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: (applying Tennessee law); see also Kerr v. Coming Glass Works, 284 Minn. 115, 169 N.W.2d 587, 589 (1969). Most other courts, however, have set a lower bar. For example in Mondido v. Cory Corp., 483 F.Supp. 26 (E.D.N.Y. 1979), the plaintiff was injured when the glass carafe from her coffee pot broke. The carafe itself was manufactured by Corning, but it was converted into a coffee decanter and sold by Cory, a separate company. Id. at 27. After both companies were found liable, Corning moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict arguing that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence sufficient to support the jury’s determination that the carafe was defective when it left Coming’s plant. Id. The court rejected the motion, noting the plaintiffs evidence that Cory converted the 1967) (<HOLDING>); Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the trial court properly failed to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication and manslaughter where there was no evidence that the appellant was intoxicated at the time of the offense although there was evidence that the appellant had been drinking beer on the day of the offense where there was no evidence concerning the quantity of beer he had consumed (B) holding that plaintiff had successfully traced the defective condition to the manufacturer where there was no evidence of tampering by the retailer (C) holding that manufacturer had no duty to warn its purchasers retailer and transporter of gas of dangers where those purchasers had operated a gas business for years were familiar with the trade journals and already knew the dangers (D) holding that there was a triable issue of fact whether a defendant who applied a sprayon fireproofing material was an agent for the manufacturer of the material and thus whether plaintiff is in privity with the manufacturer (E) holding a manufacturer strictly liable in tort for injury to plaintiff caused by defective power tool
Example Output: holding that the trial court properly failed to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication and manslaughter where there was no evidence that the appellant was intoxicated at the time of the offense although there was evidence that the appellant had been drinking beer on the day of the offense where there was no evidence concerning the quantity of beer he had consumed

Example Input: phrase “periodical ly review and monitor the agent” is untested. Thus, the unanswered question before us is how much reviewing and monitoring is required by a trustee to satisfy the mandates of R.C. 1339.59(A)(3)? The plain meaning of the operative words are (1) review — “to go over or examine critically or deliberately” and (2) monitor — “to watch, keep track of, or check usually for a special purpose.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th Ed.2003) 1067, 801. However, secondary legal authority on this point is scarce and wide ranging: If in the exercise of reasonable diligence, the trustee discovers conditions adversely affecting the security of the investment, it is bound to er (1987), 152 Ariz. 527, 528, 733 P.2d 1110, citing Restatement of the Law 2d, Trusts (1959) 227 (<HOLDING>); Estate of Miller (1964), 230 Cal.App.2d 888, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a trustee who lacks investment experience must seek expert advice regarding investing trust assets while exercising his own judgment (B) holding that a trust beneficiarys state law claims concerning investment of trust assets in affiliated mutual funds satisfied the in connection with a purchase or sale of security requirement of slusa (C) holding that a third party who receives trust property on inquiry notice that a trustee has misappropriated trust funds is also liable for breach of trust (D) holding that although a trustee is not required to watch the ticker as a speculator would    the question of the quality of judgment in holding or disposing of trust assets    coupled with evidence of failure to review or monitor the trust estate and refusal to meet with cotrustees presents a jury question on whether or not the trustee breached his duty (E) holding that a trustee properly withheld trust payments owed to a prior trustee who had misappropriated trust funds
Example Output: holding that a trust beneficiarys state law claims concerning investment of trust assets in affiliated mutual funds satisfied the in connection with a purchase or sale of security requirement of slusa

Example Input: it necessary to inquire into the reasonableness of two delays: first, the delay between the seizure and the mailing of the notice informing claimants of their right to request a hearing and of the NOAA’s intent to initiate civil forfeiture proceedings; and second, the overall delay between seizure and the actual filing of forfeiture actions by the U.S. Attorney. Whether the time lapse between seizure and filing of forfeiture actions rises to the level of due process violation must be determined by weighing four factors: length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of right to a judicial hearing, and prejudice to the defendant. United States v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($8,850), 461 U.S. 555, 565, 103 S.Ct. 2005, 2012, 76 L.Ed.2d 143 (1986) (<HOLDING>). In the present case, Plaintiffs have not made 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that revival by statute of an action which was already timebarred did not violate due process (B) holding that evidence obtained from valid search warrant did not violate constitutional due process provisions (C) holding that 18month delay in filing forfeiture action did not violate due process (D) holding that doctrine does not violate due process (E) holding that a filing deadline under federal land policy and management act carrying a penalty of an automatic forfeiture of a mining claim did not violate due process
Example Output:
holding that revival by statute of an action which was already timebarred did not violate due process