Part 1. 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.
Part 2. Example
Drapeau's cohorts, the cohort would be a "victim" of making the bomb. Further, firebombs are inherently dangerous. There is no peaceful purpose for making a bomb. Felony offenses that involve explosives qualify as "violent crimes" for purposes of enhancing the sentences of career offenders. See 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) (defining a "violent felony" as: "any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year ... that ... involves use of explosives"). Courts have found possession of a'bomb to be a crime of violence based on the lack of a nonviolent purpose for a bomb and the fact that, by its very nature, there is a substantial risk that the bomb would be used against the person or property of another. See United States v. Newman, 125 F.3d 863 (10th Cir.1997) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Dodge, 846 F.Supp. 181,, Holding statements: (A) holding that possession of a pipe bomb is a crime of violence for purposes of 18 usc 3142f1 (B) holding that bank robbery by force and violence or intimidation under 18 usc 2113a is a crime of violence (C) holding that sexual assault of a child qualified as crime of violence under 18 usc 16 (D) holding for the purposes of 18 usc 924e that being a felon in possession of a firearm is not a violent felony as defined in 18 usc 924e2b (E) holding that a court must only look to the statutory definition not the underlying circumstances of the crime to determine whether a given offense is by its nature a crime of violence for purposes of 18 usc 16
Answer: (A)
Explanation: It's a good example. Based on the given prompt, option (A) is correct.
Part 3. Exercise
"fraud" to mean actual or positive fraud rather than fraud implied by law. 3 Collier on Bankruptcy 523.08[5], at 523-58 (footnotes omitted). [17] 17. Some courts require the creditor to have reasonably relied on the representations, but the Fifth Circuit does not. See In re Allison, 960 F.2d at 484-85 & n. 3 (citing cases). 18 . Other circuits have applied a uniform standard resembling our "actual fraud" standard to all debts falling under 523(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., Britton v. Price (In re Britton), 950 F.2d 602, 604 (9th Cir.1991) ("The Ninth Circuit has employed a five-part test for determining when a debt in nondischargeable under section 523(a)(2)(A)."); Caspers v. Van Home (In re Van Home), 823 F.2d 1285, 1287 (8th Cir.1987) ("To succeed in a F.2d 1061, 1064 (11th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); see also In re Lacy, 947 F.2d at 1277
Holding statements: (A) holding that statecourt breach of fiduciary duty judgment precluded relitigation of same issue in dischargeability proceeding (B) recognizing that even though standards of proof and findings in care and protection proceeding are identical to those in subsequent consent to adoption proceeding collateral estoppel inapplicable because incentive to litigate custody or appeal findings from earlier proceeding which are limited and do not carry same degree of finality may be substantially less than incentive to litigate or appeal findings in adoption proceeding which permanently terminates legal parentchild relationship (C) holding that resolution of issue underlying statecourt fraud judgment precluded relitigation of same issue in nondischargeability proceeding (D) holding that statecourt consent judgment containing findings of fraud precluded relitigation of same issue in dischargeability proceeding (E) holding that because relitigation of issue was barred by collateral estoppel res judicata determination of finality of judgment dismissed for lack of standing was not relevant
Answer:
(D)