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: comprehensive plan nor its land use regulations prohibited the development of so-called non-jurisdictional wetlands. On August 17 or 18, 2006, Rish began to clear and fill his property. The neighbors, including Johnson, protested to the County, but to no avail. On August 21, 2006, these parties filed a complaint seeking in-junctive relief alleging that the clearing violated Gulf County’s comprehensive plan because it failed to maintain a 50-foot buffer for the wetlands. The neighbors alleged standing under section 163.3215(3), Florida Statutes (2006). The trial court dismissed the complaint ruling that Johnson and the other neighbors did not possess standing to seek relief under section 163.3215. This court reversed. Johnson v. Gulf County et al., 965 So.2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>). Throughout this litigation, Rish proceeded to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the trial court had abused its discretion in dismissing the case without allowing appellants an opportunity to amend (B) holding trial court abused its discretion when it struck the appellants intervention (C) recognizing that although leave to amend generally should be freely granted that decision is left to the district courts discretion and as in the present case not only was there no abuse of discretion it appears that appellants never properly requested an opportunity to amend in the district court (D) holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint (E) holding that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing expert testimony that directly linked the characteristics of sexually abused children to the complainants in this case

SOLUTION: holding trial court abused its discretion when it struck the appellants intervention

PROBLEM: of common law fraud, it is considered a fraudulent act and is protected by 9(b)). We conclude that 9(b) applies to FCA fraud claims because not only is such a conclusion in accord with other courts and our more recent decisions, but also because its applicability is consistent with the purposes of Rule 9: (1) to inhibit claims that are filed as a pretext to uncover unknown wrongs; (2) to protect defendants from the harm that results from charges of serious wrongdoing; and (3) to give defendants notice of the complained-of conduct, enabling defendants to prepare a defense. Coronet Insurance Co. v. Seyfarth, 665 F.Supp. 661, 666 (N.D.Ill.1987). See also U.S. ex rel. Stinson, Lyons, Gerlin & Bustamante v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia, Inc., 755 F.Supp. 1055, 1058 (S.D.Ga.1990) (<HOLDING>); U.S. ex rel. Stinson, Lyons, Gerlin & 
 Holding statements: (A) holding a broad claim with no factual support was insufficient to satisfy rule 9b (B) holding that rule 9b applies to fca (C) holding that californias ucl claims are subject to rule 9b pleading standards (D) holding that charge of money laundering need not satisfy rule 9b (E) holding plaintiffs speculations did not satisfy rule 9b requirements

SOLUTION: holding a broad claim with no factual support was insufficient to satisfy rule 9b

PROBLEM: agree that Mikulin failed to demonstrate that he possesses the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications under Gov.Bar R. 1(11) to be admitted to the bar. Specifically, we conclude that his disregard of traffic laws and his neglect of his financial responsibilities present sufficient grounds for disapproving his application. See Gov.Bar R. I(ll)(D)(3)(f) and (k); see also In re Application of Kapel, 72 Ohio St.3d 532, 651 N.E.2d 955 (1995) (finding that the applicant’s disorderly conduct conviction and repeated traffic violations, including speeding, demonstrated that the applicant lacked the requisite character and fitness for the practice of law but permitting the applicant to reapply); In re Application of Acton, 121 Ohio St.3d 154, 2009-Ohio-499, 902 N.E.2d 966, ¶ 26 (<HOLDING>). {¶ 10} We therefore accept the board’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the weight afforded to the applicants evidence in immigration proceedings lies largely within the discretion of the agency (B) holding that ability of applicants family to remain unharmed cuts against finding of wellfounded fear (C) holding that the weight afforded to the applicants evidence in immigration proceedings lie largely within the discretion of the ij (D) holding that a husband cannot be required to pay a support award that exceeds his financial ability (E) recognizing that an applicants neglect of his or her own financial responsibilities bodes ill for the applicants ability to oversee the interests of clients with the diligence and integrity required of the profession

SOLUTION:
holding that the weight afforded to the applicants evidence in immigration proceedings lies largely within the discretion of the agency