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.

Q: plenary determination of jurisdiction over five landlocked canals); Weiszmann v. District Engineers, U.S. Army Corp, 526 F.2d 1302 (5th Cir.1976) (same outcome as in Sexton Cove in action brought by landowner); U.S. v. St. Bernard Parish, 589 F.Supp. 617 (E.D.La.1984) (plenary trial determining jurisdictional issue); U.S. v. Lambert 589 F.Supp. 366 (M.D.Fla.1984) (plenary trial determining property was a wetland; proof by preponderance of evidence was measure of government’s burden of persuasion); U.S. v. Ciampitti, 583 F.Supp. 483 (D.N.J.1984) (in action for preliminary injunction, court made own determination that property was a wetland); U.S. v. City of Fort Pierre, 580 F.Supp. 1036 (D.S.D.1983) (plenary trial determining property was a wetland) rev'd, 747 F.2d 464 (9th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Parkview Corp. v. Department of Army Corp of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property (B) holding property not a wetland (C) holding that the debtor could retain exempt property because it was not property of the estate (D) recognizing that exempt property ceases to be property of the estate (E) holding that because property was no longer property of the estate the court could not order turnover

A: holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property
****
Q: 284 So.2d 905, 915-16 (La.1973); see Tesvich v. 3-A’s Towing Co., 547 So.2d 1106, 1111 (La.Ct.App.1989) (“[W]e have concluded on the basis of Lombard that the claim of each plaintiff with respect to his or her leases constitutes a separate occurrence.” (citation omitted)); see also Reynolds v. Transcon. Ins. Co., Civ. A. Nos. 94-1367, 94-1432, 1995 WL 16795, at *5-6 (E.D.La. Jan.17, 1995) (Duval, J.) (discussing and applying Lombard, Tesvich, and Soc’y of the Roman Catholic Church v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 26 F.3d 1359 (5th Cir.1994)). The property damage in the DuroSeal petitions allegedly arose because of several negligent and fraudulent acts on the part of Jotun and others. Each of these acts does not constitute a separate bes, Inc., 924 So.2d 1131, 1133 (La.Ct.App.2006) (<HOLDING>); Korossy v. Sunrise Homes, Inc., 653 So.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a partys responsibility for damage from any cause included damage cause by the indemnitee (B) holding that property damage occurred when condominium owners received architects report detailing damage not during the four years of construction of the condos (C) holding that property damage occurred when homeowners noticed damage not when house was improperly constructed (D) holding that a similar exclusion denies coverage for property damage to the particular part of the real property that is the subject of the insureds work at the time of the damage if the damage arises out of those operations (E) holding that termite damage does not fall within the meaning of property damage in the policy because the alleged misrepresentations did not cause the damage the termites did

A: holding that a partys responsibility for damage from any cause included damage cause by the indemnitee
****
Q: Tort Claims Rossi’s action in the district court asserted four state law torts; 1) tortious interference with contractual relations, 2) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, 3) libel and defamation, and 4) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Because there is no genuine issue of material fact as to any of these claims, each must fail, To establish a claim for tortious interference with contractual relations, Rossi must prove “the absence of justification on the defendant’s part ...” Lee v. Aiu, 85 Hawai'i 19, 936 P.2d 655, 668 (1997). Rossi must also establish the absence of justification to prevail on his intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claim. See Kutcher v. Zimmerman, 87 Hawai'i 394, 957 P.2d 1076, 1087 n. 15 (1998) (<HOLDING>). The MPAA’s compliance with the notice and 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an action for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage may not be directed against an individual who is an officer and the sole stockholder of a corporation which is a party to the economic relationship at issue (B) holding that the difference between interference with contract and prospective relations is that second tort requires showing of malice (C) recognizing the tort of wrongful interference with anothers business relations (D) recognizing action for tortious interference with prospective advantage (E) recognizing the tort of interference with prospective contractual relations as a subspecies of the broader tort of interference with prospective economic advantage

A:
holding that an action for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage may not be directed against an individual who is an officer and the sole stockholder of a corporation which is a party to the economic relationship at issue
****