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.
--------
Question: process.” Final Rule Establishing an Administrative Appeal Process for the Regulatory Program of the Corps of Engineers, 65 Fed. Reg. at 16488. Additionally, the preamble notes that, because physical circum stances can change over time, "JDs are not necessarily 'final' even as an administrative matter.” Id. Based on the foregoing, it seems rather doubtful that the Corps’ decision to certify Dr. Booth’s delineation constituted a final determination entitled to preclusive effect. See Zurcher v. Bilton, 379 S.C. 132, 135, 666 S.E.2d 224, 226 (2008) (issue preclusion applies when an issue has been "actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment”) (emphasis added). 10 . See Chasm Hydro, Inc. v. N.Y. State Dep't of Envtl. Conservation, 58 A.D.3d 1100, 872 N.Y.S.2d 235 (2009) (<HOLDING>). 11 . See Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481, 107 S.Ct. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding local regulation of hazardous waste disposal facilities preempted by comprehensive and detailed state regulatory scheme (B) holding that federal power act and cwa largely preempted the field of regulating hydroelectric facilities (C) holding pennsylvania statute regulating subrogation is a law regulating insurance (D) holding that subsequent congressional statute regulating registration of aliens retroactively preempted state law (E) holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law

Answer: (B)


Question: v. Allen, 615 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir.2010) (emphasizing the parsimonious nature of an effective EA) (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b)). The DOE has more than met its burden here. Accordingly, we find that the DOE’s discussion of the 2005 anthrax shipping incident in the DREA and the FREA satisfies NEPA. b. The “Restricted” Experiments We do not reach the issue of whether the DOE’s decision not to include information about “restricted” experiments in the FREA was arbitrary or capricious because the district court properly found that this argument was waived. Here, Tri-Valley CAREs did not address the district court’s ruling that the argument was deemed waived in its opening appellate bricf. Thus, the issue is not properly before us. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Claims not made in an opening brief in a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that arguments not raised by a party in its open ing brief are deemed waived (B) holding that arguments not raised in district court are waived (C) holding that arguments not raised before the trial court are waived (D) holding that arguments not raised in the opening brief are waived (E) holding that arguments that are not raised or that are not accompanied by factual and legal support are deemed waived

Answer: (A)


Question: See In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 714 F.3d 109, 117 (2d Cir.2013). Section 301 of the LMRA supplies jurisdiction for “[s]uits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization.” 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). It is well-established that card check and neutrality agreements with arbitration provisions are contracts within the meaning of § 301. For example, in Hotel & Restaurant Emps. Union Local 217 v. J.P. Morgan Hotel, this Court affirmed jurisdiction over a dispute arising from an agreement between an employer and a union with card check, neutrality, and arbitration provisions similar to those at issue here. 996 F.2d 561, 563 (2d Cir.1993); cf. Retail Clerks International Ass’n v. Lion Dry Goods, Inc., 369 U.S. 17, 25-28, 82 S.Ct. 541, 7 L.Ed.2d 503 (1962) (<HOLDING>). Our sister circuits have similarly understood 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that immunity agreements are analogous to plea agreements and are enforced under principles of contract law within the constitutional safeguards of due process (B) holding that agreements other than fullfledged collective bargaining agreements may be contracts within the meaning of  301 (C) holding that collective bargaining agreements cannot compel the arbitration of statutory rights (D) holding that property settlement agreements may be specifically enforced (E) holding that where a collective bargaining agreements terms are clear but the management has engaged in contrary practice for a number of years the words of the agreement must be enforced

Answer:
(B)