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: needlessly leave out of our decisions an important source of information about the child, and in the end, it is the dependent child who suffers. After all, the children count here, not the agency. I believe that we gain nothing, and lose precious information by refusing foster parents standing. Standing to sue simply ensures that a particular party has a sufficient stake in a controversy before the court to obtain a judicial resolution. It should not be a doctrine to close the court house doors on parties who have a real interest in the matter at hand. I believe that the Juvenile Act confers “standing,” subject to traditional jurisprudential limits, for the agency, the grandparent, and the foster parents to file these petitions. See also Silfies v. Webster, 713 A.2d 639 (Pa.Super.1998)(<HOLDING>); McLaughlin v. Pernsley, 654 F.Supp. 1567 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that party standing in loco parentis has standing to seek custody of child (B) holding that a grandmother who frequently babysat her granddaughter was not in loco parentis and thus lacked standing to seek custody of her granddaughter (C) holding that prevailing party has no standing to appeal (D) holding that grandmother in loco parentis of her three grandchildren had protected liberty interest in their future care and custody (E) holding that domestic partner who assumed a parental status over her partners child and performed parental duties with the partners permission stood in loco parentis to the child and had standing to seek partial custody and visitation
Example Output: holding that a grandmother who frequently babysat her granddaughter was not in loco parentis and thus lacked standing to seek custody of her granddaughter

Example Input: up to $2,000, which would have set aside, in a literal sense, a discrete “amount . . . necessarily consumed for the support of’ the taxpayer and his or her family. Opinion of the Justices, 82 N.H. at 572. This description, made in reference to an income tax exemption, is not applicable to the question of whether an income tax assessed on gross rather than net income is unfair, unreasonable, or disproportionate. Certainly nothing in that opinion suggested that such an exemption was necessary in order to render that tax constitutional. Where we have found that a tax was unfair, unreasonable, or disproportionate, the constitutional deficiency has been of a much different character than the one the petitioners allege here. See Claremont School Dist. v. Governor, 142 N.H. 462, 470-71 (1997) (<HOLDING>); Opinion of the Justices, 132 N.H. 777, 783-84 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that state legislature should determine whether to cure discriminatory tax by enforcing tax as to all or forgiving tax in its entirety (B) holding that property tax was a state tax and was thus disproportionate unreasonable and unfair because of discrepancies in tax rates of up to 400 between school districts (C) holding that the essential purpose of use tax is the recoupment of lost sales tax revenue (D) holding that the tax was indirect even though the recipient could not shift the tax to others (E) holding that taxpayers failure to follow state requirement that he report change in federal income tax did not except state tax liability from discharge
Example Output: holding that state legislature should determine whether to cure discriminatory tax by enforcing tax as to all or forgiving tax in its entirety

Example Input: S.Ct. 1627, 161 L.Ed.2d 577. In so doing, the Court recognized that while “an initially inflated purchase price might mean a later loss ... that is far from inevitably so.” Id. at 342, 544 U.S. 336, 125 S.Ct. 1627, 161 L.Ed.2d 577 (emphasis in original). Indeed, “that lower price may reflect, not the earlier misrepresentation, but changed economic circumstances, changed investor expectations, new industry-specific or firm-specific facts, conditions, or other events, which taken separately or together account for some or all of that lower price.” Id. at 343, 544 U.S. 336, 125 S.Ct. 1627, 161 L.Ed.2d 577. The Supreme Court’s holding in Dura did not represent a break from this Circuit’s approach to loss causation, but rather reaffirmed the analysis we laid out in Lentell, 396 F.3d at 173 (<HOLDING>). In Lentell, we described the two requirements 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the basic elements of section 10b and rule 10b5 claims are 1 a material misrepresentation or omission 2 scienter ie a wrongful state of mind 3 a connection with the purchase or sale of a security 4 reliance often referred to in cases involving public securities markets fraudonthemarket cases as transaction causation 5 economic loss and 6 loss causation ie a causal connection between the material misrepresentation and the loss internal citations omitted (B) holding under the policy language that diminution of market value is not a cause of loss but a measure of a loss caused by something else (C) holding where the defendant knows as well as anyone the value of the assets he concealed the intended loss calculation may properly be based upon the value of the assets concealed (D) holding that defendant must prove when the services were rendered to establish that the new value exception applies (E) holding that to prove loss causation a plaintiff must allege that the misstatement or omission concealed something from the market that when disclosed negatively affected the value of the security
Example Output:
holding that the basic elements of section 10b and rule 10b5 claims are 1 a material misrepresentation or omission 2 scienter ie a wrongful state of mind 3 a connection with the purchase or sale of a security 4 reliance often referred to in cases involving public securities markets fraudonthemarket cases as transaction causation 5 economic loss and 6 loss causation ie a causal connection between the material misrepresentation and the loss internal citations omitted