Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): court to interpret the holding in Energy Management I characterizes it as, "the EMC case pertains to a mineral lessee challenging the validity of a Shreveport city ordinance relating to drilling within 1,000 feet of Cross Lake." Holland v. Questar Exploration & Prod. Co., No. 03-2087, 2006 WL 461127, *3 n. 3 (W.D.La. February, 23, 2006) (emphasis added). 4 . In fact, in order to fully address whether EMC had standing, the Energy Management /panel withdrew its previous opinion in its entirety, Energy Mgmt. Corp. v. City of Shreveport, 03-30677, 2004 WL 2192376 (5th Cir. Oct 15, 2004), and substituted the opinion referred to infra as Energy Management /. 5 . Energy Mgmt. I, 397 F.3d at 303 (citing Greater New Orleans Expressway Comm’n v. Traver Oil Co., 494 So.2d 1204 (La.Ct.App.1986) (<HOLDING>)). 6 . Energy Mgmt. I, 397 F.3d at 303 (citing 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the language of the statute is mandatory and the commission must act within 180 days (B) holding that broker whose contract called for commission on sale of property was not entitled to commission on transfer of property to partnership in which owner had an interest and that because broker was not entitled to commission under terms of his contract he also could not recover against a third person on theory of tortious interference with that contract (C) holding that contract providing commission was to be paid within 72 hours of closing did not condition the payment of commission on the closing (D) holding that even when there is a conflict of evidence before the commission and the evidence was such that the commission could have reasonably reached a contrary decision the commissions decision was not arbitrary and capricious (E) holding that the commission could not restrict drilling within one mile of the new orleans causeway bridge contrary to authorization of loc and corps of engineers
Output (English): holding that even when there is a conflict of evidence before the commission and the evidence was such that the commission could have reasonably reached a contrary decision the commissions decision was not arbitrary and capricious