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.

Example Input: documents that may be exempt from disclosure under the Sunshine Law. See Chasnoff v. Bd. of Police Comm’rs, 334 S.W.3d 147, 150 (Mo.App. E.D.2011) (noting trial court reviewed investigative file log of 59 documents in camera to determine disclosure under Sunshine Law); Bill, 935 S.W.2d at 663 (noting trial court granted in camera review of retirement benefit records of government employees; subsequently finding records exempt from disclosure under Sunshine Law); accord State ex rel. Lester E. Cox Med. Ctr. v. Keet, 678 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Mo. banc 1984) (in discovery context, trial court has discretion to examine privileged documents in camera to determine whether redaction and production of documents is appropriate); State ex rel. Fusselman v. Belt. 893 S.W.2d 898, 901 (Mo.App. W.D.1995) (<HOLDING>). In light of the Sunshine Law and the Missouri 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that trial court properly refused to permit disclosure of privileged communications in part because use of the privileged information was not essential to the defense (B) holding that where a party claims a document is privileged and the trial court fails to conduct an in camera review or balancing test the trial court has departed from the essential requirements of the law (C) holding the government has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant (D) holding in camera review by trial court to determine whether crime stoppers information contained brady information would meet the balance of defendants constitutional rights against the states interest in fostering law enforcement (E) holding trial court should have reviewed records requested by criminal defendant in camera to determine whether they contained exculpatory evidence while protecting against unnecessary publication of privileged information
Example Output: holding that trial court properly refused to permit disclosure of privileged communications in part because use of the privileged information was not essential to the defense

Example Input: their quest had generally confirmed their suspicion. Thereafter it was incumbent upon them to make a decision as to their course of action with “reasonable dispatch.” Occidental Life Ins. Co. of North Carolina v. Pat Ryan & Associates, Inc., supra, 496 F.2d at 1268; Johns Hopkins University v. Hutton, supra, 488 F.2d at 917; Baumel v. Rosen, supra, 412 F.2d at 574. The question, therefore, is whether plaintiffs were guilty of unreasonable delay during the period from May 20, 1969 to August 27, 1969. Considering the number of plaintiffs involved and the time necessary for counsel to research legal authorities and draft and prepare the original complaint, this Court concludes that there was no unreasonable delay. Cf. Johns Hopkins University v. Hutton, 343 F.Supp. 245, 255-56 (D.Md.1972) (<HOLDING>), rev’d, 488 F.2d 912 (4th Cir. 1973) (in jury 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that because the plaintiff had not perfected service within 120 days of filing the complaint the complaint was subject to mandatory dismissal (B) holding inter alia that 130 days was reasonable period for researching and drafting of complaint (C) holding that 120 days notice was satisfied by 30 days work plus 90 days pay (D) holding that delays of 115 days and 101 days were both substantial (E) holding that a difference between 384 days prepreference average number of days to payment and 547 days preference average number of days to payment did not make the payments out of the ordinary course of business
Example Output: holding that because the plaintiff had not perfected service within 120 days of filing the complaint the complaint was subject to mandatory dismissal

Example Input: to take responsibility for criminal acts and all repercussions that flow from them); State v. Nelson, 587 So.2d 176, 178 (La.Ct.App.1991) (finding that a voluntary act cannot be used to justify the extinction of a protected right such as child support); Koch v. Williams, 456 N.W.2d 299, 301 (N.D.1990) (finding that a voluntary change of circumstances does not justify modification, espe ated obligor will be relieved of the support obligation unless other assets are available to satisfy it. See, e.g., Peters v. Peters, 69 Ohio App.3d 275, 590 N.E.2d 777, 778-79 (1990) (finding that elimination of income resulting from incarceration is not a voluntary act and that obligation should be suspended unless obligor had other assets); Nab v. Nab, 114 Idaho 512, 757 P.2d 1231, 1238 (1988) (<HOLDING>). Finally, some jurisdictions grant 
 Holding statements: (A) holding a party cannot attempt to modify the allocation of the income tax dependency exemption within the oneyear period imposed under ndcc  14090844 because allowing an obligor or obligee to parse various facets of a child support obligation through numerous chai lenges  would defeat the limited finality feature of the law (B) holding that the testimony of an obligor as to amount of payments was sufficient evidence to support findings of actual support paid (C) holding that government has obligation to provide for health needs of incarcerated prisoners (D) holding that obligor who is incarcerated for crime other than failure to pay support should be relieved of obligation unless obligor has other income or assets (E) holding that a rule presuming a change of circumstances when the amount of child support ordered deviates more than fifteen percent from what would be owed under a current application of the guidelines does not apply if obligor agreed to the deviation
Example Output:
holding a party cannot attempt to modify the allocation of the income tax dependency exemption within the oneyear period imposed under ndcc  14090844 because allowing an obligor or obligee to parse various facets of a child support obligation through numerous chai lenges  would defeat the limited finality feature of the law