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.

Example Input: criminal activity, strictly liable to a person injured by such handgun during the course of a crime? 3) Does the Rohm Revolver Handgun Model RG38S, serial number 0152662, fall within the category referred to in question 2? Kelley, 304 Md. at 131, 497 A.2d 1143. 7 . The Court also discussed the effective date of the "modification of Maryland common law tort principles” it had fashioned. Id. at 161-62, 497 A.2d 1143. 8 . The majority of these cases have discussed the Court’s ability or willingness to modify the common law. See Parker v. State, 337 Md. 271, 283 n. 7, 653 A.2d 436 (1995); State v. Hawkins, 326 Md. 270, 292-94, 604 A.2d 489 (1992); Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia, 325 Md. 420, 469-70, 601 A.2d 633 (1992); Murphy v. Edmonds t, Inc., 17 Md.App. 646, 659, 303 A.2d 432 (1973) (<HOLDING>) 10 . We alternatively based our decision on 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the court of appeals lacks the authority to overrule decisions of the supreme court of north carolina and has a responsibility to follow those decisions until otherwise ordered by the supreme court (B) holding that the court of appeals may not overrule modify or withdraw language from a previously published decision of the court of appeals (C) holding that this court will consider a petition for a writ of certiorari only after the court of appeals has overruled the application for rehearing on the point challenged in the petition implying that the decision by the court of criminal appeals must be final before certiorari review would be available (D) holding the fact remains however that such standard appears to be the law of this state as enunciated in the decisions of the court of appeals discussed previously unless those decisions are either explained away or overruled by the court of appeals itself this court must follow what a majority of its members discern to be the precept to be drawn from them ie proof of fraud in a civil action either in law or in equity must be clear and convincing only the court of appeals could disabuse of that notion (E) holding that the court need not follow a decision of the district of columbia court of appeals where  it appears that the  court of appeals itself would not follow that decision
Example Output: (D)

Example Input: the sophisticated user defense, a supplier has no duty to warn the ultimate user if it has reason to believe that the user will realize its dangerous condition. Gray v. Badger Mining Corp., 676 N.W.2d 268, 276 (Minn.2004); see also Ritchie v. Glidden, 242 F.3d 713, 724 (7th Cir.2001) (stating, under Indiana law, that the sophisticated purchaser defense to a failure-to-warn claim brought under negligence or strict liability theories provides that product suppliers do not have a duty to warn employees or customers of knowledgeable industrial purchasers as to product-related hazards). In addition to limiting a supplier’s duty, the “sophisticated user” concept also affects the element of proximate cause. Crook v. Kaneb Pipe Line Operating P’ship, L.P., 231 F.3d 1098, 1102 (8th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Strong, 667 F.2d at 688 (“Even if [the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that negligence must be the proximate cause of injury (B) holding in a negligence action that the air traffic controllers failure to warn of an impending danger cannot be the proximate cause of an injury after the pilot himself discovered its presence appreciated the danger and decided to fly ahead into it (C) holding that use of tangible property must be proximate cause of injury and that property does not cause injury if it does no more than furnish the condition that makes the injury possible (D) holding that if a user actually knows of the danger a failure to warn cannot be a proximate cause of the injury (E) holding that a physicians negligence need only be a proximate cause not the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury
Example Output: (D)

Example Input: unit’s claim arose. (b) There shall be offset against an allowed claim or interest of a governmental unit any claim against such governmental unit that is property of the estate. (c) Except as provided in subsections (a) and (b) of this section and notwithstanding any assertion of sovereign immunity— (1) a provision of this title that contains "creditor", "entity”, or "governmental unit” applies to governmental units; and (2) a determination by the court of an issue arising under such provision binds governmental units. 3 . The Court notes that the order dismissing the case had no effect, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 349 or any other section of the Bankruptcy Code, on the confirmation order which remains in full force and effect. See In re Depew, 115 B.R. 965 (Bankr.N.D.Ind.1989) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the Court notes that the fact that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that debtors failure to pay postconfirmation taxes pursuant to terms of court order constituted cause for dismissal as a lack of good faith (B) holding after comprehensive analysis that the postconfirmation dismissal of a chapter 11 case does not vacate the order of confirmation or revoke the debtors discharge (C) holding in a case where a chapter 11 trustee was appointed after a period during which the debt or had operated as debtor in possession that a chapter 11 trustee has two years from the date of his appointment not from the commencement of the chapter 11 case to bring avoidance actions (D) holding that plaintiffs were entitled to vacate final order of dismissal as void when they did not receive the motion for dismissal or notice of the hearing on the order until after the dismissal was entered (E) holding that a debtors right to strip off a wholly unsecured lien is conditioned on the debtors obtaining confirmation of and performing under a chapter 13 plan that meets all of the statutory requirements rather than on a debtors discharge
Example Output:
(B)