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: an interpretation of section 85.321 that would make any party who holds a mineral interest indefinitely liable to all subsequent interest holders for prior alleged damage to the land. The consequences of such an interpretation run contrary to the legislative intent to protect and encourage the development of Texas natural resources. See Tex. Const. art. XVI, § 59. We are mindful of the consequences of a particular construction. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.023(5); McIntyre, 109 S.W.3d at 745. Absent a legislative enactment clearly abrogating the common law, we conclude that Emerald does not have standing as a subsequent lessee to pursue a claim under section 85.321 for Exxon’s alleged wrongful actions as a prior lessee. See, e.g., Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325, 342-43 (Tex.2006) (<HOLDING>). C. Negligence Per Se Because our holding that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that citys enforcement of the entire state penal code would not constitute a city policy because the city was required to follow state law (B) holding that tex loc govt code  51075 abrogated city of texarkana v city of new boston 141 sw3d 778 texapptexarkana 2004 (C) holding that city attorneys promise in an oral settlement agreement for city to annex and rezone land was within the legal authority of the city of joliet to accomplish and were not absolutely void acts per se therefore city could be estopped from avoiding enforcement of contract (D) holding that the city of boston was acting as a market participant when it contracted for public works construction (E) holding that distribution of catalogs to city addresses constituted use within city subject to taxation under municipal code provision

Output: (B)


Input: Consider Input: evidence sufficient to create a genuine factual dispute.” Sweats Fashions, 833 F.2d at 1562. Plaintiff has neither submitted materials of his own, nor shown how the materials already in the record create a genuine issue of material fact. He has done nothing more than rest on an ambiguous “general denial”: that he has either “refused to accept” his severance pay, or that such pay was never “conveyed” to him.” Pl.’s Opp. at 4. This is not enough to survive a summary judgment motion. Put simply, while defendant has met its burden under Celotex properly to support Cl. 736, 756 (2011) (declining to consider a claim for relief not contained in the plaintiffs complaint and first raised in plaintiffs motion for summary judgment); Michels v. United States, 72 Fed.Cl. 426, 431-32 (2006) (<HOLDING>). Defendant cannot be faulted for failing to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a plaintiff may attempt to survive a rule 12b6 motion by adding essential new facts in a brief on appeal (B) holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid dismissal under rcfc 12b6 by asserting a new claim (C) holding that a respondent cannot avoid the initial pleading element by obtaining a dismissal and filing her own suit (D) recognizing that a rule 12b6 motion is an appropriate vehicle on which to seek dismissal of a claim barred by a prescription statute (E) holding that dismissal pursuant to rule 12b6 is appropriate if the plaintiff is unable to articulate enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face

Output: (B)


Input: Consider Input: It is true that “[i]f a party timely files a petition for rehearing or reconsideration in accordance with the rules of the agency, the time to petition for review [by this court] runs from the date when notice of the order denying the petition is given.” D.C. App. R. 15 (b). By referring to “a petition,” the rule seems to allow only one motion for reconsideration to toll the time for appeal. Id. However, we need not rely solely on such a close parsing of the rule. There are sound policies behind permitting only one motion for reconsideration to extend the time for seeking review. Otherwise, a party could defeat the purpose of setting time limits for seeking appellate review by repeatedly filing motions for reconsideration. See, e.g., Yates v. Behrend, 280 F.2d 64, 65 (D.C. Cir. 1960) (<HOLDING>); De Foe v. Nat’l Capital Bank, 90 A.2d 242, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an unauthorized motion for rehearing does not toll defendants time for filing a notice of appeal (B) holding that a second motion for reconsideration did not toll the time for appeal because to hold otherwise would permit dilatory tactics destructive of the finality of the judgment (C) holding filing of motion for reconsideration does not toll the 30day deadline for filing petition for review (D) holding that the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not toll the period for seeking judicial review of the underlying order (E) holding that notice of appeal did not divest the district court of jurisdiction at the time it was filed because a motion for reconsideration was pending


Output: (B)