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.

even if the 1993 judgment was final and appealable, they may challenge the merits of the 1993 judgment in this appeal from the 1995 order. This appeal is untimely only if the District Court’s 1993 decision — which ordered only that ISP submit a plan to remedy the constitutional flaws in its policy — was a final judgment, appealable to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We believe that the District Court’s 1993 order was no more final under § 1291 than the one at issue in Sherpell v. Humnoke School Dist., 814 F.2d 538 (8th Cir.1987), which held that a district court order to a school district to submit a plan to remedy an unconstitutional atmosphere of racial hostility was not an appealable final judgment. Id. at 539; see also Hendrickson v. Griggs, 856 F.2d 1041, 1044 (8th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). The November 1995 judgment is, therefore, the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable (B) holding that the modification or dissolution of an injunction in a limitation of liability proceeding is appealable as a matter of right under  1292a1 (C) holding an order denying a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory and not appealable (D) holding injunction ordering prison to submit plan for reformation of unconstitutional prison conditions not appealable as interlocutory order under 28 usc  1292a1 (E) holding that a rehearing order is interlocutory and not appealable
holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable

private property in the Fifth Amendment presupposes that it is wanted for public use, but provides that it shall not be taken for such use without compensation .... The general rule at least is that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it .will be recognized as a taking. 260 U.S. at 415, 43 S.Ct. at 160. The seminal case regarding the constitutionality of zoning ordinances is Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926). The Supreme Court first noted that zoning ordinances were, at that time, of recent vintage predating the case by approximately twenty-five years. 272 U.S. at 386, 47 S.Ct. at 117. See Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U.S. 394, 36 S.Ct. 143, 60 L.Ed. 348 (1915). The Euclid 60 (E.D.N.Y.1992) (<HOLDING>); Kasdon v. G.W. Zierden Landscaping, Inc., 541 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that cases claiming that government action requires just compensation must be determined on an ad hoc  basis (B) holding that whether an exchange is substantially contemporaneous must be determined on a casebycase basis (C) holding state of the law must be determined at time of challenged action (D) holding that detailed exhaustion scheme of the civil rights of institutionalized persons act cripa is inconsistent with discretion to impose on an ad hoc basis a judicially developed exhaustion rule in other cases (E) holding that to constitute an enterprise under rico the enterprises structure must provide some mechanism for controlling and directing the affairs of the group on an ongoing rather than an ad hoc basis
holding that whether an exchange is substantially contemporaneous must be determined on a casebycase basis

diagnoses were indicated and that Plaintiff’s medical records “continue[d] to support from a psych standpoint” only. (AR 254.) However, the record is inadequate to support MetLife’s rejection of a comorbid diagnosis in favor of finding Plaintiff was disabled solely due to her bipolar disorder that was in partial remission at the time she was diagnosed as having dementia. The Court finds Dr. Stallings’ opinions, based on an eight-year treating relationship with Plaintiff and his consideration of Dr. Whitehurst and Dr. Carstens’s reports, the MRI results, and repeated neuropsychological testing results to be far more reliable than the opinions of Met-Life’s three IPC’s whose opinions were each based on a single file review. See Oliver v. Coca Cola Co., 497 F.3d 1181, 1198 (11th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); Smith v. Continental Cas. Co., 450 F.3d 253, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that when the agencys decision was based on an erroneous and completely unsupported assumption the decision was arbitrary and capricious (B) holding that defendants denial of employees claim for failure to provide objective evidence was arbitrary and capricious because it was based on a mischaracterization of the evidence employee submitted (C) holding it is not arbitrary and capricious to request additional evidence of continuing disability (D) holding that court may set aside lsc decisions that are arbitrary and capricious or are not based on substantial evidence (E) holding that the citys decision was arbitrary and capricious when it was contrary to the evidence and based solely on speculation arising from prior unrelated acts

holding that when the agencys decision was based on an erroneous and completely unsupported assumption the decision was arbitrary and capricious