TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: misconduct “that has affected the grand jury’s charging decision and is brought to the attention of the trial court before the commencement of trial”). The defendant suggests that Benjamin should not be applied retroactively to bar her claim. See Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106-07, 92 S.Ct. 349, 355, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971) (setting forth a three-part test for determining whether a judicial decision should be applied retroactively). We sympathize with the defendant’s belief that retroactive application of Benjamin to preclude any appeal would “pro duce substantial inequitable results.” Id. at 107, 92 S.Ct. at 355 (quoting Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701, 706, 89 S.Ct. 1897, 1900, 23 L.Ed.2d 647 (1968)); cf. Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1339-40 (9th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, _ U.S. _, 107 S.Ct. 928, 93 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a shortened statute of limitations should not be applied retroactively as to bar otherwise valid civil claims (B) holding that annulment of the automatic stay can be retroactively applied to validate proceedings that otherwise would be void (C) holding amendment to statute of limitations was a procedural amendment to be applied retroactively in a medical malpractice case (D) holding statute that extended statute of limitations for certain criminal sexual conduct could not be applied retroactively to a prosecution commenced after the limitations statute in effect at the time of the alleged offense had expired (E) holding generally that new rules of law should not be applied retroactively in habeas corpus cases

SOLUTION: holding that annulment of the automatic stay can be retroactively applied to validate proceedings that otherwise would be void

PROBLEM: Dr. Brewer’s reports addressed the conduct of OGA’s employees, Drs. Jacobs and Gunn, the reports identified Dr. Gunn as OGA’s employee, and McCoy’s original petition alleged that OGA was vicariously liable for the conduct of Jacobs and Gunn under the doctrine of respondeat superior and the requirements of the Texas Professional Association Act. See Troeger v. Myklebust, 274 S.W.3d 104, 110 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. denied) (rejecting claim that conduct of dentist, who was sole defendant, was not implicated because her name was omitted from expert report and holding that dentist waived challenges to expert report by failing to raise objections within twenty-one days after service); Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Dale, 188 S.W.3d 877, 879 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, no pet) (<HOLDING>). In response, OGA disputes that its conduct 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that medical center was not required to be named in expert report addressing its residents conduct because plaintiffs alleged no directliability claims against it and noting that medical center was implicated in report and so waived all its objections when it failed to object to sufficiency of report within twentyone days after service (B) holding that causation section of expert medical report was not eonclusory when read in context of entire report (C) holding expert report requirement fulfilled in claim against nurse by providing expert report of nurse as to standard of care and expert report of medical doctor as to causation (D) holding that expert report addressing hospitals conduct was not required when plaintiffs sole theory against hospital was vicarious liability based on ostensible agency and explaining that the conduct by the hospital on which the agency relationship depends is not measured by a medical standard of care these are principles of agency law on which no expert report is required (E) holding that a complaint that a report was not timely served was not subject to the twentyone day deadline to object to the sufficiency of a report under former section 74351a

SOLUTION: holding that causation section of expert medical report was not eonclusory when read in context of entire report

PROBLEM: separate from damages, and he did not object to proceeding to trial in his yellow prison jumpsuit and leg shackles after he mistakenly sent his civilian clothes to the county jail instead of to the federal courthouse. Thus Dodd cannot argue those issues now. See Provident Sav. Bank v. Popovich, 71 F.3d 696, 699-700 (7th Cir.1995) (explaining that pro se litigants are subject to same waiver rules as counseled parties). As to the questions properly before us, we turn first to Dodd’s argument that the district court erred in admitting the testimony of Croymans and Kelsheimer. Dodd objected generally to Croymans’s testimony but failed to object at all to Kelsheimer’s, so we confine our review to Croymans’s testimony. See Wilson v. Williams, 182 F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cir.1999) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). The decision to admit testimony must stand 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that appellate courts determine the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction based on a review of all of the evidence admitted at trial (B) holding that a claimed violation of the right to a public trial must be preserved for review by a timely objection at trial (C) holding that an objection raised in a motion to suppress evidence preserves the issue for appeal despite the lack of further objection at trial (D) holding that lack of objection at trial precludes appellate review of allegedly misused evidence (E) holding party must make timely and specific objection at trial to preserve issue for appellate review

SOLUTION:
holding that appellate courts determine the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction based on a review of all of the evidence admitted at trial