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.

Example Input: language, by its express terms, releases only the Club and the Designer. It does not release the Manufacturer either by name or subject matter. 3. Pre-versus-Post-injury Releases In a different line of argument, appellees argue a release mentioning general subject matter is enough to release any and all claims even marginally related to that subject matter. Appellees contend that because the clause releases liability “from injuries or damages arriving [sic] out of or connected with [Sydlik’s] attendance” it necessarily includes any and all claims resulting from an injury connected with Sydlik’s attendance at the gym — in essence all of Sydlik’s claims in this case. As support, appellees cite Memorial Medical Center of East Texas v. Keszler, 943 S.W.2d 433, 435 (Tex.1997) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Appellees fail to address two problems with 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that inclusion of a general release was merely a suggestion of how to terminate the lawsuit and that acceptance was not qualified on use of the specific release and party was willing to discuss the terms of a release (B) holding that a general release of all claims did not operate by its terms to bar prospective antitrust claims nor could it in view of public policy (C) holding that a release covering all claims relating to keszlers relationship with the hospital was enough to release claims arising out of exposure to hazardous materi als (D) holding that a release between two parties cannot bind a thirdparty who was a stranger to the release (E) holding that a release of unknown claims has no effect in the absence of evidence apart from the words of the release
Example Output: (C)

Example Input: limits in which the officer is empowered to act, when a report has previously been made that the vehicle has been stolen or a complaint has been filed and a warrant thereon issued charging that the vehicle has been embezzled.” Reading the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that there is a material issue of fact as to whether Officer Faulk possessed the authority to impound the motorcycle based on the stolen vehicle report. A stolen vehicle report was made, which may give Officer Faulk the authority to impound the motorcycle without a warrant. However, Officer Faulk’s declaration shows that he was aware that the allegedly stolen vehicle was part of a contract dispute between private parties. See Allen v. City of Portland, 73 F.3d 232, 238 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). The fact that Officer Faulk knew that the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a dispute regarding payment of a restaurant bill does not give rise to probable cause to arrest (B) holding that in the absence of a prior indictment probable cause for arrest is determined by the facts in the sworn complaint (C) holding that there was no probable cause to arrest the plaintiff because the facts of the case amounted to a contract dispute (D) holding that there is no  1983 cause of action for false arrest unless the arresting officer lacked probable cause (E) holding that the plaintiff must show that there was a lack of probable cause for the criminal prosecution
Example Output: (C)

Example Input: personal counsel until just before the final mediation in March 2014 and did not settle with Ledcor and Admiral until shortly after that mediation. (See Def. Reply at 3- 4; Stip. Judgment; 2d Martens Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 18; Hudson Letter at 1.) Defendants offer no way for a reasonable fact-finder to trace Comhusker’s non-response in October 2007 and April 2008 through six years of litigation, defense, and mediation and find that non-response to have caused SQI to hire personal counsel and agree to a covenant judgment. Thus, even if Cornhusker violated WAC 284-30-330(2), which the court does not decide, Defendants present insufficient evidence to show that such violation caused injury to SQI’s business or property. See Hangman Ri Ins. Co., 16 F.Supp.3d 1240, 1254-55 & n. 5 (W.D.Wash.2014) (<HOLDING>). The court need not decide the legal issues 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an insured may maintain a cause of action under ifca for a violation of a washington insurance regulation listed in subsection 5 of ifca (B) holding that section 1983 actions based on violation of the fourth amendment may not rest on violation of state law (C) holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation (D) holding that a violation of washington insurance regulations is not a violation of ifca and collecting cases (E) holding that agents violation of irs regulations did not mandate exclusion of evidence obtained as a result of violation
Example Output:
(D)