instruction:
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.
question:
failed to ' pay Tomlin at the time-and-a-half rate for the hours he worked in excess of forty per week. In the event of such a failure, we instruct the ALC to determine the rate of compensation to which Tomlin was entitled, the number of overtime hours that were underpaid, and the amount the Department owes Tomlin for his labor. II. Remaining Issues With regard to Tomlin's remaining issues, we affirm based upon the following authorities: 1. As to the circuit court's remand to the ALC for determination of the prevailing wage: Condor, Inc. v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, City of N. Charleston, 328 S.C. 173, 178, 493 S.E.2d 342, 344 (1997) (preventing an appellant from arguing on appeal an issue conceded in the trial court); Bowman v. Bowman, 357 S.C. 146, 160, 591 S.E.2d 654, 661 (Ct.App.2004) (<HOLDING>). 2. As to whether Tomlin was an employee of
Holding statements: (A) holding that even when the issue is constitutional in nature an argument is not preserved on appeal unless the appellant raised and made the argument at trial and obtained a ruling on it nor will a particular theory be addressed on appeal if it was not presented below (B) holding a party cannot seek and receive a particular result at trial and then challenge it on appeal (C) holding that defendant must object at trial to preserve as applied challenge for appeal (D) holding that we cannot properly receive and consider evidence that was not presented to and considered by the trial court (E) holding that claims based on grounds not objected to at trial cannot be considered on appeal
answer:
(B)

question:
speech." The categorical distinction is particularly difficult to apply to statutes that proscribe threats. Generally, threats involve words, or "speech." Moreover, in the R.A.V. case itself, the Court implicitly suggested that threats did not fall within its exception for statutes "directed at conduct." See R.A.V., U.S. at --, 112 S.Ct. at 2546 (describing 18 U.S.C. 871, which proscribes threats against the President, as fully subject to its general rule). Nonetheless, as I discuss below, at least one panel in this circuit has held that a civil rights statute selectively proscribing threats of force is "directed at conduct" and thus not subject to the R.A.V. general rule. Hayward, 6 F.3d at 1251 (42 U.S.C. 3631, as applied to a cross-burning incident); cf. J.H.H., 22 F.3d at 826 (<HOLDING>); but cf. United States v. Lee, 6 F.3d 1297,
Holding statements: (A) holding that interference with the right to service in a restaurant is chargeable under 18 usc 241 (B) holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc 1983 (C) holding that 18 usc 245 a statute passed on the same day as 42 usc 3631 and for similar purposes constituted a valid enactment under congress thirteenth amendment authority as applied to racially motivated interference with federallyprotected rights (D) holding that 18 usc 1919 did not implicitly repeal 18 usc 1001 (E) holding that 18 usc 241 and 42 usc 3631 fall within a separate exception to rav
answer:
(E)

question:
the existence of an attorney-client relationship be waived her right to complain about Proctor's involvement because she did not file her motion to disqualify in a timely manner. More specifically, Hendricks argues that the motion was untimely because Barker knew that Proctor represented him "some three years" before suit was filed. See Vaughan v. Walther, 875 S.W.2d 690, 690 (Tex. 1994) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) ("A party who fails to file its motion to disqualify opposing counsel in a timely manner waives the complaint."). Hehdricks did not preserve this point because he did not raise it in the trial court. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. that she did not waive her complaint. See In re Hoar Constr., L.L.C., 256 S.W.3d 790, 798 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding) (<HOLDING>). We overrule Hendricks's second issue.
Holding statements: (A) holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to disqualify an attorney based on a matter not raised by the opposing party until only weeks prior to trial (B) holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a tenmonth delay in filing a dismissal motion was reasonable (C) holding that a fivemonth delay in filing a motion to disqualify did not bar the motion where there was a reasonable explanation for the delay (D) holding that a year delay in filing a motion to disqualify did not bar the motion where there was no evidence that the motion was inspired by dilatory tactics (E) holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by implicitly rejecting a waiver argument where the motion to disqualify was filed after a threemonth delay
answer:
(E)