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:
the Department must make in order to obtain the order it seeks in this action, as well as certain other issues that are likely to arise on remand. We conclude the Department's petition adequately sets forth the necessary elements it must prove in order to involuntarily treat Saenz: (1) that he has refused to consume food and fluids sufficient to maintain his health for an extended period; (2) that, as a result, he has been diagnosed by a physician as suffering from moderate to severe malnutrition, dehydration or other deleterious condition; and (3) that, pursuant to reliable medical opinion, Saenz is in imminent danger of suffering serious harm or death unless he is given medical treatment, including, if necessary, forced hydration and/or forced feeding. Cf. Harper, 494 U.S. at 227 (<HOLDING>). ¶ 29. We next consider the Department's 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the due process clause permits the state to treat a prison inmate who has a serious mental illness with antipsychotic drugs against his will if the inmate is dangerous to himself or others and the treatment is in the inmates medical interest (B) holding that an inmate stated a claim under the due process clause when guards had placed her in a cell with a dangerous inmate (C) holding that a detention officers alleged negligent conduct of failing to medically screen an inmate who later committed suicide in a holding cell  in violation of the police departments policies  was not the proximate cause of the inmates death when there was no evidence that the inmate would have been unable to kill himself if he had been medically screened and any claim that the inmate would have presented as suicidal in such screening was purely speculative (D) holding that the due process clause permits the state to involuntarily treat a prison inmate who is seriously mentally ill if the inmate is dangerous to himself or others and the treatment is in the inmates medical interest (E) holding that the due process clause permits the state to treat a prison inmate  with antipsychotic drugs against his will under certain circumstances while not limiting treatment to those circumstances

Ex Output:
holding that the due process clause permits the state to treat a prison inmate who has a serious mental illness with antipsychotic drugs against his will if the inmate is dangerous to himself or others and the treatment is in the inmates medical interest


Ex Input:
the direction that McDowell testified the assailant fled. Other evidence also confirmed that Hayward’s blood was found in the victim’s pockets and on the car. The discrepancies in McDowell’s testimony did not prove that he failed to observe or could not recall the most important points about which he testified. Hayward is correct that the trial court relied on McDowell’s testimony that Des-tefano said “I don’t have no more” in finding that the murder occurred during a robbery for pecuniary gain. However, that aspect of McDowell’s testimony never wavered. Although McDowell was older, in poor health, and possibly confused about some aspects of the event he witnessed, that does not provide a basis to disqualify him. See, e.g., Belcher v. Johnson, 834 So.2d 422, 422-23 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>). Even insanity of a witness has been found to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an elderly woman with dementia is not disqualified as a witness simply for those reasons (B) holding that an order was final for these identical reasons (C) holding that a forensic accountant is an expert witness not a lay witness (D) holding that juror was not automatically disqualified under beckett because of the jurors friendship with a law enforcement officer who was a key witness for the stale (E) holding outofcourt statements relating to reasons for investigation are not admissible where the reasons for the investigation are not at issue

Ex Output:
holding that an order was final for these identical reasons


Ex Input:
the restitution at the rate of [$50.00] per month.” However, despite Yamamoto’s full compliance with these conditions, the sentencing court in 1992 revoked his probation on the grounds that Yamamoto had inexcusably failed to comply with a substantial condition of his probation, ie., had failed to pay the entire $118,000.00 in restitution during his five-year term of probation. In revoking Yamamoto’s probation, the sentencing court in the instant case erroneously assumed that the order to pay $118,-000.00 in restitution was a condition of his probation. In actuality, the restitution order was an authorized free-standing sanction imposed in combination with Yamamoto’s sentence of probation. See HRS § 706-605(1)(d) (1993); State v. Gaylord, 78 Hawai'i 127, 154, 890 P.2d 1167, 1194 (1995) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks, internal brackets, 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the stated purposes of a contempt sanction alone cannot be determinative (B) holding that the suspension or revocation of a drivers license is not a sanction which once imposed precludes the application of criminal sanctions (C) recognizing that an order of restitution  is available as a freestanding sanction to be imposed alone or in combination with other sanctions (D) holding that where no discovery order was violated sanctions could not imposed pursuant to rule 37 but nevertheless upholding the sanction order under the courts inherent power (E) holding that equitable restitution is available but that legal restitution is not

Ex Output:

recognizing that the stated purposes of a contempt sanction alone cannot be determinative