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.

Q: subpoena does not fit within the statutory language. The question surrounding the subpoena’s validity in no way relates to any information that Star Bank would be required to disclose under FCRA, even assuming that FCRA’s requirements apply to Star Bank. {See 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f) for the definition of a “consumer reporting agency.”) The Hahns’ claimed reliance on whatever Bonynge said regarding the subpoena therefore provides them with no basis to toll the two year statute of limitations. Accordingly, the Hahns have failed to demonstrate that the wilful misrepresentation tolling exception applies to their case. We therefore hold that all of their claims raised under FCRA are barred by the statute of limitations. See Rylewicz v. Beaton Servs., Ltd., 888 F.2d 1175, 1181 (7th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). We find no inequity in reaching this result. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the uccs fouryear statute of limitations provision which barred an action by the plaintiff did not bar a thirdparty contribution and indemnity claim (B) holding that equitable tolling is available to avoid time limitations in the statutory provisions governing veterans benefits (C) holding that parents were not entitled to use infancy tolling provisions and that the statute of limitations barred their claims (D) holding that an ohio tolling statute violated the commerce clause because it gave nonresident corporations the choice between being subject to general jurisdiction in the state by appointing an instate agent for service of process or being subject to a tolling of the statute of limitations on claims against them (E) holding that a plaintiff must fit within the precise wording of the tolling exception to avoid being barred by fcras statute of limitations provision

A: holding that the uccs fouryear statute of limitations provision which barred an action by the plaintiff did not bar a thirdparty contribution and indemnity claim
****
Q: created a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occurred, or allowed the continuance of such a policy or custom, (4) the defendant was grossly negligent in supervising subordinates who committed the wrongful acts, or (5) the defendant exhibited deliberate indifference ... by failing to act on information indicating that unconstitutional acts'were occurring. Id. at 127 (citing Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865, 873 (2d Cir.1995)). The Supreme Court’s decision in Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, which found that a supervisor can be held liable only "through the official’s own individual actions,” id. at 676, 129 S.Ct. 1937, arguably casts doubt on the continued viability of some of the categories set forth in Hastings On Hudson and Colon. See Grullon, 720 F.3d at 139 (<HOLDING>). For the purposes of this case, however, it is 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the same with respect to an apartment (B) holding that no heightened showing is required (C) holding the same with respect to violations of the fifth amendment (D) recognizing that opinion work product subject to discovery upon heightened showing of compelling need (E) recognizing chat iqbal may have heightened the requirements for showing a supervisors personal involvement with respect to certain constitutional violations

A: holding the same with respect to an apartment
****
Q: paragraph borrows from passages in his work, The Seventeenth-Century Revolution in the English Land Law, 43 Clev. St. L. Rev. 221, 268-72 (1995). 7 . "[T]he validity of a limitation is ... to be determined under the circumstances then existing, and the certainty that it will vest within the permitted period, if at all, must be discernible at that date.” 70 C.J.S. Perpetuities § 16. 8 . The deed also grants the option to Otis’ immediately related heirs and assignees without temporal limitation. This offensive aspect of the optionee class as well is remedied by the holdings of this Opinion. 9 . Pathmark Stores, Del.Ch., 663 A.2d at 1191—92. 10 . Smith Deed at 11. 11 . Del.Ch., C.A. No. 1096-S, mem. op. at 15, Allen, C., 1988 WL 34528 (Apr. 13, 1988). 12 . Id. at 15-18. 13 . Id. at 18-19 (<HOLDING>). Another way of looking at it is to say that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding right of first refusal only applied to a voluntary sale and taking of property by condemnation is involuntary therefore right of first refusal not triggered (B) holding that when determining the proper amount for a burdened property that was purchased in a package only two methods suggest themselves as arguably appropriate 1 a determination of the fair market value of the  property burdened by the right of first refusal or 2 a determination of the portion of the  purchase price which based on the percentage of the fair market value of the entire package represented by the  property burdened by the right of first refusal should be allocated to the  property burdened by the right of first refusal (C) holding this type of agreement fixedprice right of first refusal at least in this type of market threatens to act as a complete impediment to the free alienability of land that our law has for centuries sought to encourage (D) recognizing the significance of territorial jurisdiction and concluding that a more stringent approach needs to be followed in order to confer this type of authority (E) holding prior use of one type of drug is not relevant to establish use of another type of drug on a different occasion

A:
holding right of first refusal only applied to a voluntary sale and taking of property by condemnation is involuntary therefore right of first refusal not triggered
****