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.
--------
Question: of the property. See C.R.E. 602; C.R.E. 701. However, there is no evidence in the record which establishes that Pomeranz ever paid a bill relating to the maintenance of the property or that he was personally responsible for any aspect of the maintenance because McDonald’s had been responsible for the payments for the past fifteen years. Because no adequate evidentiary foundation was laid for Pomeranz’s estimation of maintenance expenses on the property, it is impossible, absent pure speculation, to ascertain from the record how Pomeranz obtained the $4,800 estimation. The trial court's factual findings relating to future maintenance expenses are not sustained by either competent or adequate evidence and are therefore clearly erroneous. See Anderson, 170 Colo. at 13, 458 P.2d at 758 (<HOLDING>). The evidence presented by the petitioners on 
 Holding statements: (A) holding because defendant does not argue in his brief that these findings of fact are not supported by    evidence in the record this court is bound by the trial courts findings of fact (B) holding that a reviewing court will only presume that the trial court made implicit factual findings when such findings were necessary to its ultimate conclusion (C) holding that findings of fact are conclusive if supported by clear and convincing competent evidence even where the evidence might support contrary findings (D) holding that a reviewing court has the power to reject the findings and conclusions of the trial court where the findings are not supported by the evidence (E) holding that where the original drug quantity determination is not specific enough for the district court to determine whether it has the authority to reduce a defendants sentence under  3582c2 that court may make new findings of fact that are supported by the record and are not inconsistent with the findings made in the original sentencing proceedings

Answer: (D)


Question: limitations was equitably tolled fails because he did not raise this argument before the district court. See Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Grace’s remaining contentions lack merit. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the burden to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction resides with plaintiff (B) holding that the plaintiff bears the burden when relying on the discovery rule (C) recognizing the validity of the doctrine but holding no equitable tolling on the facts presented (D) holding that plaintiff bears the burden to timely allege facts supporting equitable tolling (E) holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction

Answer: (D)


Question: of the complaint because it is unclear whether he was acting within the course and scope of his employment. There is a factual dispute whether the chase began on or off of reservation property, as well as a legal question concerning Epstein’s authority to engage in a chase in order to investigate an expired license tag. See e.g. City of Pinellas Park v. Brown, 604 So.2d 1222, 1226 (Fla.1992)(<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that tribal sovereign immunity did not bar rico suit only after concluding that sue and be sued clause in tribal ordinance unequivocally expressed waiver of sovereign immunity (B) holding that sovereign immunity barred a wrongful death claim against the board and stating that the only question is whether the boards sovereign immunity protection was waived emphasis added (C) holding that a state may waive its sovereign immunity (D) holding that rfras waiver of sovereign immunity did not extend to monetary damages the acts reference to appropriate relief was susceptible to more than one interpretation and thus was not an unambiguous waiver of sovereign immunity (E) holding that sovereign immunity shields only those acts which are discretionary in nature and not operational

Answer:
(E)