TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: unlawful harm under that public policy may include actions that violate recognized and accepted standards of conduct, such as applicable codes of ethics. The critical question in this case is whether under all of the surrounding circumstances MacDougall’s termination by Weiehert violated that clear mandate of public policy and was in retaliation for either his vote on the municipal parking ban ordinance or his refusal to change the ordinance. At the outset, we recognize that conduct that is directed against constitutionally-protected activity may violate a clear mandate of public policy, even though it may not offend any other statutory or legal standard. Supra at 390, 393, 677 A.2d at 167, 168. Compare Shovelin v. Central New Mexico Elec. Coop., Inc., 115 N.M. 293, 850 P.2d 996 (1993) (<HOLDING>) with Novosel v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 721 F.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that employees retaliatory discharge based on employees election to public office did not violate public policy (B) recognizing public policy limits on employer discretion in discharging employees (C) holding public employees conduct and expression in internal investigation of employees at county prosecutors office to expose potential wrongdoing constituted matter of public concern (D) recognizing retaliatory discharge claim where employer prevented employees exercise of workers compensation rights because of employees intention to file claim (E) holding that the discharge of an employee hospitalized for illness did not violate public policy

SOLUTION: recognizing public policy limits on employer discretion in discharging employees

PROBLEM: venue, the propriety of venue is fixed in the county chosen by the plaintiff. Tex.Civ.PRAC. & Rem.Code Ann. § 15.063 (Vernon 1986); Tex.R.Civ.P. 86-1. If a defendant objects to the plaintiffs venue choice and properly challenges that choice through a motion to transfer venue, the question of proper venue is raised. Tex.R.Civ.P. 86. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove that venue is maintainable in the county of suit. Id. 87-2(a). If the plaintiff fails to meet this burden, the trial court must transfer the lawsuit to another specified county of proper venue. Tex.Civ.PRAC. & Rem.Code Ann. § 15.063(1) (“The court ... shall transfer an action to another county of proper venue if ... the county in which the action is pending is not a proper county....”); Tieuel, 654 S.W.2d at 775 (<HOLDING>). If the plaintiff meets the burden, the trial 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that if a modification petition is filed in a county where venue is appropriate it is improper to transfer the venue to another county merely because venue also would have been proper in the other county however once an enforcement proceeding is undertaken in an appropriate venue venue is improper in a different county over a subsequently filed petition to modify the decree which was the subject of the enforcement proceedings (B) recognizing that the plaintiff has the right to file suit in any permissible county (C) holding venue proper where proper when the action was commenced (D) holding that even if venue was improper the case should have been transferred not dismissed (E) recognizing that if the plaintiff files suit in a county where venue does not lie the plaintiff waives the right to choose and the defendant may have the suit transferred to a proper venue

SOLUTION: holding that if a modification petition is filed in a county where venue is appropriate it is improper to transfer the venue to another county merely because venue also would have been proper in the other county however once an enforcement proceeding is undertaken in an appropriate venue venue is improper in a different county over a subsequently filed petition to modify the decree which was the subject of the enforcement proceedings

PROBLEM: by one party and the house by another. ”)(citing Cullers, 1 S.W. at 315). 11 . See Gann v. Montgomery, 210 S.W.2d 255, 259 (Tex.Civ.App.Fort Worth 1948, writ ref'd n.r.e.)("[T]o be exempt as part of the homestead, [mobile homes] must be part of the exempt realty.”). See also Minnehoma Financial Co. v. Ditt ll.1997); In re Herd, 176 B.R. 312, 313-14 (Bankr.D.Conn.1994); In re McMahon, 60 B.R. 632, 634 (Bankr.W.D.Ky.1986). 14 . In re Scudder, 97 B.R. 617, 618-19 (Bankr.S.D.Ala.1989)(allowing a houseboat to be claimed under Alabama's homestead exemption statute,' which provides for exemptions of "mobile home[s] or similar dwelling[s].”) 15 . In re McMahon, 60 B.R. at 634. 16 . In re Mead, 255 B.R. 80, 84-85 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.2000). 17 . In re Laube, 152 B.R. 260, 262-63 (Bankr.W.D.Wis.1993)(<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). 18 . In re Kiedaisch, Bk. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding as matter of law that mobile home with wheels removed placed on blocks and hooked to lights and water is trailer within scope of covenant proscribing trailers used as temporary or permanent residences (B) holding operable semi truck cab used by professional driver as homestead despite statutes description of dwelling as a building condominium mobile home house trailer or cooperative (C) holding that the condominium association was not a thirdparty beneficiary of contracts between the owner and contractor of the condominium building and between the general contractor and the subcontractors (D) holding that where appellants owned and resided upon contiguous 60acre rural farm and used 18 acres as a mobile home park 18acre tract was part of the rural homestead (E) holding that an assembler of a mobile home is deemed to be a manufacturer of a finished product that is the mobile home for purposes of determining the applicability of the affirmative causalrelation defense under the aemld

SOLUTION:
holding as matter of law that mobile home with wheels removed placed on blocks and hooked to lights and water is trailer within scope of covenant proscribing trailers used as temporary or permanent residences