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.

Ex Input:
in their pension payments would only be temporary, rather than receiving any express representations regarding that fact. See Grossman Decl. Ex. D at 141-42 (Avitabile); id. Ex. E at 119 (Keelin). Further, as previously noted, it is undisputed that all five plaintiffs received clear and unambiguous written information that accurately described the Level Income Option and indicated that the reduced payments would continue “until death.” These (and other) accurate written communications rendered any inconsistent oral representations (assuming, arguendo, that there were any) entirely immaterial, because plaintiffs had full notice of their benefit rights and could not reasonably have been misled by anything to the contrary. Adams v. Tetley USA, Inc., 363 F.Supp.2d 94, 109 (D.Conn.2005) (<HOLDING>); see also Ballone, 109 F.3d at 126; Adams, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that in the context of mail and wire fraud a plaintiff must have justifiably relied to his detriment on the defendants material misrepresentations (B) holding that if the alleged misrepresentations are material a plaintiff is entitled to recovery whether or not the misrepresentations caused the alleged damage (C) holding that class actions may be reasonably litigated through use of legitimate inferences based on the nature of the alleged misrepresentations at issue (D) holding that contractor could not show that it reasonably relied upon alleged misrepresentation (E) holding that plan beneficiaries could not have reasonably relied on any alleged oral misrepresentations in light of a signed severance agreement containing information to the contrary

Ex Output:
(E)


Ex Input:
this ease is to certify a class to determine the issue of whether Beverly systematically and chronically understaffed the Batesville nursing facility and then to decertify the class, if necessary, to determine individual restitution and damage claims as well as any defenses in separate proceedings.” Thomas, 370 Ark. at 320, 259 S.W.3d at 451 — 52. The same is true here. Determining the central questions whether understaffing creates contractual or statutory liability and whether chronic understaffing occurred are more efficiently handled in a single proceeding. Otherwise, there exists the possibility of a multiplicity of suits across the state with the potential that circuit courts may reach inconsistent results. See Summons v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 306 Ark. 116, 813 S.W.2d 240 (1991) (<HOLDING>). We also do not agree that efficiency is 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that whether or not claimant would have returned to work at all was a question of fact (B) holding it is a question of fact (C) holding that actual apportionment of damages is a question of fact (D) holding that the repeated litigation of the liability question and the possibility of inconsistent results outweighed the fact that each claimant would have different evidence regarding damages (E) holding that generally the question of waiver and estoppel is a question of fact

Ex Output:
(D)


Ex Input:
requirements for filing such a petition. See id. at 148. Although the state had “announced strict rules regarding the granting of second and subsequent ... petitions,” id., the Third Circuit did not consider whether Lovasz’s petition satisfied those rules before concluding that the petition was “properly filed.” In short, the court did not review the merits of the petition. This case is indistinguishable from Lo-vasz. Like Pennsylvania, Washington recognizes exceptions to its bar against successive petitions, see Wash. Rev.Code § 10.72.140, as well as exceptions to its one-year time limit for filing petitions for post-conviction review, see Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.100. Dictado invoked one of those exceptions: he claimed his petition was based on newly discovered ev .D.Tex.1998) (<HOLDING>); Hughes v. Irvin, 967 F.Supp. 775, 778-79 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that petition was properly filed even though the state court denied it as procedurally barred because the petition was delivered to and accepted by the state court (B) holding that seventh application for postconviction relief which was rejected because evidence on which it was based was not properly authenticated was properly filed (C) holding that second state petition for postconviction relief that was dismissed as frivolous and patently without merit was properly filed (D) holding that a second or subsequent state petition for postconviction relief filed according to the procedural rules of the state constitutes a properly filed application  without regard to the merits of the petition (E) holding that second state petition for postconviction relief that was dismissed as an abuse of the writ was properly filed

Ex Output:

(E)