Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): In other words, Long argues, there is no temporal limitation imposed by the opening clause of Subsection (A), and thus it applies, for example, to insurance section (A) would exclude any money or benefits that have already been paid to an insured or beneficiary. Two longstanding decisions of the Oklahoma Supreme Court, however, lead us to conclude that the opening clause of Subsection (A) must be interpreted in the broader manner argued by Long. See Etherton v. Owners Ins. Co., 829 F.3d 1209, 1223 (10th Cir. 2016) (“If the state’s highest court has interpreted a state statute, we defer to that decision. If the state’s highest court has not interpreted a state statute, we instead predict how that court would rule.”) (citation omitted); In re Borgman, 698 F.3d 1255, 1259 (10th Cir. 2012) (<HOLDING>). In State ex rel. Lankford v. Collins, 70 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that federal courts are bound by state interpretations of state law (B) holding that the scope and application of state exemptions are defined by the state courts and that we are bound by their interpretations (C) recognizing that state agencies which are independent of the state are citizens of the state (D) holding federal courts are bound by state court determinations of state law (E) holding that state courts in construing and interpreting state law are not bound by the decisions of federal courts
Output (English): holding that federal courts are bound by state interpretations of state law