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. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
--------
Question: claim because "she was not diligent in preserving her legal rights”); Felty, 818 F.2d at 1129 ("One who fails to act diligently cannot invoke equitable principles to excuse that lack of diligence.”) (quoting Baldwin County Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 151, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984)); United States ex rel. Cogifer, S.A. v. Ins. Co. of North Am., Civ. A. No. 86-183-NN, 1987 WL 19932, at *4 (E.D.Va. Oct. 15, 1987) (unpublished). 11 . See, e.g., Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.2d 446, 450-51 (7th Cir. 1990). 12 . See, e.g., Humble Oil, 402 F.2d at 896 (finding equitable estoppel where surety reneged on promise to pay after statute of limitations had run). 13 . See, e.g., United States ex rel. Nelson v. Reliance Ins. Co., 436 F.2d 1366, 1371 (10th Cir.1971) (<HOLDING>); United States ex rel. Atlas Erection Co. v. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a performance bond surety was allowed to sue the government based on the doctrine of equitable subrogation (B) holding that an agreement which required the submission of an affidavit of payment to subcontractors or lien waivers before payment was made by the general contractor was for the direct benefit of the subcontractors (C) holding that a surety has standing to sue for a progress payment released by the government after notification by the surety of unpaid subcontractors (D) holding that estoppel applied where surety repeatedly responded to subcontractors threats to sue with answers which assured them that amicable settlement was just around the corner (E) holding that there is no privity of contract between the government and a surety since the government is not a party to the agreement between the surety and the contractor the government never undertakes an obligation to the surety

Answer: holding that a performance bond surety was allowed to sue the government based on the doctrine of equitable subrogation


Question: in which this Court's authority to review criminal convictions was greatly circumscribed.” Cotton, 535 U.S. at 629, 122 S.Ct. 1781. It could examine constitutional errors in a criminal trial only on a writ of habeas corpus, and only then if it deemed the error "jurisdictional.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). "The Court’s desire to correct obvious constitutional violations led to a 'somewhat expansive notion of jurisdiction.Id. (quoting Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485, 494, 114 S.Ct. 1732, 128 L.Ed.2d 517 (1994)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 25 . A charging instrument may be so deficient that a court does not have jurisdiction over the case; for instance, if the charging document was never filed. See State v. Kaulia, 128 Hawai'i 479, 491, 291 P.3d 377, 389 (2013) (<HOLDING>). Without deciding the matter, a charge that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that although that the district court erred in finding that plaintiffs lacked standing the appellate court may nonetheless proceed to consider the district courts determination that plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted (B) holding that an action brought against the state officials in their official capacities was not properly removed to federal court because the district court lacked jurisdiction (C) holding that the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal on a restraining order and the district court retained jurisdiction to proceed with the trial (D) holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review state disciplinary proceedings against attorney (E) holding that because the state failed to properly file the complaint the district court lacked jurisdiction to proceed to trial

Answer: holding that although that the district court erred in finding that plaintiffs lacked standing the appellate court may nonetheless proceed to consider the district courts determination that plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted


Question: State of Georgia under USERRA is only permissible to the extent the state has explicitly waived its sovereign immunity. Having considered the applicable US-ERRA principles, we turn our attention to Tennessee’s sovereign immunity. II. Tennessee’s SOVEREIGN Immunity Tennessee’s sovereign immunity arises from its constitution. Article I, section 17, of the Tennessee Constitution provides that “suits may be brought against the State in such manner and in such courts as the Legislature may by law direct.” Based upon this constitutional provision, no civil action against the State may be sustained absent express authorization from the Tennessee General Assembly. Greenhill v. Carpenter, 718 S.W.2d 268, 270 (Tenn.Ct.App.1986); see also Chumbley v. State, 183 Tenn. 467, 192 S.W.2d 1007 (1946) (<HOLDING>). This principle of law has also been 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the test of admissibility of an incriminating statement under article i section 9 of the tennessee constitution is whether it was freely and voluntarily made (B) holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state (C) holding that the tennessee plan as it relates to state appellatecourt judges does not violate the state constitution (D) holding execution of mentally retarded individuals fails to achieve legitimate penalogical objectives for punishment as required by the eighth amendment to the united states constitution and article i  16 of the tennessee constitution (E) holding that a suit against the state of tennessee is barred by tennessee constitution article i section 17 when it is not brought in such manner as the legislature has directed

Answer:
holding that the test of admissibility of an incriminating statement under article i section 9 of the tennessee constitution is whether it was freely and voluntarily made