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. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

Input: Consider Input: be ascertained from the creating instrument, the permissible uses of an easement acquired by prescription are necessarily defined by the use of the servient land during the prescriptive period.”). In French, plaintiffs acquired a prescriptive right of user over a roadway for certain discrete purposes based on their past use of the property. We concluded that plaintiffs were not entitled to make a different use of the roadway because it would increase the burden on the servient estate and it would extend the right acquired by plaintiffs’ prior use of the property. French, 135 Vt. at 80, 369 A.2d at 1388. Thus, French does not support plaintiffs’ assertion that the reasonable use of the right>of-way at issue here depends on its historical use. Cf. Nelson, 113 Vt. at 172, 32 A.2d at 146 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, as previously discussed, we agree 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that an easement may entitle the easement owner to do acts which were not for the easement would constitute a nuisance (B) holding that one who possesses deeded easement need not use the easement to maintain his title and easement cannot be extinguished from nonuser alone (C) recognizing that where a grantee has an easement which he shares with others his duty to repair and maintain it must be apportioned with all other easement holders based upon the extent of the individuals use of the easement (D) holding that an easement agreement and an unrecorded easement plan created an easement (E) recognizing that one cannot have an easement in his own land

Output: (B)


Input: Consider Input: as defined by Section 30-31-2(M), his acts of cultivating or growing mushrooms, even if by artificial means, are not prohibited by Section 30-31-20(A)(1). To interpret Section 30-31-20(A)(1) otherwise, as the State suggests, would require us to read language into the statute that is not there. See Marshall, 2004-NMCA-104, ¶¶ 10, 13, 136 N.M. 240, 96 P.3d 801 (refusing to read a personal use exception into the CSA, reasoning that to do so “would impermissibly read language into a statute that makes sense as written”). {11} Our holding is also supported by an analysis of the federal counterpart to Section 30-31-20(A)(1), 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000) of the Federal Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act (federal act). See State v. Carr, 95 N.M. 755, 760, 626 P.2d 292, 297 (Ct.App.1981) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds by State v. 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing the presumptions applicability to federal statutes (B) holding that when a statute is patterned after a similar provision in another states statute it is proper to resort to judicial constructions placed on the statute by the courts of the state whose statute provided the model in determining the proper construction   (C) recognizing a reliance on federal jurisprudence for the interpretation of louisianas arbitration statutes (D) holding that the federal register notice requirements do not apply to federal criminal statutes (E) recognizing that the csa is patterned after the federal act and relying on federal interpretation to the extent that the statutes are similar

Output: (E)


Input: Consider Input: not admissible ... [because it is] not subject to cross-examination by the prosecution. Therefore, such statements are appropriately [ jadmissible ... to prove only that the defendant earlier spoke consistently with his present testimony, the credibility of which is being challenged.” “A defendant may introduce his or her own prior consistent statements [in limited circumstances:] when the prosecution suggests that the defendant has a motive to falsify, alleges that the defendant’s testimony is a recent fabrication, or attempts to impeach the defendant with a prior inconsistent statement. [Where] the defendant [does] not testify at trial[,] ... none of these exceptions applie[s].” (citations omitted)); cf. also Bennett v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 448, 468, 374 S.E.2d 303, 316 (1988) (<HOLDING>). Numerous federal and state courts, applying 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing defendants state and federal constitutional rights to testify (B) holding that admitting evidence of a defendants prior statement to an investigator proffered by the commonwealth did not violate the defendants fifth amendment rights by forcing him to testify to dispute it (C) holding that the prosecutors comment regarding the defendants failure to call a potential witness did not shift the burden of proof because it did not implicate the defendants fifth amendment right not to testify (D) holding district court did not violate sixth amendment by admitting defendants outofcourt statement (E) recognizing that the fifth amendment forbids comment by the prosecution on a defendants failure to testify


Output: (B)