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.

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
(A)

statute and provides for a specific penalty of a fine of $1250. Id. § 321 J.2(2)(a)(2); see State v. Daniel, 574 N.W.2d 333, 335 (Iowa 1998) (“[T]he district court may not use the penalty provisions provided in section 903.1(1) if a specific penalty is provided in another statute.”). Because section 903.1 is only applicable “if a specific penalty is not provided fo'd’ and section 321J.2 does provide for a specific penalty, section 903.1 is not applicable as to the fine portion of the sentence. Iowa Code § 903.1(1) (emphasis added). Furthermore, as we noted above, we read general and specific statutes together, but if an irreconcilable conflict exists between the general and specific statutes, then the specific statute prevails. Lutgen, 606 N.W.2d at 314; see Lee, 561 N.W.2d at 354-55 (<HOLDING>); Sandifer, 570 N.W.2d at 257 (same). In this 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that section 1001 controls over the limitations provision of the wrongful death statute (B) holding a specific sentencing statute controls over the general sentencing provisions of section 9031 (C) recognizing that a specific statute controls over a general one (D) holding that specific statutory provisions take priority over general statutory provisions (E) holding that specific statutes create exceptions to general statutes therefore if a provision of a specific statute is inconsistent with one in a general statute on the same subject the specific statute controls
(B)

inequality caused by taxing some property and not taxing other is permitted. The purpose of the proposed exemption, being one properly within the legislature’s discretion in acting for the welfare of the state, furnishes a just reason therefor. Opinion of the Justices, 87 N.H. 490, 491, 178 A. 125, 126 (1935) (quotation and citation omitted). This is precisely the discrimination that violates the commerce clause, as the State has conceded. The limiting power of the United States Constitution over state action in such circumstances, see Opinion of the Justices, 87 N.H. 496, 498-99, 179 A. 409, 410 (1935), renders futile the protectionist effort, but it does not render the effort invalid under the State Constitution. Cf. Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co., 410 U.S. 356, 359 (1973) (<HOLDING>). Having concluded that the legislative 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the states have large leeway in making classifications and drawing lines which in their judgment produce reasonable systems of taxation (B) recognizing that states may establish procedural rules governing litigation in their own courts (C) holding that prisoners do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cells (D) holding that prisoners have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their prison cells (E) holding that the failure of the appellant to discuss in the opening brief an issue on which the trial court might have relied as a basis for its judgment  results in an affirmance of that judgment

(A)