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: showing he was denied a constitutional right. Because Weaver's application for a COA raises several claims, it is impossible to glean from the present record which issue(s) the district court thought worthy of appeal. Cf. Murray, 145 F.3d at 1250-51 (determining that while court of appeals could not decide issue not specified in COA, it could "construe the issue specification in light of the pleadings and other parts of the record"). Therefore we must remand the record for the district court to specify the issue or issues for appeal. See Muniz v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 43, 46 (5th Cir.1997); Lyons v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 105 F.3d 1063, 1076 (6th Cir.1997); Hunter v. United States, 101 F.3d 1565, 1584 (11th Cir.1996); but cf. Tiedeman v. Benson, 122 F.3d 518, 522 (8th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). It is so
Holding statements: (A) holding remand for specification of issues unnecessary where clear from briefing appellant had not made substantial showing he was denied any constitutional right (B) holding right to testify was federal constitutional right (C) holding that appellant had waived any objection to an instruction that he had himself introduced and which was amended by the state without objection from appellant (D) holding that application of section 9711h as amended did not deprive appellant of any constitutional right (E) holding that where appellant acknowledged timely receiving notice by regular mail appellant appeared and fully participated at the trial and appellant made no claim that he was harmed in any way appellee had fulfilled the primary purposes of texrcivp 21a

SOLUTION: (A)

PROBLEM: arrest for a misdemeanor is permitted only when one of the statutory exceptions is met. See Tenn.Code Ann. 55-10-207©️ (2008). 5 . "According to one study, approximately 30% of police shootings occurred when a 0 (8th Cir. 2008) (finding that the duration of the stop was unreasonably extended where the officer admitted that, for thirteen minutes of the sixteen minute stop, he asked the defendant questions that were unrelated to the traffic violation); Loper v. State, 8 A.3d 1169, 1172 73 (Del.2010) (concluding that the stop, during which the officer asked the defendant for identification and ran a background check, "did not exceed the permissible scope of a routine traffic stop"); Bucalo v. Commonwealth, No. 2010-CA-000176-MR, 2012 WL 246245, at *5-7 (Ky.Ct.App. Jan. 27, 2012) (<HOLDING>); State v. Mason, 173 Md.App. 414, 919 A.2d
Holding statements: (A) holding that a traffic stop which lasted 105 minutes from the time of the initial stop until the defendant was arrested on drugrelated charges was unreasonable because the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop for purposes of conducting a drug dog sniff because there was insufficient evidence that the defendant was engaged in drugrelated activity (B) holding circumstances supporting reasonable suspicion to make a stop included that the defendant was on a comer on which recent multiple drugrelated arrests had been made (C) holding that reasonable suspicion is required to prolong a traffic stop after the purpose for which the investigatory stop was instituted has been accomplished (D) holding that an officer does not need reasonable articulable suspicion of drugrelated criminal activity prior to subjecting defendants car to a dog sniff subsequent to a lawful traffic stop (E) holding duration of stop was reasonable as it lasted under thirty minutes

SOLUTION: (A)

PROBLEM: toll the statute of limitations unless the defendants made representations that they knew or should have known would induce the plaintiff to put off bring ing suit and the plaintiff did, in fact, delay-in reliance on the representations. Olsen, 388 Mass. at 176, 445 N.E.2d 609. The "hypoallergenic" label was not intended to dissuade potential plaintiffs from bringing suit against the glove manufacturer, and there is no evidence that the labeling was fraudulent. Thus, estoppel will not toll the statute of limitations in this case. Other Massachusetts courts have found summary judgment to be appropriate in cases where plaintiffs could be charged with notice of their latex allergies outside of the statutory limitations period. See Zamboni v. Aladan Corp., 304 F.Supp.2d 218 (D.Mass.2004)(<HOLDING>); Starer v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 2003 WL
Holding statements: (A) holding that cause of action for malpractice had accrued before underlying actions dismissal (B) holding that cause of action accrued before formal diagnosis of latex allergy when plaintiff had previously suspected that she might be allergic to latex (C) holding that cause of action against latex glove manufacturers accrued when plaintiff first suspected a latex allergy (D) holding that the payments accrued (E) holding that the cause of action accrued on the date of sale

SOLUTION:
(C)