TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: constructive, or judicially imposed lien, or (4) asserted against real or personal property. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 51.903; Cardenas v. Wilson, 428 S.W.3d 130, 132 (Tex. App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (noting that 51.903 inquiry into mechanic’s lien determines only that mechanic’s lien is provided by Texas law, not whether the underlying mechanic’s lien was valid). If the motion requires greater inquiry, then it is a motion for declaratory judgment. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 37.004(a) (West 2015); State Bar of Tex. v. Heard, 603 S.W.2d 829, 833 (Tex. 1980) (“We look to the substance of a plea for relief to determine the nature of the pleading, not merely at the form of title given to it.”); Nguyen, 2016 WL 2343893, at *2 (citing Becker, 2010 WL 877569, at *2-3 (<HOLDING>)). A motion for declaratory judgment must be 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion (B) holding motion requesting more relief than section 51903 provides was motion for declaratory judgment (C) holding that motion accepting judgment but requesting findings of fact and conclusions of law was not directed against the judgment (D) holding that substance of motion to extend time was a section 1301f motion rather than a section 1301g motion and that trial court did not abuse discretion in denying the section 1301f motion (E) holding that the courts denial of either a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment and is not reviewable 

SOLUTION: (B)

PROBLEM: Anderson claims that the trial court findings do not justify the decision to “increase” his child support on August 1, 1987. In other words, appellant construes the trial court’s 1987 decision as a modification downward to $250 followed by a modification upward to $400. This is a misconstruction of the trial court’s order. As the majority opinion indicates, the court did not make an upward modification. It does not follow, however, that the trial court could act without making findings on appellant’s ability to pay child support. Without findings on appellant’s ability to pay, or another indication that the trial court considered the facts as to appellant’s ability to pay, the law commands us to remand the case rather than to affirm. Moylan v. Moylan, 384 N.W.2d 859, 864-65 (Minn.1986) (<HOLDING>). The dictates of Moylan should be applied. The 
 Holding statements: (A) holding trial court has jurisdiction to reconsider new trial order as long as case is pending (B) holding that the supreme courts proper scope of review of a trial courts decision in a trial de novo of an assessment matter is whether the decision of the trial court was clearly erroneous (C) holding that a defendants attorney can waive the defendants sixth amendment confrontation right so long as the defendant does not dissent from his attorneys decision and so long as it can be said that the attorneys decision was a legitimate trial tactic or part of a prudent trial strategy (D) holding that it was improper for the trial court to instruct the jury that it could not consider the states failure to videotape the defendant (E) holding it improper to independently review the record to find support for a trial courts decision so long as it is unclear whether the trial court considered statutory factors

SOLUTION: (E)

PROBLEM: permitting defendant to evade his negotiated plea by filing a motion to mitigate would discourage the State from entering into future plea bargains with other defendants. See Swett, 772 So.2d at 52. Moreover, the trial court, pursuant to the plea agreement, did not have discretion over defendant’s sentence and, therefore, should have denied defendant’s motion to mitigate. See Arango v. State, 891 So.2d 1195, 1196 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (concluding that denial of a motion for extension of time to file a motion to mitigate was proper because the motion to mitigate would have been futile where the plea agreement imposed upon defendant a specific sentence and did not give the trial court any discretion over the length of the sentence); State v. Brooks, 890 So.2d 503, 505 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (<HOLDING>). We reverse the trial court’s order and remand 
 Holding statements: (A) holding trial court erred in denying defendants motion for arrest of judgment where indictment was insufficient (B) holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss (C) holding that a trial court erred in granting a defendants motion to mitigate where the defendants original sentence was imposed pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement (D) holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment (E) holding that a trial court may rescind an order granting defendants motion for new trial within 75dayperiod allowed for ruling on the defendants motion

SOLUTION:
(C)