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:
Defendants’ Mot. for Summ. Judg. at 22 (“Plaintiffs appear to be claiming that they are entitled to ‘Class of One’ review[.]”)) Furthermore, County Defendants did not explicitly address the appeal issue anywhere in their motion. Given this background, it was not error for the Court to ascribe the “class of one” argument to Plaintiffs’ equal protection challenge, nor was it error for the Court to find that County Defendants had not met their burden on the question of summary judgment. To the extent that County Defendants now contend that Plaintiffs “class of one” argument must fail because no other party has appealed for a waiver, this is a new argument that is not appropriate in a motion for reconsideration. See Haw. Stevedores, Inc. v. HT & T Co., 363 F.Supp.2d 1253, 1269 (D.Haw.2005) (<HOLDING>). Should County Defendants wish to re-visit 
 Holding statements: (A) holding court will generally not consider arguments presented for the first time on appeal (B) holding that reconsideration pursuant to rule 59 cannot be premised on the same arguments presented in the complaint and motions (C) holding that motions for reconsideration are not appropriate if the movant asks the court to hear new arguments or supporting facts that could have been presented originally (D) holding that reconsideration may not be based on evidence and legal arguments that could have been presented at the time of the challenged decision (E) holding that the court did not have jurisdiction to consider an argument not presented to the board in a motion for reconsideration

Ex Output:
(D)


Ex Input:
as it may sound. While our approach to constitutional interpretation ordinarily requires us to begin with the text of the pertinent provi sion, the Supreme Court has emphasized that “the sovereign immunity reflected in (rather than created by) the Eleventh Amendment transcends the narrow text of the Amendment itself.” College Sav. Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 688, 119 S.Ct. 2219, 144 L.Ed.2d 605 (1999) (describing the “whole point” of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890)). Consistent with this conception, the Court has repeatedly recognized sovereign immunity outside the literal text of the Eleventh Amendment. See, e.g., Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 119 S.Ct. 2240, 144 L.Ed.2d 636 (1999) (<HOLDING>); Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 
 Holding statements: (A) holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state (B) holding state immune from suit brought by its own citizens (C) holding state immune from suit brought in state court (D) holding state immune from suit involving a federal question (E) holding that the state is immune from punitive awards

Ex Output:
(C)


Ex Input:
individualized suspicion that each child was in possession of tobacco products or a lighter,” affirmance is merited because such individualized suspicion to search Child and his backpack was nevertheless present. In support of its argument, the State acknowledges that Child’s mere presence at the smoker’s corner prior to stepping onto the school campus does not provide the requisite individualized suspicion. See generally State v. Jason L., 2000-NMSC-018, ¶ 21, 129 N.M. 119, 2 P.3d 856 (noting that New Mexico has not dispensed with the need for individualized suspicion and affirming the lower court’s determination that the actions of the defendant’s companion could not be used to justify the defendant’s detention); State v. Eli L., 1997-NMCA-109, ¶¶ 3, 11, 124 N.M. 205, 947 P.2d 162 (<HOLDING>). However, the State argues that individualized 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing policy and ruling that person who failed to file counterclaim when childs paternity was being determined in earlier litigation should not be allowed to bring later suit to establish that he was childs natural father as this would not be in the childs best interests (B) holding that the childs proximity to the initial reported disturbance the childs dress in gangattire and the childs gangwhistle and the fact that another juvenile in the area had been found carrying a concealed weapon did not provide the necessary individualized suspicion to justify the search of the child in the school parking lot (C) holding that the improper admission of hearsay testimony concerning a childs report of sexual abuse warranted reversal where the childs otherwise uncorroborated testimony was the sole basis for conviction and the hearsay augmented the childs testimony with additional detail in certain areas (D) holding that trial court improperly awarded custody of child to the childs stepmother and grandparents where no pleading in the case was directed at such relief and the childs mother had no notice that the issue would be considered (E) holding in a paternity action that the selection and change of the childs surname from the name chosen by the mother must be based on the trial courts determination that renaming is in the childs best interests and the record must affirmatively show such a name change is required for the welfare of the minor child

Ex Output:

(B)