TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: law. Courts were unwilling to recognize a common law cause of action against purveyors of intoxicating beverages because, as a matter of law, consumption, rather than the furnishing of alcohol, was considered the proximate cause of the ultimate damages. See Haafke, 347 N.W.2d at 384; Snyder v. Davenport, 323 N.W.2d 225, 226 (Iowa 1982). Thus, dram shop statutes were enacted to enable tort plaintiffs to bridge the proximate cause gap between the sale of an intoxicating beverage and the subsequent injury or damage caused by the intoxicated patron. In exchange for this new claim, the legislature mandated that liquor purveyors were strictly liable and carefully prescribed the means by which liability may be ascertained. Snyder, 323 N.W.2d at 227. The statute limits recovery for injuri 984) (<HOLDING>); Bauer v. Dann, 428 N.W.2d 658, 661 (Iowa 
 Holding statements: (A) holding tavern employees could be held liable for negligently furnishing alcohol to a patron in violation of a criminal statute or ordinance (B) holding proprietor of a tavern was not liable to officer who sustained injuries caused by a patron while the officer was attempting to make an arrest (C) holding that employer who failed to take remedial action could be held liable for sexual harassment of employee by subcontractors employees (D) holding that tavern will be held liable for serving alcohol to visibly intoxicated patron who then foreseeably becomes involved in a motor vehicle accident (E) holding tavern owner not liable for injuries sustained when intoxicated patron assaulted a police officer

SOLUTION: holding proprietor of a tavern was not liable to officer who sustained injuries caused by a patron while the officer was attempting to make an arrest

PROBLEM: from this guard which, in combination, may suggest an ethnicity or national origin-based animosity predating the August incident. In light of these combined facts, a jury could reasonably conclude that Plaintiff was, in fact, selected either as the target, or at least the “subject,” of the call precisely because of his known ethnicity or national origin. As noted in the Report, it has long been settled that “[prisoners are protected under the Equal Protection Clause ... from invidious discrimination.” Report at 57 (citing Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974)). These rights, extend, for example, to claims based on denial of a right to participate in specific prison work assignments based on race. LaBounty v. Adler, 933 F.2d 121, 123 (2d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). In a recent decision, a district court relied 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that prison conditions are those aspects of prison life affecting the entire prison population (B) holding a prisoner has no constitutional right to a job in prison (C) holding that a prisoner has no constitutionallybased liberty interest in a particular prison classification  because an inmate is not entitled to a particular degree of liberty in prison (D) holding that an inmate has no right to any particular prison job but prison officials cannot discriminate against him on the basis of his race in work assignments (E) holding that an inmate has a first amendment right to file grievances against prison officials

SOLUTION: holding that prison conditions are those aspects of prison life affecting the entire prison population

PROBLEM: all investigative techniques used with respect to every individual that might be part of the drug trafficking organization under investigation); Edwards VI, 994 F.Supp.2d at 3-6, 2013 WL 5587256, at *2-3. The Court fully addressed Defendant’s arguments that his name should have been included under subsection (b) and/or (c) in prior opinions and the Court sees no reason to revisit those rulings. Accordingly, under either theory of the scope of subsection (e), as Defendant Edwards’ was not “specified in the applications ],” a clear prerequisite of 18 U.S.C. § 2518(l)(e) disclosure, the Government had no obligation under subsection (e) to provide “a full and complete statement of the facts concerning all previous applications” of Defendant Edwards. See Edwards V, 943 F.Supp.2d at *128 (<HOLDING>). IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where one argument is dispositive of the appeal we need not address the defendants other arguments (B) holding that the disclosure is a public disclosure within the meaning of the fca if the the prior public disclosure  contained enough information to enable the government to pursue an investigation against the defendant (C) holding that since the government satisfied the disclosure requirements of subsection c without referencing defendant edwards name the court need not address the defendants arguments regarding subsection e (D) holding that in the absence of public disclosure the court need not address whether relator was original source of the information (E) holding where one argument is dispositive of the appeal we need not address the defendants remaining arguments

SOLUTION:
holding that where one argument is dispositive of the appeal we need not address the defendants other arguments