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:
no indication that Mexican law should govern the claims at issue. Thus, under Texas’s most significant relationship test, American law is likely to govern the merits issues, and this factor weighs against dismissal on the basis of forum non conveniens. 4. Application of Foreign Law Although American law is likely to govern the merits, it appears that Mexican law will be relevant to collateral issues such as the nature of the property that is the subject of the contract. An American forum would nevertheless be capable of handling the difficulties posed by Mexican fideicomiso law should the court need to do so. Indeed, American forums have competently adjudicated matters involving Mexican fideicomiso property interests on other occasions. See Gale v. Camrite, 559 F.3d 359 (5th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); Brady v. Brown, 51 F.3d 810 (9th Cir.1995) 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where there was a breach of contract accompanied by aggravating factors that it was proper to treble the breach of contract damages (B) holding that a seller did not breach its contract by averring that there would be no tax liability incurred by the sale of a baja california sur condominium owned pursuant to fideicomiso law (C) holding that breach occurred when seller told buyer that seller would do no more to rectify alleged warranty violation (D) holding that trial court erred by dismissing breach of contract claim because appellee made promises to perform specific acts in contract the breach of which would give rise to a breach of contract action (E) holding immaterial breach did not constitute breach of contract

Ex Output:
(B)


Ex Input:
delivery to these individuals actually occurred. Sanderson asserted numerous causes of action against the defendants including civil rights and tort claims arising out of Sanderson’s divorce action and his March'2003 arrest for felonious restraint. The felonious restraint charge was later dismissed. Sanderson’s complaint in this lawsuit seeks damages for actions by Thomas and Martens while employed by Walsh County and actions by Judge Geiger while employed by the State of North Dakota. [¶ 3] Walsh County, Thomas, and Martens answered Sanderson’s complaint and moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal for lack of proper service of process. Judge Geiger also moved to dismiss, asserting the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over 2001 ND 101, ¶¶ 8-10, 627 N.W.2d 379 (<HOLDING>). [¶8] Sanderson’s complaint asserts a number 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a forum selection clause was not enforceable against defendants that were not parties to the contract (B) holding order dismissing action without prejudice based on contractual forum selection clause is final and appealable because it terminates the litigation in the plaintiffs chosen forum (C) holding that a permissive forum selection clause containing a waiver of any claims of forum non conveniens amounts to a mandatory forum selection clause at least where the plaintiff chose the designated forum (D) holding that when a forum selection clause designates  an arbitral forum  the proper remedy is dismissal (E) holding appealable dismissal where application of forum selection clause permanently put plaintiff out of district court

Ex Output:
(E)


Ex Input:
them, sua sponte, on various grounds, including improper venue, untimeliness, and failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Logan appeals. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, the procedural history, and the scope of issues on appeal. We affirm on the opinion of the district court. We note that Logan stated at oral argument that the charges from her allegedly false 1996 arrest were dropped within twenty-four hours, removing any doubt that the corresponding § 1983 claim is time-barred, as the district court had concluded. See Patterson v. County of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206, 225 (2d Cir.2004) (“The statute of limitations applicable to claims brought under ...[§] 1983 in New York is three years.”); Covington v. City of New York, 171 F.3d 117, 121-23 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). We have considered all of Logan’s arguments, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that unlike malicious prosecution claim false arrest claim accrues on the date of the arrest (B) holding that claims for false arrest and imprisonment under  1983 accrue at the time of the arrest (C) holding that a false arrest claim accrues at the latest when the criminal prosecution is dismissed (D) holding that malicious prosecution claim accrues when underlying prosecution is terminated (E) holding that false arrest and false imprisonment claim were not duplicative

Ex Output:

(C)