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]: subjective, although it is usually proved by inference from the acts of the accused. Thus, intentionally entering or intentionally remaining unlawfully upon the described premises with the intent to commit any crime against a person or property rights constituted burglary, and therefore, it cannot logically be said that specifying the particular crime intended to be committed is, under our statutes, an essential element which must be alleged in order to charge the crime of burglary actual commission of a second underlying offense, in order to sufficiently charge the offense, it is incumbent on the State to allege the essential elements of the underlying offense; identification of the offense by name or statutory reference will not suffice. Cf. Elliott, 77 Hawaii at 312, 884 P.2d at 375 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we adopt the rule set out in 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where the writings on file were insufficient to constitute an effective charge a charge had not been effectively filed despite the fact that the eeoc had assigned the case a charge number (B) holding that a charge not taken under oath or affirmation is not a valid charge (C) holding that the omission of an element from the jury charge is subject to harmlesserror review (D) holding that trial court did not err in refusing to give charge because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his requested charge was tailored to the evidence (E) holding that statutory references in charge did not cure the omission of essential elements in the challenged counts of the charge
[A]: holding that where the writings on file were insufficient to constitute an effective charge a charge had not been effectively filed despite the fact that the eeoc had assigned the case a charge number


[Q]: prejudice. Common v. W. Suburban Hosp. Med. Ctr., 301 Ill.App.3d 939, 235 Ill.Dec. 158, 704 N.E.2d 731, 738-39 (1998) (emphasis added) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). We quoted Common and echoed its sentiment in Sherrod v. Lingle, 223 F.3d 605, 614 (7th Cir.2000), where we held that a district court’s failure to permit a plaintiff to amend his complaint in order to comply with section 2-622 was an abuse of discretion. Second, although the district court believed that plaintiffs’ counsel should have known to submit an affidavit and report in accordance with section 2-622, it made no specific finding that the failure to do so was in bad faith or an attempt to delay litigation. See Cookson v. Price, 393 Ill.App.3d 549, 333 Ill.Dec. 22, 914 N.E.2d 229, 232 (2009) (<HOLDING>). Further, it did not explain whether or in 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a complaint that a report was not timely served was not subject to the twentyone day deadline to object to the sufficiency of a report under former section 74351a (B) holding no jurisdiction where appellant argued report was no report because it failed to mention appellant in any substantive way but trial court found report was merely deficient on element of causation as to appellant and granted extension (C) holding that it was error for the trial court to refuse to permit plaintiff to amend his complaint to include a new affidavit and report complying with section 2622 where there was no indication that the plaintiffs failure to file the report earlier in the litigation was in bad faith (D) holding that the trial courts failure to dismiss the action to quiet title was error because the plaintiff was not in possession of the land in question but the error was not fatal to the claim because the superior court could sua sponte amend the pleadings to include an action in ejectment (E) holding that rule was not violated where officer stated he made a report but was unable to find it because there was no report to tender to counsel
[A]: holding that a complaint that a report was not timely served was not subject to the twentyone day deadline to object to the sufficiency of a report under former section 74351a


[Q]: asserted on the petition date even if they were not disclosed in the debtor’s schedules. Goodman v. Phillip R. Curtis Enters., Inc., 809 F.2d 228 (4th Cir.1987). A trustee has the right to rid the estate of property that is burdensome or of inconsequential value and benefit to the estate. 11 U.S.C. § 554. If a trustee neither abandons nor administers a scheduled asset, the asset is deemed to have been abandoned upon the closing of the case. 11 U.S.C. § 554(c). However, property of the estate that is not abandoned and is not administered remains property of the estate. 11 U.S.C. § 554(d). Thus, if property was not properly scheduled by a debtor, it is not abandoned when the bankruptcy case is closed. E.g., Vreugdenhill v. Navistar Int’l Transport Corp., 950 F.2d 524, 525 (8th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); In re Hamlett, 304 B.R. 737, 741 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an undisclosed cause of action which existed at the time of filing remained an asset of the estate and allowing the debtor to reopen the case to formally schedule the cause of action (B) holding property that was technically abandoned under  554c was not brought back into estate by virtue of reopening the case (C) holding that a debtor must formally schedule the property before the close of the case in order for such property to be abandoned pursuant to section 554c (D) holding that the debtor could retain exempt property because it was not property of the estate (E) holding that property is not abandoned by operation of law unless the debtor formally scheduled the property before the close of the case
[A]:
holding that an undisclosed cause of action which existed at the time of filing remained an asset of the estate and allowing the debtor to reopen the case to formally schedule the cause of action