Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): ego). We believe, however, that Carr is the better reasoned case and the path that the California Supreme Court would follow. See Elliott v. City of Union City, 25 F.3d 800, 802 n. 3 (9th Cir.1994). FERGUSON, Circuit Judge, concurring: When an appellate court has alternative bases for its holding, it cannot be claimed that all but one of the bases is unnecessary dicta. Part III of the Court’s opinion here is not irrelevant to our disposition of the matter, as the special concurrence claims; rather, it is an alternative holding providing one of two independent bases for supporting our disposition. Cf. United States Steel Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 444 U.S. 1035, 1038, 100 S.Ct. 710, 62 L.Ed.2d 672 (1980) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (<HOLDING>). O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge, specially 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that references to reading stipulations in muse are dicta (B) recognizing in dicta power to substantively consolidate entities but noting that power to be used sparingly (C) recognizing such limitations in dicta (D) holding that everything after denial of jurisdiction is dicta pure and simple (E) recognizing that alternative holdings are not dicta
Output (English): holding that references to reading stipulations in muse are dicta