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:
other court’s construal of the statute. See Thrivent, 251 S.W.3d at 622-23; J.D. Edwards World Solutions Co. v. Estes, Inc., 91 S.W.3d 836, 839-40 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2002, pet. denied); Poole v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., No. 14-99-00740-CV, No, 14-99-01056-CV, 2000 WL 1721150, at *1, 2000 Tex.App. LEXIS 6825, at *3-*4 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 12, 2000, pet. denied) (not designated for publication); Vondergoltz, 14 S.W.3d at 331. Finally, this argument is contrary to the prevailing view among state courts outside of Texas as well, which have held that an order vacating an award and directing a rehearing (without denying confirmation) is not final and appealable. See City of Fort Lauderdale v. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 31, 582 So.2d 162, 162-63 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1991) (<HOLDING>); Carner v. Freedman, 175 So.2d 70, 71 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the ordering of a rehearing caused the judgment to not be final and appealable (B) holding that a rehearing order was not final or appealable (C) holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable (D) holding an order denying a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory and not appealable (E) holding that a rehearing order is interlocutory and not appealable

Ex Output:
holding that the ordering of a rehearing caused the judgment to not be final and appealable


Ex Input:
the evidence presented by the summary judgment record in a light most favorable to the party against whom the summary judgment was rendered, crediting evidence favorable to that party if reasonable jurors could and disregarding contrary evidence unless reasonable jurors could not. Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572, 582 (Tex.2006) (citing City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 827 (Tex.2005)). When both sides move for summary judgment, and the trial court grants one motion and denies the other, the reviewing court considers both sides’ summary judgment evidence and determines all issues presented. Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex.2005). Where the trial court does not specify the g rv., Inc., 798 S.W.2d 606, 615 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1990, writ denied) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the absence of a causal connection 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiffs consequential damages were too speculative because no evidence connected damages to defendants breach of contract (B) holding that erisa provides relief only for clearly ascertainable damages with the intent to make plaintiffs whole which precludes recovery for speculative future harm (C) holding that no recovery exists for speculative damages (D) holding that nominal damages award was appropriate where the evidence supporting the damages was speculative (E) holding such damages available where local law silent on issue speculative nature of damages does not preclude recovery

Ex Output:
holding that plaintiffs consequential damages were too speculative because no evidence connected damages to defendants breach of contract


Ex Input:
not use the benefit of hindsight to second-guess tactical decisions made by an attorney unless they are unreasonable.... Moreover, the mere fact that a tactic has been unsuccessful does not necessarily indicate that it was unreasonable.”). 28 . Petitioner's conviction became final on March 24, 2003, when the Supreme Court denied his writ of certiorari. 29 . United. States v. Duffus, 174 F.3d 333, 338 (3d Cir.1999) (affirming district court's denial of motion to amend petition outside of one-year statute of limitations to add new claims, stating that "[a] prisoner should not be able to assert a claim otherwise barred by the statute of limitations merely because he asserted a separate claim within the limitations period.”). 30 . United States v. Thomas, 221 F.3d 430, 436 (3d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>) 31 . Duffus, 174 F.3d at 337. 32 . United 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that since defendant failed to timely remove the original complaint which was removable based on federal question jurisdiction defendant thereby waived its right to file a subsequent removal even though the complaint was amended to add a new federal claim where the amendment to the complaint did not change the nature of the action so as to constitute a substantially new suit since the new allegations and claims were not substantially different from those in the original complaint (B) holding that federal rule of civil procedure 15c2 giving court discretion to permit amendment of complaint applies to  2255 petitions insofar as a district court may in its discretion permit an amendment to a petition to provide factual clarification or amplification after the expiration of the oneyear period of limitations as long as the petition itself was timely filed and the petitioner does not seek to add an entirely new claim or new theory of relief (C) recognizing that a court can exercise its discretion not to award costs to a prevailing party as long as the court states its reasons for refusing to permit the award (D) holding that federal rule of civil procedure rule 6a applies to the calculation of the aedpas oneyear limitations period (E) holding that federal rule of civil procedure rule 6a applies to the calculation of the aed pas oneyear limitations period

Ex Output:

holding that since defendant failed to timely remove the original complaint which was removable based on federal question jurisdiction defendant thereby waived its right to file a subsequent removal even though the complaint was amended to add a new federal claim where the amendment to the complaint did not change the nature of the action so as to constitute a substantially new suit since the new allegations and claims were not substantially different from those in the original complaint