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.

Ex Input:
when there has been neither agreement nor adjudication of the fact. In that situation, the question is one of historical fact, which, until decided, cannot have anything to do with the child’s best interest. A different situation is presented, however, after paternity has been determined, whether by agreement or adjudication. Then, the best interest of the child necessarily is involved. The historical fact of parentage no longer stands alone; now it is intertwined with the interests of the child and no longer is capable of separation. Once paternity is established, § 5-1029 has no further role to play in that arena. The amendment to § 5-1038 does not change that, in my view, without, as there is not in this case, an amendment making it so. Contrary to the majorit , 1083 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Adoption/Guardianship No. 10941, 335 Md. 99, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the best interest of the child was the proper standard to apply in determining whether blood tests should be conducted (B) holding the best interest of the child standard does not violate federal constitutional principles (C) holding that the best interest of the child standard should be used in deciding whether to grant a paternity petition (D) holding that the best interest of the child is the paramount concern in determining whether to order blood tests to determine paternity (E) holding court properly applied best interest of child standard when determining whether placement goal should be changed

Ex Output:
holding that the best interest of the child was the proper standard to apply in determining whether blood tests should be conducted


Ex Input:
under Section 15, Article II of the Maryland Constitution. The majority’s greatest foible, however, is in its treatment of the primary issue before this Court, whether the enactment of Senate Bill 1, by which the Legislature removed the PSC Commissioners, constituted an encroachment by the Legislature on the gubernatorial powers enumerated in Sections 1, 9 and 15, Article II of the Maryland Constitution, and a violation of Section 8 of the Declaration of Rights’ separation of powers. Aristotle’s principles, explored by John Locke, and later pragmatically structured by Baron de Montesquieu, are generally credited as the mainstay of the separation of powers doctrine. Edward Rubin, The Myth of Accountability and the Anti-Administrative Impulse, 103 Mich. L.Rev.2073, 2093 n. 59 (2005) (<HOLDING>)-, Jim Rossi, Dual Constitutions and 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that claim premised on the organizing arming and disciplining of members of the national guard involved issue committed expressly to the political branches of government (B) recognizing that the american governments three distinct branches originate from a fusion of concepts found in aristotles the politics john lockes the second treatise of government and montesquieus the spirit of laws (C) recognizing products liability concepts as part of general maritime law (D) recognizing that when other branches of government are remiss in their constitutional duties the judiciary must act (E) recognizing that standing doctrine is fundamentally rooted in respect for the separation of powers of the independent branches of government

Ex Output:
holding that claim premised on the organizing arming and disciplining of members of the national guard involved issue committed expressly to the political branches of government


Ex Input:
for separate crimes occurring on different days, involving different victims, to different terms of imprisonment. Therefore, we conclude that the sentences were not “consolidated” under the Sentencing Guidelines. III. As the evidence on the record strongly indicates that the cases are not related for the purposes of section 4A1.2, we must reluctantly conclude that the Defendant is properly characterized as a “career offender” under section 4B1.1 of the Guidelines. DONE AND ORDERED. 1 . We note that the Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, overturned a separate holding in Jones that bank tellers are particularly susceptible to offenses of larceny and thus are vulnerable victims under section 3A1.1 of the Guidelines. United States v. Morrill, 984 F.2d 1136 (11th Cir.1993) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). The portions that we are concerned with in 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that it is error to certify class when named class representatives are not members of the class they purport to represent (B) holding that bank tellers as a class are not vulnerable victims under  3a11 (C) holding that a district of columbia consumer protection statute that authorized representative actions and did not reference class action requirements or mandate class certification was a separate and distinct procedural vehicle from a class action and thus did not constitute a class action under cafa (D) holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification (E) recognizing a narrow class of cases in which the termination of the class representatives claim for relief does not moot the claims of the class members

Ex Output:

holding that it is error to certify class when named class representatives are not members of the class they purport to represent