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.

[Q]: and onto her abdomen onee she submarined. He further indicated that Amanda’s pelvic and leg injuries were caused by- her knees impacting the vehicle’s dash panel. Mr. Lewis concluded that had Amanda not submarined and her seat not collapsed, she would not have sustained these injuries. Additional Evidence Amanda also introduced portions of Nissan’s pre-trial discovery responses wherein Nissan admitted to disposing of its developmental test reports including any reports concerning crashworthiness, front passenger seatbelt spool-out, submarining, and the effectiveness of the Pathfinder’s seatbelt systems. Mr. Whitman explained in detail why he believed that Nissan’s record retention policy was a bad of our sister states. E.g., Stone Man v. Green, 263 Ga. 470, 435 S.E.2d 205, 206 (1993) (<HOLDING>). The undisputed evidence demonstrates that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that punitive damages are as a general rule improper where a defendant has adhered to environmental and safety regulations (B) holding tcpa is remedial statute and that statutory damages are not punitive damages (C) holding that punitive damages are not allowed under the flsa (D) holding a court may not award punitive damages (E) holding that punitive damages are not fines
[A]: (A)


[Q]: designs. Moreover, we also note that the similarity of the products need not be identical, as Exmark seems to argue, because the similarity may be defined in terms of the defect and any differences among the products may merely go to the weight of the evidence and not its discoverability or admissibility. See Jackson v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 788 F.2d 1070, 1082-88 (5th Cir.1986); see also Uniroyal Goodrich Tire, 977 S.W.2d at 341; Davidson Oil Country Supply, Inc. v. Klockner, Inc., 908 F.2d 1238, 1245 (5th Cir.1990). We note that many other decisions from courts around the nation reject the notion that discovery in a strict product liability case is uniformly limited to the specific product at issue. See, e.g., In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 568 F.3d 1180, 1191 (10th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); Brownlow v. General Motors Corp., No. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiffs work environment was not affected by comments and conduct of which she was not aware (B) recognizing trial courts decision on discovery issues implies a finding that requested discovery was not reasonably available (C) holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law (D) holding that plaintiffs allegation that defendant had exclusive knowledge as the manufacturer did not support claim that defendant was aware of a defect (E) holding that discovery on other tires was not overbroad where plaintiffs alleged that defendant was aware of tread separation problem
[A]: (E)


[Q]: 344 U.S. 590, 596, 73 S.Ct. 472, 97 L.Ed. 576 (1953). For instance, an LPR who left the United States briefly to undertake illegal activity abroad, such as alien smuggling, would clearly be included in the 1225(b) subclass; under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(iii), he would be treated as an alien seeking admission on account of having “engaged in illegal activity after having departed the United States.” See United States v. Tsai, 282 F.3d 690, 696 & n. 5 (9th Cir.2002). But in Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 103 S.Ct. 321, 74 L.Ed.2d 21 (1982), the Supreme Court specifically held that an LPR arrested for alien smuggling upon return from a brief trip abroad is entitled to due process protection, specifically because Mezei is inapplicable in such a scenario. See id. at 34, 103 S.Ct. 321 (<HOLDING>). As such, it is clear that the 1225(b) 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiff state employees contract right to be discharged only for cause was not protected by due process clause because it did not rise to level of fundamental right (B) holding that the defendant failed to preserve a due process objection to a sentencing policy because sjimply saying that something is unfair does not suggest that it violates due process (C) holding that there is no due process right to appellate review (D) holding that adjustment of status was permitted even if deportable alien had entered the country as a lawful permanent resident (E) holding that mezei did not suggest that no returning resident alien has a right to due process and that it does not govern this case for plasencia was absent from the country only a few days
[A]:
(E)