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:
Corpus Christi 1977, no writ); Hagemeister v. Vanity Fair Properties, 508 S.W.2d 879, 881 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1973, writ dism’d). Thus, collateral estoppel dictates that venue of any subsequent suit involving the same subject matter and the same parties as the initial suit be governed by the venue determination in the initial suit. See Orozco, 681 S.W.2d at 245-46; Pinney, 558 S.W.2d at 36. First, Miller II involves the same parties as the Windsor suit. Both State & County and Windsor were parties to the Windsor suit. Although Ledbetter and Curtiss were not named in the Windsor suit, as officers of State & County, they were in privity with a party; thus, collateral estoppel would apply to them as well. Cf. Getty Oil Co. v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 845 S.W.2d 794, 800 (Tex.1992) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied sub nom. Youell & Cos. v. Getty 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defendant in second suit was in privity for res judicata purposes because his interests were aligned with those of defendant in first suit which concerned same facts (B) holding that res judicata applies when the question of jurisdiction is raised and determined (C) holding that res judicata applies in deportation proceedings (D) holding that the doctrine of res judicata applies to deportation proceedings (E) holding res judicata also applies to those in privity with parties

Ex Output:
(E)


Ex Input:
Eighth Circuit and a pair of nonprece-dential decisions from this court, all of which assume that lying to a supervising probation officer is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), a felony. See United States v. Wagner, 573 Fed.Appx. 598, 598-99 (7th Cir. 2014); United States v. Quillman, 409 Fed.Appx. 18, 21 (7th Cir. 2011); United States v. Grimes, 54 F.3d 489, 491-92 (8th Cir. 1995). But Grimes was decided before Congress amended § 1001 to exempt from its coverage any false statement made to a “judge or magistrate” by a party in a “judicial proceeding,” 18 U.S.C. § 1001(b), and we haven’t yet considered whether, or to what extent, that exemption covers lies made to a probation officer by a person under supervision, compare United States v. Horvath, 492 F.3d 1075, 1076 (9th Cir. 2007) (<HOLDING>), with United States v. Vreeland, 684 F.3d 653, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that probation is not a sentence (B) holding that defendants lies to probation officer preparing presentence report fall within  1001b exception if probation officer must include particular statement in report (C) holding defendants statement that presentence report was correct did not constitute admission to the nature and cireumstances of the crime reflected in the report (D) holding that if the government fails to object to the presentence report the district courts reliance on the report is reviewed for plain error (E) holding that the defendants statements to the probation officer were insufficient to satisfy the safety valves fifth requirement the probation officer is for purposes of  5c12 not the government

Ex Output:
(B)


Ex Input:
not reached a final decision on the merits, entitling a litigant to relitigate the issue. International Nutronics, 28 F.3d at 970-71 (antitrust claim against joint venture bidders could have been brought in pri- or bankruptcy proceeding, thus, claim was precluded in subsequent suit to avoid the sale); International Union of Operating Eng’r.-Employers Constr. Indus. Pension, Welfare & Training Trust v. Karr, 994 F.2d 1426, 1430 (9th Cir.1993) (in employee action to recover benefits from employer, employee’s audit claim barred by res judicata because it could have been brought in prior proceeding). If litigants could bring a new suit whenever an issue was not previously litigated, no judgment would ever be final. See Ellingson v. Burlington N., Inc., 653 F.2d 1327, 1331 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). The proper method to challenge the decision 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the application of an extended statute of limitations to offenses occurring prior to the legislative extension where the prior and shorter statute of limitations has not run as of the date of such extension does not violate the ex post facto clause citing united states v powers 307 us 214 21718 59 sct 805 807 83 led 1245 rehg denied 308 us 631 60 sct 66 84 led 526 1939 (B) holding that an indemnitees settlement must be in an amount reasonable in view of the size of possible recovery and degree of probability of claimants success against the indemnitee quoting damanti v as inger 314 f2d 395 397 2d cir1963 cert denied 375 us 834 84 sct 46 11 led2d 64 1963 (C) holding that a change in law does not affect the res judicata effect of judgments citing chicot county drainage dist v baxter state bank 308 us 371 375 60 sct 317 319 84 led 329 rehg denied 309 us 695 60 sct 581 84 led 1035 1940 (D) recognizing nardone v united states 308 us 338 60 sct 266 84 led 307 1939 taint test as controlling authority (E) holding that due process forbids the use of a coerced confession irrespective of its truth as announced in jackson v denno 378 us 368 84 sct 1774 12 led2d 908 to be retroactive

Ex Output:

(C)