness doctrine, this Court has no jurisdiction to render a judgment and opinion granting or denying either of those mooted motions. Upon this Court's vacating the trial court's order granting a new trial in response to this mandamus petition, the trial court still retains jurisdiction over the case until entry of final judgment in that court. See In re Baylor Med. Ctr. at Garland, 280 S.W.3d 227, 230-32 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (<HOLDING>). The judgment rendered by this Court,
Holding statements: (A) holding that a resentencing court may reconsider a defendants criminal history category as long as the appellate court did not expressly or implicitly limit the remand to only a portion of the sentence (B) holding that this court may reconsider an erroneous ruling as long as the appeal is current (C) holding that superior court erred in reversing trial courts order granting new trial and remanding for a new trial limited to apportionment of damages (D) recognizing that a reviewing court should not reconsider credibility determinations made by the alj as long as they find some support in the record (E) holding trial court has jurisdiction to reconsider new trial order as long as case is pending

SOLUTION:
(E)