Instruct: Given a premise, retrieve hypotheses that are entailed by the premise.
Query: I did not view and do not view the law as providing that there is some exhaustion requirement, although I understand some cases have said that. In this particular fact situation -- and I do think, I will say, on the issue of precedent, you can distinguish cases of -- and I'm not so sure I would be as fearful as some might be as to precedential value. I think this case is somewhat distinguishable, and I don't know that a judge in another situation would knee-jerk allow this type of testimony. We are in a very unique situation here, and that's what we have.
The person does not agree with the law
The other side objected on hearsay. 
In some circumstances the courts might hear matters that don't fall into these categories
This statement was made by a lawyer to the judge and he was giving his opinion about the court having some discretion about the questioning.
With respect to reporter testimony to get a hearsay exception, defendants are allowed to ask the same types of questions as plaintiffs. 
This is the only court case of the day
The question was based on the precedents 
Reporters' testimony is unnecessary in order to invoke the residual hearsay exception under Rule 807.
The reporter's privilege was upheld by the judge because of the fact witnesses.
this is one of several cases to be made
This is a unique situtation.
No one actually has a fly in their face, the speaker just means that their is a potential for something to be contrary to legal precedent.
The statement was not given by a judge. 
Reporters' testimony is unnecessary in order to invoke the residual hearsay exception under Rule 1407.
The courts might hear matters that don't fall into these categories.
The speaker has a high regard for case law
The decision of this court in the Wheaton does not know about this.
the speaker values respect for case law above all else 
The Court cited Graham vs. Connor in considering the situation.
The case in question is of high legal significance.
The testimony had many ramifications
the judge thought the question was too personal
Many judges would have decided similarly
I think there are many precedents to this situation
I agree with the judge in this case