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.

[Q]: that Turner exhibited symptoms of ADHD prior to the age of seven, a requirement for diagnosis of this condition, and none of the data reviewed by Dr. Danziger suggested an onset prior to age seven either. Had trial counsel presented Dr. Eisenstein as an expert during the penalty phase, the State would have undermined his opinions in the same manner as occurred during the evidentiary he ) (rejecting Caldwell challenge to the standard jury instructions on the mer jecting challenge to constitutionality of execution methods as meritless); Darling v. State, 45 So.3d 444, 447-48 (Fla.2010) (rejecting challenge to constitutionality of section 945.10, Florida Statutes (2007), which exempts from public records the identity of an executioner); Israel v. State, 985 So.2d 510, 521 (Fla.2008) (<HOLDING>). Cumulative Error Finally, where the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the right to counsel in probation revocation proceedings is not absolute where the defendant has been convicted of or has admitted to committing a crime (B) holding if there has been no termination of employment there has been no layoff or reduction in force (C) holding that a claim that the defendant may be insane at the time of execution is premature where no death warrant has been signed and the defendant has not been found to be incompetent (D) recognizing that it has long been the rule that a mechanics lien claim may be waived (E) holding the same where the term conviction refers to a defendant who has been found guilty of a listed offense but has not yet been sentenced
[A]: (C)


[Q]: matter. When it is clear, however, from the relevant parts of the contract taken together and considered with the facts and circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement, that the obligation in question was within the contemplation of the parties or was necessary to effect their intention, then such obligation may be implied and enforced. But when the contract between the parties speaks to the obligation sought to be implied, the courts will not write that implied obligation into the contract. Stated conversely, there may be an implied covenant on the part of the lessee (in the absence of any expressed on the subject as in the lease).[ ] Id. (citations, alterations, and quotation omitted). See also Nearburg v. Yates Petroleum Corp., 123 N.M. 526, 943 P.2d 560, 569 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Thus, in accordance with New Mexico law, any 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that endorsement would prevail if inconsistent with policy provisions (B) holding that courts cannot imply covenants which are inconsistent with express provisions (C) holding that state courts may not enforce racially restrictive covenants (D) holding that the restrictive covenants at issue are unenforceable as a matter of public policy (E) holding that the law will not imply a contract where there is an existing express contract covering the same subject matter
[A]: (B)


[Q]: of CBS’s. As the district court recognized, one company’s minority ownership interest in another company is not sufficient by itself to make the owner a competitor, for purposes of the antitrust laws, of the subsidiary’s rivals. To be a competitor at the level of the subsidiary, the parent must have substantial control over the affairs and policies of the subsidiary. See, e.g., Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 584 F.2d 1195, 1205 (2d Cir.1978) (finding no violation of § 8 of Clayton Act where interlocked parent corporations had competing subsidiaries, but reserving issue whether statute would cover “parent corporation that closely controls and dictates the policies of its subsidiary”); Phoenix Canada Oil Co. Ltd. v. Texaco, Inc., 658 F.Supp. 1061, 1084-85 (D.Del.1987) (<HOLDING>); J.E. Rhoads & Sons, Inc. v. Ammeraal, Inc., 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a parent must exercise some control over the subsidiarys activities which does not require that the subsidiary be controlled to an ultimate degree by its parent  although something more than mere passive investment by the parent is required the parent must have and exercise control and direction  over the affairs of its subsidiary in order for venue to be proper (B) holding that a close relationship between a parent corporation and a subsidiary may justify finding that the parent engages in business in the jurisdiction through the local activities of its subsidiary (C) holding that parent is liable for acts of subsidiary under agency theory only if parent dominates subsidiary parent of whollyowned subsidiary that had seats on board took part in financing and approved major policy decisions was not liable because parent did not have daytoday control (D) recognizing separate corporate identity of parent despite evidence that parent was alterego of its subsidiary and was being sued for acts of its subsidiary (E) recognizing separate corporate identity of parent despite evidence that parent consolidated its profits and losses with that of its whollyowned subsidiary in presenting parents financial reports to shareholders that subsidiary was considered a division of parent and that subsidiary accounted for 60 of parents and subsidiarys combined operations
[A]:
(C)