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:
For example, courts have allowed individuals judicially to enforce treaties that govern the rights of foreign nationals to inherit property, despite the absence of explicit treaty wording providing for such individual enforcement, most likely because the right-granting wording in those treaties makes sense only if it is read to confer an individually enforceable right. See, e.g., Clark v. Allen, 331 US 503, 507-08, 67 S Ct 1431, 91 L Ed 1633 (1947) (dealing with such a treaty). On the other hand, an individual right of judicial enforcement will not be Inferred from the mere fact that a treaty sets out substantive rules of conduct that, if honored, would benefit individuals. See, e.g., Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping, 488 US 428, 442, 109 S Ct 683, 102 L Ed 2d 818 (1989) (<HOLDING>); United States ex rel Lujan v. Gengler, 510 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that united states admiralty jurisdiction extended not only to the high seas but also to american vessels in foreign waters (B) holding that a purchase agreement for a foreign corporations stock is not subject to section 10b even if the closing occurred in the united states (C) holding inter alia that a united states court retains jurisdiction over persons arrested on a foreign ship beyond the us navigable waters when said arrest violates a treaty to which the united states and the foreign country are parties (D) holding that section 4625bc does not create a private right of action for money damages (E) holding that geneva convention on the high seas which provides that illegally boarded merchant ship shall be compensated for any loss or damage that may have been sustained does not create private right of action for foreign corporations to recover compensation in united states courts

Ex Output:
(E)


Ex Input:
that she disapproved of what she reasonably believed to be unlawful retaliation. B. Form and Context To the extent that Thomas’ conduct was expressive, the message was communicated to her immediate supervisor, Miller, and other court employees. She did not, however, attempt to inform the general public about the allegedly retaliatory practices. That Thomas chose to convey her views privately rather than publicly is not determinative of whether her expression is entitled to protection. See Givhan v. W. Line Consol. Sch. Dist., 439 U.S. 410, 415-16, 99 S.Ct. 693, 58 L.Ed.2d 619 (1979). Because content is the most important factor, we have concluded that speech about a matter of public concern may be protected even when made in a private context. See, e.g., Ceballos, 361 F.3d at 1174 (<HOLDING>); Ulrich, 308 F.3d at 979 (“[T]he public 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that when protected speech is inextricable from unprotected speech the court will treat the entire message as protected (B) holding that a written offer accepted by parol may constitute a sufficient memorandum of the contract provided the person making the offer is the party to be charged (C) holding that a memorandum given to the employees supervisors was protected speech when the memorandum alleged criminal wrongdo ing (D) holding that after the district court determined that the plaintiffs speech was protected the court was required to inform the jury of its ruling that knapps speech was constitutionally protected (E) holding the separate document rule violated when the alleged judgment was included with the memorandum and order of the court

Ex Output:
(C)


Ex Input:
intent of exercising dominion and control over the person. See DeShaney 489 U.S. at 200, 109 S.Ct. 998 (explaining the State’s affirmative duty to protect arises from the limitation it imposes on the freedom to act); see also id. at 206, 109 S.Ct. 998 (Brennan J., dissenting) (“[T]o the Court, the only fact that seems to count as an ‘affirmative act of restraining an individual’s freedom to act on his own behalf is direct physical control.”). The complaint’s allegations do not satisfy this demanding standard. Apart from the fact that the complaint does not allege the special relationship upon which the custody inquiry depends, Defendants did not restrain decedent’s liberty or freedom to act through a show of force or authority. See Ye v. United States, 484 F.3d 634, 641 (3d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Defendants did not force decedent against his 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a doctors report that merely repeats a patients assertions about her level of pain and ability to sleep stand and walk is not objective medical evidence (B) holding that period of limitations on a patients negligence cause of action began to run when the patient knew or had reason to know about the foreign object left in her body (C) holding that doctors do not have to accept patients (D) holding a doctors assurances that his patient had nothing to worry about and was fine did not constitute a restraint of liberty regardless of the patients reliance on those assurances to forego medical assistance (E) holding that a patients settlement of a prior action brought against him by doctors for payment of a bill did not bar medical malpractice action against doctors

Ex Output:

(D)