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:
39:4-88(b), the mandate to drive within a single lane to the extent practicable applies, whether or not a deviation from that lane imposes a risk to another driver. The statute’s second clause addresses a related, but discrete, mandate of the Code. It requires a driver to ascertain the safety of switching lanes before conducting a lane change. N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b). Unlike the violation described in the first clause of N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b), the violation described in the second clause is avoided if a driver, in a roadway with multiple lanes traveling in the same direction, first determines that departure from a lane may be conducted safely. The Appellate Division’s limitation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b) to the violation identified in the statute’s second clause would render t .App.1998) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the courts of our sister states, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that due regard describes a standard between ordinary care and recklessness (B) holding that tex transp code ann  545060a describes one offense (C) holding that no offense alleged where affidavit described offense as felony (D) holding that an indictment charging one offense during the commission of another crime need not allege the elements of the latter offense (E) holding that the statute describes but one offense which can be committed by either or both of two methods

Ex Output:
holding that due regard describes a standard between ordinary care and recklessness


Ex Input:
n. 7, 713 P.2d at 960 n. 7 (1986) (“Counsel has no right to cast upon the court the burden of searching through a voluminous record to find the ground of an objection. It is counsel’s duty to cite accurately the portions of the record supporting counsel’s position.” (Internal citation omitted.)); Hoang, 93 Hawaii at 336, 3 P.3d at 602 (2000) (“Because the factual basis of [appellant’s] alleged point of error is not part of the record on appeal, this court has no basis upon which to rule on the merits of his claim.” (Citation omitted.)) Even if Appellants’ allegations of fraudulent inducement are taken at face value, they fall short of “clear and convincing” evidence of fraudulent inducement. Honolulu Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Murphy, 7 Haw. App. 196, 202, 753 P.2d 807, 812 (1988) (<HOLDING>). At a more fundamental level, they do not 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a finding of fraud may be reversed only for clear error but that the finding must be judged in view of the clear and convincing burden of proof (B) holding that despite the lack of a statutory requirement that severe child abuse be shown by clear and convincing evidence due to the consequences of such a finding the clear and convincing standard must be applied (C) holding that the standard of proving fraudulent inducement with respect to written contracts is extremely high and a written contract will be cancelled only in a clear ease of fraud supported by clear and convincing evidence citations omitted (D) holding that fraud on the court must be supported by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence (E) holding clear and convincing standard to prove fraud or fraudulent intent and preponderance of the evidence to prove other elements under  727

Ex Output:
holding that a finding of fraud may be reversed only for clear error but that the finding must be judged in view of the clear and convincing burden of proof


Ex Input:
given immunity for his involvement in this crime and others in exchange for his testimony. The trial court in this case did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Mills’ claim of newly discovered evidence would not produce an acquittal or life sentence on retrial. Claim, II Since his direct appeal, Mills has repeatedly argued that a person found guilty of felony murder is more likely to receive a death sentence than a person found guilty of premeditated murder because once he has been found guilty of felony murder (in this case, murder committed during the course of a burglary), the aggravating factor that the murder was committed in the course of another dangerous felony becomes automatic. We have repeatedly denied this claim. Mills v. Singletary, 606 So.2d 622 (Fla.1992) (<HOLDING>); Mills v. Dugger, 559 So.2d 578 (Fla.1990); 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that first and seconddegree intentional murder verdicts are consistent with a felony murder verdict because lack of intent is not an element of seconddegree felony murder (B) holding that reversal of conviction for felony murder was required where jury failed to find the defendant guilty of the underlying felony as essential element of the felony murder offense (C) holding stringer v black 503 us 222 112 sct 1130 117 led2d 367 1992 was not a change in the law that warranted retroactive application and thus mills claim that the felony murder aggravator was an unconstitutional automatic aggravating circumstance in felony murder cases was procedurally barred (D) holding that it is unconstitutional to base aggravating circumstance in capital prosecution on felony that was used to obtain firstdegree murder conviction (E) holding that a conviction of first degree felony murder based on the predicate felony of robbery does not establish the pecuniary gain aggravator set forth in  13703f5 with respect to the murder

Ex Output:

holding that first and seconddegree intentional murder verdicts are consistent with a felony murder verdict because lack of intent is not an element of seconddegree felony murder