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.

Input: Consider Input: Respondents reversed their position at oral argument) that once subsection four applies, subsection one no longer governs. The parties do dispute the meaning of the word “claimant” in subsection four. Under the plurality’s view, as Chief Justice Eismann points out in the Gillihan II dissent, the word “claimant” in subsection four must be synonymous with the idea of “prevailing party.” This is because, in order for the word “claimant” in subsection four to refer to either the defendant or plaintiff, it must also signify that such a defendant or plaintiff has prevailed in the personal injury action, since losing parties do not recover attorney fees under Idaho law. See Gillihan II at 271, 92 P.3d at 521 (Eismann, J., concurring in disse 53 Idaho 200, 201, 23 P.2d 739, 740 (1933) (<HOLDING>); In re Segregation of School Dist. No. 58 from 
 Holding statements: (A) holding elimination of provisions prior to passage of bill requiring a certificate of convenience and necessity indicates legislature intentionally omitted such provisions (B) holding that statutory notice provisions for notice of default and opportunity to cure were waived by provisions of note as to one obligor though provisions applied to coobligor who used property as residence (C) holding that the hearing provisions of the ina supersede the provisions of the apa (D) holding predecessor statute unconstitutional specifically because of vicariousliability provisions elimination of intent requirement (E) holding that such provisions are valid

Output: (A)


Input: Consider Input: of the offense charged but convict on the included offense. However, the mere chance that a jury may reject uncontroverted testimony and convict on the lesser charge does not require the trial court to instruct the jury on the lesser charge." People v. Ramires, 18 P.3d 822, 827 (Colo.App.2000) (internal citations omitted). 184 The offense of patronizing a prostituted child requires, as relevant here, "knowingly engaging in an act" where "a child perform[s] or offer[s] or agree[s] to perform ... any [sexual] act ... in exchange for money." § 18-7-406(1)(a), 18-7-401(6). Based on the language of the statute, actual performance of a sexual act is not necessary; a mere offer or agreement to perform is sufficient, provided money has been promised. See supra Part V.A; Madden, 111 P.3d at 460 (<HOLDING>). 185 Here, because the uncontrovert-ed 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a mortgage transfer does not take effect until the mortgagee gives value in exchange for the mortgage (B) holding determination of property value in case to decide if assessed value was excessive is not a liquidated demand where only evidence of property value was the conclusory allegation of value in plaintiffs unsworn petition (C) holding that a party invoking a  547c1 defense must prove the specific measure of the new value given to the debtor in exchange for what was received (D) holding that patronizing a prostituted child requires some record evidence that the defendant attempted to give anything of value  in exchange for sex (E) holding that under 11 usc  547c4 a later payment in exchange for new value only deprives the defendant of the new value defense if the later payment is an otherwise unavoidable transfer

Output: (D)


Input: Consider Input: the residential program. The remain der of the terms and conditions of the disposition order are affirmed. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED. GRIFFIN and ORFINGER, R. B, JJ., concur. 1 . We affirm the remaining issues advanced by I.B. on appeal without discussion. 2 . Fearing that this legislative change left juveniles without a procedure to correct unpre-served disposition errors that did not constitute fundamental error, the Florida Supreme Court adopted ) (concluding that juvenile could not be sentenced to commitment not to exceed 364 days followed by post-commitment community control not to exceed 364 days for battery, where maximum term that juvenile could have received for offense as an adult was one year); see also J.G. v. State, 783 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Some Florida courts have held that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that state may not subject indigent defendants to period of imprisonment beyond statutory maximum (B) holding pursuant to section 985231 ld florida statutes 1999 that duration of commitment which includes any period in an aftercare program may not exceed the statutory maximum for the offense (C) holding apprendi is not implicated where sentence does not exceed statutory maximum sentence authorized for the offense in its simplest form (D) holding that a defendant could not assert an error under apprendi v new jersey because his sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum (E) holding that restitution in the full amount of each victims losses does not exceed the statutory maximum


Output: (B)