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.

Ex Input:
objectively by a reasonable person. Cooper v. Albacore Holdings, Inc., 204 S.W.3d 238, 244-45 (Mo.App.E.D.2006). Here, the trial court found that the Employer’s alleged conduct was not sufficient as a matter of law to objectively establish severe or pervasive hostility based on a disability. Whether “a reasonable person would objectively consider [an employer’s] behavior towards [a claimant] severe enough to alter the conditions of her employment and create an abusive working environment” is a question of fact. Cooper, 204 S.W.3d at 245; see also Howard, 149 F.3d at 840; 37 William C established, whether a reasonable person would similarly find the conduct offensive will generally be a question of fact for the jury. Cf. Meyerkord v. Zipatoni Co., 276 S.W.3d 319, 326 (Mo.App.E.D.2008) (<HOLDING>); Y.G. v. Jewish Hasp, of St. Louis, 795 S.W.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a person is seized when a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave (B) holding that whether misrepresentations would be highly offensive to a reasonable person are questions for a jury (C) holding that questions of proximate cause are within the exclusive domain for the jury and may only be removed when reasonable minds cannot differ (D) holding in determining whether driver was insured under terms of policy exclusion of person using vehicle without a reasonable belief person was entitled to do so must be considered (E) holding that whether an encounter is consensual hinges on whether a reasonable person would have felt free to disregard the police and go about his business

Ex Output:
holding that a person is seized when a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave


Ex Input:
Clause. ¶ 13. Respondent’s main interest in this case is his right to run for elected office. In general, the federal courts have declined to hold that the right to run for elective office is “fundamental,” a position that was applied in the seminal Clements decision. There, a plurality of the high court held that “[f]ar from recognizing candidacy as a fundamental right, we have held that the existence of barriers to a candidate’s access to the ballot does not of itself compel close scrutiny.” 457 U.S. at 963 405, 420 (W. Va. 2000) (concluding that constitutional provision forcing judges to vacate office before running for nonjudicial office was supported by “State’s compelling and permissible interest”); Wagner v. Milwaukee County Election Comm’n, 2003 WI 103, ¶ 78, 666 N.W.2d 816 (<HOLDING>). ¶ 16. Respondent’s constitutional arguments 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing the right to trial by jury is a constitutional right to be given the same protections as other constitutional rights (B) holding right to testify was federal constitutional right (C) holding that states legitimate interests in enacting constitutional provision prohibiting judges from holding other public office far outweigh the burdens put upon the petitioners right to be a candidate for office (D) holding that a school superintendent does not have a constitutional right to actually hold his position and execute the duties of the office (E) holding constitutional provision selfexecuting if it grants right that can be put into operation without further legislative action

Ex Output:
recognizing the right to trial by jury is a constitutional right to be given the same protections as other constitutional rights


Ex Input:
principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts. Thus, in the absence of The Brigham, there would be complete diversity and this Cou (Ala.1984) (finding that a hospital can be liable as a seller of goods for breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose for using a defective suturing needle during surgery). This case law indicates that there may be a reasonable basis in law for the Plaintiffs’ breach of warranty claims against The Brigham. The Plaintiffs argue that a hospital may have some duty to warn patients of defects in a medical device or drug by pointing to Massachusetts cases in which the courts held that a pharmacy has a duty to warn customers about side effects in certain circumstances. Cottam v. CVS Pharmacy, 436 Mass. 316, 764 N.E.2d 814, 823 (2002) (<HOLDING>); Brienze v. Casserly, No. 01-1655-C, 2003 WL 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a corporation has a duty under rule 80b6 to provide someone who is knowledgeable in order to provide binding answers on behalf of the corporation (B) holding that employer has nondelegable duty to provide safe workplace (C) holding that there was not complete preemption because the applicable federal statute did not provide a private right of action to redress the same kind of injury alleged in the plaintiffs statelaw claims (D) holding that a pharmacy has a duty to provide a complete list of side effects when they provide a list that a customer would reasonably interpret as complete (E) holding that the defendant pharmacist had undertaken a duty to accurately warn of a drugs side effects with respect to the warning actually given but not a duty to warn of all possible side effects of the medication

Ex Output:

holding that a corporation has a duty under rule 80b6 to provide someone who is knowledgeable in order to provide binding answers on behalf of the corporation