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]: is adverse to its interests. Lamar cites no authority establishing that either “fact” was material to determining whether City exceeded the scope of its powers by surrendering and contracting away zoning authority that would otherwise have applied to Lamar’s efforts to rebuild or relocate eight of the forty-two signs identified in the Agreement. For reasons we explain, neither factual contention prevented the entry of summary judgment in favor of City as a matter of law. We have already explained that the Agreement hindered City’s zoning authority, and that zoning authority is an exercise of police powers. City thus established all that was necessary to demonstrate that the Agreement exceeded the scope of City’s powers in violation of section 432.070. Stewart, 165 S.W.2d at 629 (<HOLDING>). It is true that “[t]he due process clauses of 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing governmental interest in rehabilitation (B) holding that a local governmental body exceeds its jurisdiction under crcp 106a4 when it exercises discretion it does not have (C) holding that if a contract surrenders or contracts away governmental functions then it exceeds the scope of a governmental entitys powers and is void (D) holding governmental immunity is no defense to contractual liability (E) holding section 1010215 does not waive governmental immunity merely because a governmental action falls within the listed governmental functions thus further inquiry under the act is necessary
[A]: (C)


[Q]: Parker, we vacate the sentence and remand for resen-tencing. Nearly a month before trial, Parker opted to waive his right to counsel and elected to represent himself. At that time, the trial court conducted a Faretta inquiry and allowed Parker to represent himself throughout the trial. However, when the jury returned with the guilty verdict, the trial court proceeded immediately to sentencing without renewing the offer of counsel. In doing so, the trial court erred. “Once a defendant waives the right to counsel in a criminal case, the court must renew the offer of counsel at each subsequent critical stage of the proceedings, one of which is sentencing.” Serrano v. State, 113 So.3d 895, 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); see also Ingraham v. State, 32 So.3d 761, 768-69 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, vacate 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the filing of a motion for a new trial is a critical stage of the prosecution and that an indigent defendant is constitutionally entitled to the assistance of counsel at that stage (B) holding postindictment lineup is critical stage of trial at which defendant is entitled to presence of counsel (C) holding that sentencing is a critical stage of criminal proceedings and the offer of counsel must be renewed at each critical stage where the defendant appears without counsel (D) recognizing that brooks protects against denial of counsel at a critical stage of his trial (E) holding that posttrial motion for new trial is critical stage requiring counsel or valid waiver
[A]: (C)


[Q]: no clear textual invitation for courts to explore the “employer’s awareness,” Dissent at 971, whatever that indeterminate phrase might mean. In short, we fail to see how the dissent’s special new rule of imputation for punitive damages finds any grounding in the statute’s “plain language.” We note in conclusion that our decision today aligns us with all but one of the several circuit courts to address this question. See McKinnon v. Kwong Wah Restaurant, 83 F.3d 498, 508 (1st Cir.1996) (endorsing concept of a higher standard for punitive damages under § 1981a, and noting that such damages “are awarded as a matter of public policy to punish outrageous conduct by the defendant or to deter similar conduct in the future”); Harris v. L & L Wings, Inc., 132 F.3d 978, 982 (4th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted); Turic v. Holland 
 Holding statements: (A) holding improper conduct to be an element of the tort of intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship (B) holding that an injunction is an extraordinary remedy (C) holding that an accounting is an extraordinary remedy (D) holding that under  1981a pjunitive damages are an extraordinary remedy to be reserved for egregious eases and are not an element of recovery in every case involving an intentional tort (E) recognizing recovery under common law for tort damages that are proven to be reasonably foreseeable damages of ones tortious acts
[A]:
(D)