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]: issue in question.” Bradley Ventures, Inc. v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Ark., 371 Ark. 229, 264 S.W.3d 485, 490 (2007). UAMS maintains that collateral estoppel applies to Dodson I and II, barring both of Dodson’s pending claims, but our discussion is considerably narrower. First, I would set aside Dodson I because I am uncertain that the court’s relevant finding was “essential to the judgment.” Powell, 289 S.W.3d at 444. Second, I would set aside Count II, which is Dodson’s impliedeontract claim. Importantly, Count II is premised on UAMS’s conduct after Dodson II, i.e., sending Dodson bills for the embryo storage fees, and therefore cannot be precluded by the earlier chancery court decision. See Ripplin Shoals Land Co. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 440 F.3d 1038, 1044 (8th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); cf. id. at 1042 (“[R]es judicata does not 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an assignment does not modify the terms of the underlying contract (B) recognizing that a final judgment may provide for a particular standard upon which to modify a final judgment (C) holding that a prior judgment regarding a permit to modify an existing bridge does not preclude a plaintiff from challenging a decision on a new application describing and a different bridge design (D) holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit a design defect products liability expert to submit an untimely addendum stating a new claim of failure to warn after defense expert refuted the basis of original design defect opinion (E) holding untimeliness of motion to modify medical insurance payment did not preclude motion to modify maintenance
[A]: holding that an assignment does not modify the terms of the underlying contract


[Q]: the defendants conceded that, as a general rule, homogenous precinct analysis may be more reliable than ecological regression, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred in accepting Mag-giotto's numbers and treating the election as arguably split-preference. 5 . The defendants also argue that, even if there is a statutory violation, Section 2 should not be enforced because it is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, principles of federalism, and' the "congruence and proportionality” test established by City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997). We need not address this argument in light of our holding that Section 2 has not been violated. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 485, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 347, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a district courts ruling may be upheld on an alternative ground supported by the record (B) holding that judgment may be affirmed on any ground supported by the record (C) holding that a successor judge may consider a motion for new trial in a case tried to the court where she is not required to weigh conflicting evidence or pass upon the credibility of witnesses but can resolve such issues  upon evidence which is not materially in conflict (D) holding that to preserve an issue for appellate review the specific legal argument or ground upon which it is based must be presented to the trial court (E) recognizing that courts should not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of
[A]: holding that a district courts ruling may be upheld on an alternative ground supported by the record


[Q]: issuing state was illegible. Significantly, the statute does not restrict its operation solely to Virginia license plates, but requires that “every license plate” be “clearly legible.” Va.Code 46.2-716. Thus, the condition of the license plate provided DeCoster with an objectively reasonable basis for the traffic stop, and the fact that the traffic stop was a pretext for further investigation is irrelevant and does nothing to impair the stop’s constitutionality. Whren, 517 U.S. at 813, 116 S.Ct. 1769. Similarly unpersuasive is defendant’s second argument, that Va.Code 46.2-716 violates the negative commerce clause, and therefore cannot serve as the basis for a traffic stop. In support, defendant cites Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617, 627, 98 S.Ct. 2531, 57 L.Ed.2d 475 (1978) (<HOLDING>), and the more recent case of Granholm v. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a new mexico statute that criminalized dissemination of materials that are harmful to minors violated the commerce clause because the nature of the internet made it impossible for the statute to reach purely intrastate conduct and the benefits to be achieved were limited (B) holding that a new jersey statute prohibiting the importation of waste materials into the state violated the negative commerce clause (C) recognizing israel had no interest in denying its citizens the substantive advantages of new jersey defamation law in new jersey residents claims for defamation published in new jersey (D) holding that the statute as applied violates the commerce clause (E) holding that an arkansas statute discriminated against interstate commerce by banning the importation of most outofstate waste even though a small amount of outofstate waste was allowed into arkansas under the statute
[A]:
holding that a new mexico statute that criminalized dissemination of materials that are harmful to minors violated the commerce clause because the nature of the internet made it impossible for the statute to reach purely intrastate conduct and the benefits to be achieved were limited