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.

Ex Input:
of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered. These contacts are to be evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue. 6 . The Supreme Court of Connecticut has already rejected the ¡ex loci delicti rule in workers’ compensation actions in favor of “interest analysis” and the Restatement (Second) “most significant relationship” approach. See Simaitis v. Flood, 182 Conn. 24, 29-33, 437 A.2d 828, 831-32 (1980); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 181 (1971). 7 . See Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-555 (1977) (measure of wrongful death recovery equal to value of decedent’s life and expenses); Marko v. Stop and Shop, Inc., 169 Conn. 550, 553, 364 A.2d 217, 219 (1975) (<HOLDING>); see also Halstead II, supra, 535 F.Supp. at 
 Holding statements: (A) holding warranty liability and strict liability were both shown by proof a product was defective (B) holding that to prevail on strict liability claim for a defective product plaintiff must show the product was defective when it left the defendants possession and control (C) recognizing that a violation of the mbta is a strict liability offense (D) recognizing the significance of control in strict products liability (E) recognizing strict product liability actions

Ex Output:
(E)


Ex Input:
justification was pretextual.” Smith v. District of Columbia, 430 F.3d 450, 455 (D.C.Cir.2005) (quoting Murray v. Gilmore, 406 F.3d 708, 713 (D.C.Cir.2005)). The court should assess the plaintiffs challenge to the employer’s explanation in light of the totality of the circumstances of the case. Aka, 156 F.3d at 1291. The strength of the plaintiffs prima fa-cie case, especially the existence of a causal connection, can be a significant factor in his attempt to rebut the defendant’s legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action. See Aka, 156 F.3d at 1289 n. 4 (stating that “a prima facie case that strongly suggests intentional discrimination may be enough by itself to survive summary judgment”); Laurent v. Bureau of Rehab., Inc., 544 F.Supp.2d 17, 23 n. 5 (D.D.C.2008) (<HOLDING>); Meadows v. Mukasey, 555 F.Supp.2d 205, 211-13 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she was unable to present evidence that she was qualified for the position (B) holding that the plaintiff demonstrated pretext in part by establishing a causal connection (C) holding that to establish a causal connection plaintiff must show that the individual who took adverse action against him knew of the employees protected activity (D) holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury (E) holding that the plaintiff cannot establish pretext because she is unable to show any causal connection

Ex Output:
(E)


Ex Input:
in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, the right against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, and the right to confrontation and cross-examination guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, apply in juvenile proceedings in which a juvenile can be imprisoned for a term of years. 1980 Doe, 62 Haw. at 72, 610 P.2d at 511; see also, e.g., In re Doe, 70 Haw. 32, 36-38, 761 P.2d 299, 302-03 (1988) (1988 Doe) (discussing Sixth Amendment right to confrontation) (abrogated in part on other grounds by State v. Moore, 82 Hawai'i 202, 220-22, 921 P.2d 122, 140-42 (1996) (re foundation required for excited utterance exception to hearsay rale)); In re Doe, 77 Hawai'i 46, 49, 881 P.2d 533, 536 (1994) (1994 Doe) (<HOLDING>). While HRS § 571-11(1) proceedings need not 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing constitutional right to effective counsel (B) recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel (C) recognizing minors right to representation by counsel in a law violation proceeding (D) holding that there is no constitutional right to representation by counsel at a parole revocation (E) recognizing the right to counsel on appeal

Ex Output:

(C)