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.

Example Input: process.” Final Rule Establishing an Administrative Appeal Process for the Regulatory Program of the Corps of Engineers, 65 Fed. Reg. at 16488. Additionally, the preamble notes that, because physical circum stances can change over time, "JDs are not necessarily 'final' even as an administrative matter.” Id. Based on the foregoing, it seems rather doubtful that the Corps’ decision to certify Dr. Booth’s delineation constituted a final determination entitled to preclusive effect. See Zurcher v. Bilton, 379 S.C. 132, 135, 666 S.E.2d 224, 226 (2008) (issue preclusion applies when an issue has been "actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment”) (emphasis added). 10 . See Chasm Hydro, Inc. v. N.Y. State Dep't of Envtl. Conservation, 58 A.D.3d 1100, 872 N.Y.S.2d 235 (2009) (<HOLDING>). 11 . See Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481, 107 S.Ct. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding local regulation of hazardous waste disposal facilities preempted by comprehensive and detailed state regulatory scheme (B) holding that federal power act and cwa largely preempted the field of regulating hydroelectric facilities (C) holding pennsylvania statute regulating subrogation is a law regulating insurance (D) holding that subsequent congressional statute regulating registration of aliens retroactively preempted state law (E) holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law
Example Output: (B)

Example Input: matter. When it is clear, however, from the relevant parts of the contract taken together and considered with the facts and circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement, that the obligation in question was within the contemplation of the parties or was necessary to effect their intention, then such obligation may be implied and enforced. But when the contract between the parties speaks to the obligation sought to be implied, the courts will not write that implied obligation into the contract. Stated conversely, there may be an implied covenant on the part of the lessee (in the absence of any expressed on the subject as in the lease).[ ] Id. (citations, alterations, and quotation omitted). See also Nearburg v. Yates Petroleum Corp., 123 N.M. 526, 943 P.2d 560, 569 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Thus, in accordance with New Mexico law, any 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that endorsement would prevail if inconsistent with policy provisions (B) holding that courts cannot imply covenants which are inconsistent with express provisions (C) holding that state courts may not enforce racially restrictive covenants (D) holding that the restrictive covenants at issue are unenforceable as a matter of public policy (E) holding that the law will not imply a contract where there is an existing express contract covering the same subject matter
Example Output: (B)

Example Input: see Danden Petroleum, Inc. v. Northern Natural Gas Co., 615 F.Supp. 1093, 1099 (N.D.Tex.1985) (“Injuries which can be compensated by money damages at a later time are not irreparable and do not warrant the extraordinary remedy of an injunction.”). In analyzing the evidence in this case, the Court revisits Robert Perkins’s testimony that PEI’s reputation would be damaged by-continued display of PEI images in close conjunction with “hard-core pornography.” Although the Court did not find the past harm to have risen to the level of tarnishment required for dilution of trademark under all the circumstances, the evidence is at least probative on the issue of potential harm for which legal remedy is inadequate. See Valley v. Rapides Parish Sch. Bd., 118 F.3d 1047, 1053-56 (5th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, the Court finds a strong 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that potential loss of a contract constitutes irreparable injury (B) holding that monetary damages do not generally constitute irreparable harm (C) holding potential damage to reputation to constitute irreparable harm (D) holding that the lack of control over ones mark creates the potential for damage to  reputation which constitutes irreparable injury for the purpose of granting a preliminary injunction in a trademark case (E) holding that the potential loss of valuable business may constitute irreparable harm
Example Output:
(C)