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:
felt compelled, at the very least, to guess why the prosecutor behaved as he did. But the Batson framework was designed to avoid such “needless and imperfect speculation,” by asking prosecutors to perform the “simple” task of placing race-neutral reasons for peremptory strikes on the record. Johnson, 545 U.S. at 172, 125 S.Ct. 2410. As a result, this Court must conclude that the Appellate Division applied Batson and its progeny in an unreasonable manner. The Court appreciates the gravity of this holding, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s admonition that AEDPA creates a “highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings.” Cullen, 563 U.S. at 181, 131 S.Ct. 1388. Even in the Batson context, however, AEDPA deference has its limits. See, e.g., Jones, 555 F.3d at 101 (<HOLDING>). Enforcing those limits is the only way to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that new york courts unreasonably applied batson (B) holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york (C) holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership (D) holding that outofstate defendants transmittal into new york of ceaseanddesist letter to new york plaintiff for purported trademark infringement was insufficient to create jurisdiction over defendant in a new york declaratory judgment action (E) holding that new york law applies to this matter

Ex Output:
holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york


Ex Input:
the evidence of rape discussed above in Division 1, we conclude that the evidence at Martin’s trial was sufficient to support the statutory aggravating circumstances found as to both murders. See OCGA § 17-10-35 (c) (2) (requiring a review of the statutory aggravating circumstances foundby the jury);UAP Rule IV (B) (2) (providing that, in all death penalty cases, this Court will determine whether the verdicts are supported by the evidence). See also Ring, 536 U. S. 584; Jackson, 443 U. S. 307. 20. Considering both the murders for which Martin has been sentenced to death and Martin as a defendant, we find that the death sentences imposed in his case were not disproportionate punishment within the meaning of Georgia law. See OCGA § 17-10-35 (c) (3); Gissendaner, 272 Ga. at 716-717 (<HOLDING>). The cases cited in the Appendix support this 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that this courts statutorily mandated proportionality review concerns whether a particular death sentence is excessive per se or is substantially out of line (B) holding that the failure to hold a faretta hearing is per se reversible error and reversing the defendants conviction vacating his death sentence and remanding for a new trial (C) holding that per se statutory rule is not permissible under fourth amendment (D) holding such agreements to be per se illegal (E) holding that denial of access per se is noncompensable

Ex Output:
holding that the failure to hold a faretta hearing is per se reversible error and reversing the defendants conviction vacating his death sentence and remanding for a new trial


Ex Input:
See 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-11(b)(1)(A), 300aa-11(c)(1)(A); see also Schafer, 20 F.3d at 7; Head v. Sec’y of Dept. of Health and Human Servs., 26 Cl.Ct. 546, 547 n. 1 (1992), aff'd, 996 F.2d 318 (Fed.Cir.1993). In this case, neither Plaintiff alleges to have “suffered a relevant injury ... after he or she received a vaccine.” Nor have Plaintiffs asserted any claims in a representative capacity. Therefore, the Vaccine Act’s requirement that petitioners file a Program petition prior to a lawsuit does not bar Plaintiffs from filing the instant action against the Vaccine Manufacturers. See Schafer, 20 F.3d at 5 (explaining that the Vaccine Act’s tort suit ban does not apply to individuals who cannot file petition in the Vaccine Court except in a representative capacity); Head, 26 Cl.Ct. at 550 (<HOLDING>); McDonald v. Lederle Labs., 341 N.J. Super. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that mother who neither owned vehicle in question nor had control over her daughter could not be liable as a matter of law for damages caused by daughters negligent driving (B) holding that an amendment by a plaintiff to allege a claim in her representative capacity as adminis trator of estate under federal law related back to claims brought in her individual capacity under state law such an amendment was not equivalent to the commencement of a new cause of action so as to subject the amendment to the statute of limitations (C) holding that an award to a mother in her individual capacity in an action arising from vaccinerelated injuries received by her daughter did not bar the daughters subsequent action under the vaccine act (D) holding that daughter had no express authority to sign arbitration agreement for mother where no power of attorney and daughter did not discuss signing the agreement with her mother (E) holding that trial court properly terminated fathers obligation to support his seventeenyearold daughter who refused to live with father but instead chose to reside in her own apartment after her mother moved out of state where daughter offered no justifiable reason for not living with her father daughter only contended that her stepmother was too neat for her and that she wanted to live closer to her friends

Ex Output:

holding that mother who neither owned vehicle in question nor had control over her daughter could not be liable as a matter of law for damages caused by daughters negligent driving