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.

Ex Input:
between cases brought under the federal law and those brought under Maine law. While the First Circuit does make a distinction, it ultimately holds that the negligence per se doctrine of Pratico is strictly limited to cases brought under FELA, and it strongly implies that the doctrine will not be expanded. Elliott v. S.D. Warren Co., 134 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1998). 4 . Castine argues that the trooper testified at trial to matters that he had not previously indicated he would address, and therefore, it was unfairly surprised at trial. Generally, a continuance is the appropriate remedy when a party seeks to admit “surprise" evidence at trial. Because Castine did not seek a continuance, however, it may not now claim unfair surprise. See Pettitt v. Lizotte, 454 A.2d 329, 332-33 (Me.1982) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Because violation of a safety regulation 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the immigration judges denial of a continuance request did not constitute an abuse of discretion (B) holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiffs expert witness to testify when it also allowed defendants expert witness who disputed the methodology used by plaintiffs expert to testify (C) holding denial of continuance to be an abuse of discretion (D) holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining expert witness was qualified to testify (E) holding that there was no abuse of discretion in allowing a defendants surprise fact witness to testify because the plaintiff did not request a continuance

Ex Output:
(E)


Ex Input:
393 N.W.2d 286, 290-91 (S.D.1986). • GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, (dissenting).. [¶ 26.] I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the lower court on Issue 2. I would hold the trial court erred when it granted partial summary judgment to 01-esens, holding City’s operation of food service at the municipal bar was an ultra vires act. [¶27.] An express grant of authority from the legislature “includes those incidental or implied powers that are necessary to enable a municipality to perform the function authorized.” City of Rapid City v. Rensch, 77 S.D. 242, 246, 90 N.W.2d 380, 383 (1958) (citation omitted). A municipality is vested with discretion as to how it exercises specific powers conferred upon it by the legislature, as long as the methods employed are n , 59 N.W.2d 732, 734 (1953) (<HOLDING>). Actions taken under a municipality’s implied 
 Holding statements: (A) holding municipality had implied authority to enter into a long term contract to establish a golf course although state statute did not specifically grant authority to establish golf courses as public parks (B) holding grant of authority to an agency to adopt rules necessary to carry out this chapter clearly vested in the agency authority to interpret a statute (C) holding that the governments attorney had the implicit authority to bind the government although the contracting officer had the express authority (D) holding that plaintiff had no authority or statutory right for actions proper course was to report actions to proper legal authority (E) holding the court has the inherent authority to enter an order of confidentiality

Ex Output:
(A)


Ex Input:
agreements was the product of collusion among all defendants. (Tr. at 33-35; Pl. Mem. at 18-19.) This Court disagrees. Plaintiffs propose two distinct grounds for invalidation of their arbitration agreements: (1) collusion by defendants renders them agreements unenforceable, and (2) defendants’ collusive beh igible economic transaction” in which the parties agreed to a mechanism for resolving disputes. In contrast to the circumstance where Chase and Citibank withheld material information from cardholders, there is no evidence that Bank One Delaware (f.k.a. First USA), Bank of America, MBNA or Household withheld relevant information from their cardholders. Thus, these issuing banks’ arbitration agreements may be enforced. See Rooney v. Columbia Pictures, 538 F.Supp. 211 (S.D.N.Y.1982) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs’ argument that defendants’ 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing (B) holding that an agreement in violation of antitrust laws may be enforceable where the parties underlying conduct is legal (C) holding that plaintiff need only demonstrate a significant threat of injury from an impending violation of the antitrust laws (D) holding that an activity which is exempt from the antitrust laws cannot form the basis of an antitrust investigation (E) holding that a court may enforce a contract when it does not mandate illegal conduct despite an antitrust violation

Ex Output:

(B)