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.

Input: Consider Input: in this sense, inasmuch as he has alleged an imminent violation of his statutory right to personal privacy within the trial court’s power to enjoin. “Standing” can also refer to various judicially-created limitations on the exercise of jurisdiction, such as “the general prohibition on a litigant’s raising another person’s legal rights, the rule barring adjudication of generalized grievances more appropriately addressed in the representative branches, and the requirement that a plaintiffs complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984). It is not, however, standing in this so-called prudential sense with wh out the phrase, in Rector v. City of Bowling Green, 594 S.W.2d 891 (Ky.1979) (<HOLDING>). The question thig case presents is who, aside 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that nonindustrial property owners did not have standing under the asserted statute to challenge an annexation (B) holding that representation by state officials that they have no present plan to enforce a statute does not divest plaintiffs of standing to challenge the statute because the states position could well change (C) holding that petitioners who asserted neither a property interest nor a possessory interest in property searched or seized were not entitled to assert a constitutional challenge to the search (D) holding annexation ordinance void (E) holding that person who is not party to contract does not have standing to challenge contract

Output: (A)


Input: Consider Input: the reasons for the plaintiffs failure to obtain the action or for not making the effort. Addressing the identical federal rule, the Supreme Court has stated that “[o]n its face, Rule 23.1 speaks only to the adequacy of the shareholder representatives pleadings.” Kamen, supra, 500 U.S. at 96, 111 S.Ct. 1711. The rule itself does not create a demand requirement. Id. “[T]he function of the demand doctrine in delimiting the respective powers of the individual shareholder and of the directors to control corporate litigation clearly is a matter of ‘substance, not procedure.’ ” Id. at 96-97, 111 S.Ct. 1711 (quoting Daily Income Fund, supra, 464 U.S. at 543-44 & n. 2, 104 S.Ct. 831 (1984) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment) (other citations omitted)); see also Bazata, supra, 400 A.2d at 316 (<HOLDING>). Thus, the demand requirement or its futility 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a  2 claim (B) holding that for purposes of super ct civ r 41b demand is not jurisdictional but an element of the shareholders claim (C) holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense (D) holding that a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading for purposes of super ct civ r 15a which permits a party to amend once as a matter of course before a responsive pleading is served (E) holding the connection is an element

Output: (B)


Input: Consider Input: intend to allow him to build his own ramp sometime during the early 1990s, when ODOT is alleged to have repeatedly refused to grant Barack permission to build his own ramp, whether through an outright denial of permission or inaction on his requests. Even giving plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt, Barack was certainly on notice that there would be no new ramp in 1998, when ODOT was prepared to stand by and allow the bridge to be razed following the Coast Guard’s demolition order. Consequently, the plaintiffs had reason to know of their injury in the early 1990s, and in 1998 at the latest, and the statute of limitations therefore accrued much longer than two years before plaintiffs commenced suit in 2005. Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 239-41, 250, 109 S.Ct. 573, 102 L.Ed.2d 594 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Browning v. Pendleton, 869 F.2d 989, 992 (6th 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the statute of limitations for  1983 claims is the most closely analogous state limitations period for general personal injury claims (B) holding that federal courts apply the forum states personal injury statute of limitations for section 1983 claims (C) holding that statute of limitations governing the most closely analogous state substantive claim controls rather than the forum states borrowing statute (D) holding that  1522 is the most analogous limitations period for  1983 actions (E) holding that the virginia disabilities act constitutes the most analogous state statute of limitations for claims brought under the ada


Output: (A)