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 Q]: give several reasons for their decision to terminate the plaintiff; namely, that he was over-extended, refused to delegate work, failed to share information, had poor people management skills, and treated 010 employees in an abusive manner. As the “proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back,” defendants also point to, and plaintiff concedes, his use of profanities and abusive language during the phone conversation with Clark. (Doc. 41 at 25.) Defendants were concerned that plaintiffs behavior would result in a lawsuit by Clark or potentially lawsuits by other employees. An employee’s inappropriate behavior toward other employees is a legitimate business reason for termination in the context of a close corporation. See Priebe v. O’Malley, 89 Ohio App.3d 8, 12, 623 N.E.2d 573 (1993) (<HOLDING>). The record demonstrates that defendants acted 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that unless a shareholder can show personal cause of action and personal injury claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty belong to the corporation and not the shareholder (B) holding that shareholder could not prevail on breachoffiduciaryduty claim against other shareholder because alleged mishandling of funds did not result in any injury to the corporation (C) holding that majority shareholders had legitimate business reasons for terminating a shareholder which included the reason that the shareholder was not working well with other employees (D) holding that sole shareholder could recover on behalf of company but not in individual capacity for former shareholder and officers misappropriation of corporate assets (E) holding that corporate officer and majority shareholder could be held liable for acting in a manner that served his interests at the expense of the other shareholders because his interests and the corporations were not necessarily aligned
[EX A]: (C)

[EX Q]: in their Constitution, or from the Congress that the Constitution had empowered. We made a similar point in Nevada v. Hall, 440 U. S., at 416, where we considered a suit against a State in another State’s courts: “This [traditional] explanation [of sovereign immunity] adequately supports the conclusion that no sovereign may be sued in its own courts without its consent, but it affords no support for a claim of immunity in another sovereign’s courts. Such a claim necessarily implicates the power and authority of a second sovereign; its source must be found either in an agreement, express or implied, between the two sovereigns, or in the voluntary decision of the second to respect the dignity of the first as a matter of comity.” Cf. United States v. Texas, 143 U. S. 621, 646 (1892) (<HOLDING>). Subjecting States to federal jurisdiction in 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an action cannot be maintained under young in unique circumstances where the suit against the state officer affects an essential attribute of state sovereignty in a manner that the action must be understood as one against the state (B) holding a states regulation of wyoming national guard was insufficient to implicate a special sovereignty interest because of the dual federal and state nature of national guard service (C) recognizing that a suit by the national government against a state does no violence to the inherent nature of sovereignty (D) holding the governors emergency powers to take private property for the public benefit was a special sovereignty interest but the relief requested was not so much of a divestiture of the states sovereignty to render the suit as one against the state itself (E) holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state
[EX A]: (C)

[EX Q]: to support the jury’s verdict. The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court to consider the appellant’s remaining point of error. WOMACK, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which KELLER, P.J., and MEYERS, J., joined. COCHRAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which JOHNSON and HOLCOMB, JJ., joined. 1 . Nicotinamide is a substance commonly used as a controlled substance additive. 2 . We have held that the State is no longer required to show what amount of a controlled substance and what amount of an adulterant or dilutant make up a mixture for purposes of possession of a controlled substance. Melton v. State, 120 S.W.3d 339, 344 (Tex.Crim.App.2003). 3 . See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Seals v. State, No. 05-03-01105-CR, slip 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a reviewing court must determine whether viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the essential elements of the crime charged (B) holding that when conducting a legal sufficiency review the reviewing court should view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt (C) holding that when reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a state criminal conviction the relevant question under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment is whether after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt (D) holding that in evaluating sufficiency of the evidence in habeas corpus petitions we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt (E) holding that on a review of the sufficiency of the evidence the court determines whether any rational trier of fact could have found all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt
[EX A]:
(B)