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: complaint nor any facts relating to VBCJ's General Order support an argument that Waters received less procedural due process than what is constitutionally required in the circumstances. Therefore, VBCJ's fee program does not violate Waters' right to procedural due process. C. Legitimate Penological Interest Finally, Waters' complaint, broadly construed, alleges that Virginia's one dollar per day room and board fee is not reasonably related to any legitimate penological interest. This claim also plainly fails, as there are several conceivable rationales to support the finding that VBCJ's fee program is " 'reasonably related' to promoting a legitimate penological interest." Sample v. Angelone, 173 F.3d 425 (Table), 1999 WL 52347, *1 (4th Cir. Feb.5 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Section 53.1-131.3 provides as follows:
Holding statements: (A) holding that in a prisoners eighth amendment claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need expert testimony is necessary when the seriousness of injury or illness would not be apparent to a lay person (B) holding that the eighth amendment protects prisoners only from deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs (C) holding that in order to state a violation of the eighth amendment an inmate must demonstrate that prison officials showed deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (D) holding that deliberate indifference standard for imposing supervisory liability based on an eighth amendment violation is consistent with iqbal and collecting cases (E) holding that deliberate indifference to a serious medical need establishes an eighth amendment violation

SOLUTION: holding that in a prisoners eighth amendment claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need expert testimony is necessary when the seriousness of injury or illness would not be apparent to a lay person

PROBLEM: clause could be vitiated based on evidence of fraud "relating to the merger clause or fraud that invalidates the entire contract including the merger clause." 228 Mich.App. 486, 498, 579 N.W.2d 411, 417 (1998). The plaintiffs have not alleged fraud in the merger clause itself. Instead, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants fraudulently induced them to buy investment properties in Detroit. The plaintiffs' allegations of fraud in the inducement do not save their breach of contract claim because the remedy for fraud in the inducement is to void the contract, not reform it. See UAW-GM, 228 Mich.App. at 508, 579 N.W.2d at 418 ("Fraud ... makes a contract voidable at the instance of the innocent party.") (quoting 3 Corbin, Contracts, 580, p. 431); Star Ins. Co., 392 F.Supp.2d at 929 (<HOLDING>). The plaintiffs' argument conflates their tort
Holding statements: (A) holding that a contract made in violation of section 432070 is void rather than voidable (B) holding that irss failure to comply with seizure and sale provisions of section 6335 renders tax sales voidable at taxpayers option rather than void as matter of law (C) holding that the filed rate doctrine precludes insureds fraudulent inducement claim (D) holding that making of agreement to arbitrate was not called into question by general allegation that entire contract was void because of fraudulent inducement (E) holding that fraudulent inducement renders a contract void or voidable

SOLUTION: holding that a contract made in violation of section 432070 is void rather than voidable

PROBLEM: suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time." 407 U.S. at 146, 92 S.Ct. at 1923. The Cheung Tin Wong court concluded that whether the INS investigator's actions in that case were characterized as "mere questioning" or a "brief stop of a suspicious individual . . ." they should be tested according to the standard of whether he had a reasonable suspicion that the petitioner was an alien' at the time he stopped the taxi. The court found that the investigator's actions had been justified under that standard. 152 U.S.App.D.C. 70-71, 468 F.2d at 1127-28. See also Au Yi Lau, supra, 144 U.S.App.D.C. at 15354, 445 F.2d at 223-24 (<HOLDING>). The principles articulated in Au Yi Lau and
Holding statements: (A) holding landlord jointly liable when he knew of or acquiesced in the tenants trespass (B) holding that custodial interrogation by police must not occur prior to suspect being informed of his or her right to counsel and against selfincrimination (C) holding defendant was in custody under miranda while being detained under terry (D) holding that defendant was in custody when police questioned him in his bedroom late at night (E) recognizing that one accosted in apparent attempt to avoid being questioned was not clearly detained against his will when he thereafter readily acquiesced in the investigators interrogation

SOLUTION:
holding landlord jointly liable when he knew of or acquiesced in the tenants trespass