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.

Input: Consider Input: $585,000 compensation for both the value of the condemned property and damage to the remainder. Northborough filed an objection to the commissioner’s decision asserting it had not received just compensation. The State filed an objection claiming the award was excessive. On April 19, 1991, the award was deposited with the clerk of the trial court. Northborough filed a motion to withdraw the $585,000, which the trial court granted on May 2, 1991. The State subsequently took possession of the condemned property and commenced construction on I-45. Prior to the commencement of the jury trial, the trial court held a hearing to determine whether there was a material and substantial impairment of access to the remainder. See State v. Wood Oil Distrib., Inc., 751 S.W.2d 863, 865 (Tex.1988) (<HOLDING>). The trial court found the improvements to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that when ruling on a motion under rule 60b1 the trial court is not required to make written findings of fact unless a request is made (B) holding that the trial court is required to provide reasons for its decision prior to appeal (C) holding the trial court is required to make a determination on impairment of access prior to trial (D) holding that trial courts limited findings were insufficient to allow determination of whether trial court abused its discretion in denying defendants motion to dismiss his indictment on constitutional speedy trial grounds (E) holding that an exhaustion of appellate remedies is required to make a trial courts ruling the law of the case

Output: holding that when ruling on a motion under rule 60b1 the trial court is not required to make written findings of fact unless a request is made


Input: Consider Input: Dr. Brewer’s reports addressed the conduct of OGA’s employees, Drs. Jacobs and Gunn, the reports identified Dr. Gunn as OGA’s employee, and McCoy’s original petition alleged that OGA was vicariously liable for the conduct of Jacobs and Gunn under the doctrine of respondeat superior and the requirements of the Texas Professional Association Act. See Troeger v. Myklebust, 274 S.W.3d 104, 110 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. denied) (rejecting claim that conduct of dentist, who was sole defendant, was not implicated because her name was omitted from expert report and holding that dentist waived challenges to expert report by failing to raise objections within twenty-one days after service); Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Dale, 188 S.W.3d 877, 879 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, no pet) (<HOLDING>). In response, OGA disputes that its conduct 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that medical center was not required to be named in expert report addressing its residents conduct because plaintiffs alleged no directliability claims against it and noting that medical center was implicated in report and so waived all its objections when it failed to object to sufficiency of report within twentyone days after service (B) holding that causation section of expert medical report was not eonclusory when read in context of entire report (C) holding expert report requirement fulfilled in claim against nurse by providing expert report of nurse as to standard of care and expert report of medical doctor as to causation (D) holding that expert report addressing hospitals conduct was not required when plaintiffs sole theory against hospital was vicarious liability based on ostensible agency and explaining that the conduct by the hospital on which the agency relationship depends is not measured by a medical standard of care these are principles of agency law on which no expert report is required (E) holding that a complaint that a report was not timely served was not subject to the twentyone day deadline to object to the sufficiency of a report under former section 74351a

Output: holding that causation section of expert medical report was not eonclusory when read in context of entire report


Input: Consider Input: our precedents still foreclose a defendant from successfully excluding “evidence that has been ‘come at by exploitation’ of a violation of somebody else’s rights.” Jarvi 537 F.3d at 1259. Defendant concedes on appeal that he lacks “standing” to challenge the officer’s initial entry, which means that he had no expectation of privacy in Gonzalez’s residence. Defendant’s brief demonstrates he understands the equivalence of these two concepts. Even if Defendant had not made this concession, we would affirm the district court’s conclusion that Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in Gonzalez’s residence. The district court’s conclusion falls squarely within a host of controlling authority. See, e.g., Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 90, 119 S.Ct. 469, 142 L.Ed.2d 373 (1998) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Thomas, 372 F.3d 1173, 1176 
 Holding statements: (A) holding a person at anothers residence solely for the purpose of engaging in drug related activity has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the residence (B) holding that residence in the cnmi before 2009 was not residence in the united states for naturalization purposes (C) holding residence means legal residence for will probate (D) holding that a warrant authorizing the search of a residence vehicles at the residence and all persons found in the residence was not overly broad given that search was limited to places were drugs or weapons might be found (E) holding a person who is present at anothers home with permission simply for the purpose of consummating a business transaction does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy there


Output: holding that residence in the cnmi before 2009 was not residence in the united states for naturalization purposes