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: then the trial court erred in allowing prejudgment interest to accrue on that sum at 10% per annum “[bjecause no prejudgment interest statute applies to this case.” Assuming arguendo that their argument was true, then the answer to the problem is found in their own brief. They acknowledge that the prejudgment interest scheme established under § 304.101 et seq. of the Texas Finance Code applied if no other statute did. See Johnson & Higgins of Tex., Inc. v. Kenneco Energy, Inc., 962 S.W.2d 507, 530-31 (Tex.1998) (dealing with Texas Revised Civil Statute art. 5069-1.05, § 6(a), the predecessor to § 304.101 et seq. of the Texas Finance Code). And, at the time of judgment, see Natural Gas Clearinghouse v. Midgard Energy, Co., 113 S.W.3d 400, 414 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2003, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>), prejudgment interest accrued at the rate of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that once a rate is filed with the appropriate agency except for review of the agencys orders the courts can assume no right to a different rate on that ground that in its opinion it is the only or the more reasonable rate (B) holding that the applicable rate is that in existence at the time of judgment (C) holding that in order to qualify as newly discovered evidence the evidence must have been in existence and hidden at the time of judgment (D) holding that the penalty is applicable (E) holding that the proper rate for prejudgment interest is the rate fixed by the parties in a contract

A: (B)
****
Q: of a class consisting of all African-American plant employees. Accordingly, the district court acted within its discretion to deny class certification on the basis of the appellants’ direct evidence. B. Statistical Evidence Nucor provided the appellants with actual promotion-related job posting and applicant data from January 2001 to February 2006. According to the appellants’ own expert, statistical analysis of this data resulted in a standard deviation of - .84, a result indicating no statistically significant disparity in the actual versus expected percentage of African-American employees successfully bidding on jobs. J.A. 5872-73. The appellants, however, objected to use of the 2001 to 2006 time period because it included job posting and bidding 759 n. 17 (4th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Since the appellants could not prevail based 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the federal pleading standard is a less stringent standard than the delaware pleading standard (B) recognizing that differences between the expected value and the observed number greater than two or three standard deviations are significant (C) recognizing the cause of action (D) recognizing cause of action (E) recognizing that a standard deviation greater than two or three excludes chance as the cause of underrepresentation

A: (E)
****
Q: not dispute the fact that the BVA decided that issue correctly. Therefore, this Court should affirm the decision of the Board. A remand should be based on some type of error committed by the Board. The majority’s opinion basically says “try again,” without pointing to any error committed by the Board. The reason for the majority’s action is that their decision is based on an issue raised sua sponte. The appellant has not addressed a possible claim for total disability based on individual unemployability that may be still pending before VA. If there is one, she is free to pursue it without a remand from this Court. See Hanson v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 29 (1996) (stating that an unadjudi-eated claim generally remains pending before VA until withdrawn); Meeks v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 284 (1993) (<HOLDING>). This Court has consistently held that it will 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a board affirmance of an ro decision subsumes that decision (B) holding that prior ro decision that had not become final was not subject to cue collateral attack (C) holding that a claim before an ro remains pending until a final decision is rendered (D) holding that the ros failure to issue an soc prevented the disputed ro decision from becoming final and appealable to the board and the claim therefore remained pending (E) holding vcaa inapplicable to claim that ro decision contained cue

A:
(C)
****