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:
assault conviction. See Ohio Rev.Code § 3319.39(B). Further, Plaintiffs understanding of the nature of the choice he was required to make is demonstrated by the fact that he discussed the choices with his union representatives' — the President and Vice President of his local union and the President of the Central Ohio union — and discussed the choice with a teacher at Ft. Hayes High School. See Harris, 2008 WL 4186316, *8, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86385, at *20 (finding that the plaintiff “fully understood the options as he testified that he discussed them with his wife and union steward”). Also, Plaintiff was given a reasonable amount of time to choose between termination and resignation as he was given approximately twenty-four hours in which to decide. See Rhoads, 103 Fed.Appx. at 895 (<HOLDING>); Harris, 2008 WL 4186316, *8, 2008 U.S. Dist. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that extremely tight handcuffing for nearly fourteen hours that left indentations in plaintiffs arms for over six hours did not amount to excessive force (B) holding that a difference of opinion about the best course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference (C) holding that a plan administrators decision to deny benefits was arbitrary and capricious even though an attending physician had submitted a form stating the plaintiff could sit for six hours stand for two hours and walk for two hours (D) holding that seven hours was a reasonable amount of time to deliberate meaningfully about the choice (E) holding that delay of several hours after the vehicle was seized was reasonable

Ex Output:
holding that extremely tight handcuffing for nearly fourteen hours that left indentations in plaintiffs arms for over six hours did not amount to excessive force


Ex Input:
558, 563, 564 S.E.2d 94, 96 (2002). DISCUSSION Moody argues the circuit court erred in granting Dairy-land’s motion for summary judgment, asserting Dairyland did not make a meaningful offer of UIM coverage because it failed to offer coverage in amounts less than the statutory minimum limits. We disagree. “The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature.” Hawkins v. Bruno Yacht Sales, 353 S.C. 31, 40, 577 S.E.2d 202, 207 (2003).. Moreover, “[w]here the terms of the statute are clear, [this Court] must apply those terms according to their literal meaning.” Brown v. South Carolina Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Control, 348 S.C. 507, 515, 560 S.E.2d 410, 414 (2002); see also Rowe v. Hyatt, 321 S.C. 366, 369, 468 S.E.2d 649, 650 (1996) (<HOLDING>). In relevant part, section 38-73-470 provides 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the clear and unambiguous words of an insurance contract should be given their plain and ordinary meaning (B) holding that we must give the words in statutes their plain and ordinary meaning (C) holding when interpreting a statute words must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resorting to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statutes operation (D) holding that where the language of a statute is clear and without ambiguity the plain meaning is to be accepted without resorting to the rules of interpretation (E) holding that statutory words must be given their ordinary contemporary meaning

Ex Output:
holding that the clear and unambiguous words of an insurance contract should be given their plain and ordinary meaning


Ex Input:
of [fee] agreements [for representation before the Court] is exclusively within the province of the Court.” R. at 3, 6. On December 2, 1998, the attorney appealed that BVA decision through other counsel. On June 29, 1999, the Secretary filed a motion in that appeal, seeking Court review of the fee agreement for the attorney’s representation before the Court in connection with the October 1991 Court remand in McCreary, supra. As a basis for his motion, the Secretary asserts that the Court’s review of the reasonableness of the fee agreement “may result in a prompt, favorable determination for the appellant which would moot this appeal and conserve judicial resources”; the Secretary cites In the Matter of the Fee Agreement of Mason, 13 Vet.App. 79, 86 (1999) (Mason Fee Agreement) (<HOLDING>). Motion at 2-3. On July 12, 1999, the attorney 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where attorney successfully represents a va claimant before this court  the secretary is obligated under certain circumstances to pay directly to the attorney 20 of the pastdue benefits awarded on the basis of the claim or application for benefits underlying the issues successfully appealed to this court (B) holding that the delivery of an eeoc decision to the former attorney of a claimant did not constitute notice to the claimant (C) holding that the plain language of the regulations requires a claimant to have an intent to file a claim for va benefits (D) holding that a claim based on an insurers failure to provide emergency benefits under state law is completely preempted because the factual basis of the complaint  was the denial of reimbursement of plan benefits (E) holding that a claimants failure to list an impairment either in her application for disability benefits or through her testimony disposes of the claim because the alj was under no obligation to investigate a claim not presented at the time of the application for benefits and not offered at the hearing as a basis for disability

Ex Output:

holding that the delivery of an eeoc decision to the former attorney of a claimant did not constitute notice to the claimant