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.

Ex Input:
the juror rather than leaving a doubt as to his or her impartiality.” Weinstein Design Group, Inc. v. Fielder, 884 So.2d 990, 994 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (quoting Bryant v. State, 765 So.2d 68, 71 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)). We conclude that prospective jurors Forber and Spurlin’s responses were sufficient to create a reasonable doubt as to their impartiality. Admittedly, the State attempted to rehabilitate these prospective jurors and they said they could follow the jury instructions and be fair and impartial. However, based on the totality of the answers given, we find a reasonable doubt as to the ability of these two prospective jurors to serve impartially in this case. Consequently, they should have been stricken for cause. See, e.g., Somerville v. Ahuja, 902 So.2d 930 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (<HOLDING>); Bell v. Greissman, 902 So.2d 846 (Fla. 4th 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the trial court did not err by allowing the prosecution to question prospective jurors regarding their ability to announce a death sentence in an appropriate case (B) holding that prospective jurors should have been excused for cause because they did not affirmatively state that their bias against the plaintiffs would not affect their ability to render an impartial verdict (C) holding that a defendant could not establish stricklands prejudice prong because any erroneous exclusion of an impartial juror was harmless because we have every reason to believe the replacement was also an impartial juror the defendant does not dispute that he was convicted and sentenced by an impartial jury and he presents no reason to think that a jury composed of a slightly different set of impartial jurors would have reached a different verdict (D) holding that plaintiffs did not have standing because they did not sue the party with the clear ability to act (E) holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike for cause two potential jurors who had heard andor read about the case but indicated that they could render a fair and impartial verdict based on the evidence presented

Ex Output:
(B)


Ex Input:
Inc., and therefore, had standing. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied Appellants’ motion for a directed verdict on this ground. VII. Directed Verdict on Negligence Appellants contend the trial court erred in failing to grant a directed verdict on negligence. Specifically, they maintain the existence and scope of a duty are legal questions, and no evidence was presented pertaining to duties owed by Appellants to the Association. We find this issue is not preserved for our review. Although Appellants moved for a directed verdict at the close of all testimony, they did not move for a directed verdict on the specific basis that no evidence indicated they owed a duty to the Association. Creech v. S.C. Wildlife & Marine Res. Dep’t. 328 S.C. 24, 34, 491 S.E.2d 571, 576 (1997) (<HOLDING>); see also Rule 50(a), SCRCP (“A motion for a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waives the issue (B) holding that failure to raise issue in brief constitutes waiver of appeal of the issue (C) holding that defendant failed to raise a constitutional issue at trial and thus failed to preserve the issue for appellate review (D) holding the appellants failure to raise a particular issue in its directed verdict motion precludes appellate review of that issue (E) holding that defendant failed to raise a constitutional issue at trial and thus waived appellate review of that issue

Ex Output:
(D)


Ex Input:
employed statistical method used in a variety of séttings — that randomly perturbed the lines of an initial districting plan to generate successive new plans. Id. at 13-15. The computer algorithm then eliminated from the 150,000 plan sample all “unreasonable” districting plans — plans with noncontiguous districts, plans with population deviations exceeding 0.1 percent, plans that were not reasonably compact under common statistical measures of compactness, plans that did not minimize the number of county and VTD splits, and plans that did not comply with the' Voting Rights Act — yielding the 24,518-plan ensemble. id. at 15-17. The criteria Dr. Mattingly used to eliminate “unreason able” plans from his sample reflect traditional redistricting criteria, see Harris, 136 S.Ct. at 1306 (<HOLDING>), and nearly all non-partisan criteria adopted 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an apportionment plan with a maximum population deviation under 10 falls within the category of minor deviations  from mathematical equality among state legislative districts that are insufficient to make out a prima facie case of invidious discrimination under the fourteenth amendment notwithstanding that the plain language of the constitution references no such statistical threshold (B) holding that bail revocation serves to maintain  the integrity of the judicial process and the authority of the courts and protect  the public from potentially dangerous persons (C) holding that the state as well as the defendant has a right to rely on compliance with rule 16 (D) holding that equitable considerations did not toll the statute of limitations under the tort claims act where plaintiffs conduct was not in strict compliance with congressional waiver of immunity (E) recognizing compactness contiguity maintaining integrity of political subdivisions and potentially compliance with the voting rights act as legitimate considerations for deviations from population equality in state redistricting plans

Ex Output:

(E)