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]: 616.8. Like our general venue statute, section 616.8, known as our common carrier statute, has also remained virtually unchanged for over a century. Compare Iowa Code § 2582 (1873), with Iowa Code § 616.8 (2001). It provides: An action may be brought against any railway corporation, the owner of stages, or other line of coaches or cars, express, canal, steamboat and other river crafts, telegraph and telephone companies ... in any county through which such road or line passes or is operated. Iowa Code § 616.8. Although not expressly mentioned, we have held that semi-trucks carrying freight on a fixed schedule over a regular route with fixed termini constitute a “line of ... cars” for purposes of the statute. Bruce Transfer Co. v. Johnston, 227 Iowa 50, 52-55, 287 N.W. 278, 278-81 (1939) (<HOLDING>). The Richards contend section 616.8, like 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the court assumes the legislature acquiesced in our interpretation of the language because the legislature had not amended the language (B) holding that when the legislature enacts a statute it is presumed that the legislature is aware of existing statutes (C) holding the fact legislature could not have foreseen rise of semitrucks when it enacted common carrier statute in the nineteenth century did not foreclose an interpretation that would effectuate its intent (D) holding an administrative interpretation cannot change the meaning of a statute or control the courts interpretation of it (E) holding that shipper negligence does not absolve a carrier of liability if damage would not have occurred but for the concurrent fault of the carrier
[A]: (C)


[Q]: of the documents. In his report, Gage stated only that the witnesses could not recall whether or not Peng raised his fist, but that they saw Peng grab the documents from Mei Hu. Peng has submitted a declaration by C. Peng that neither he nor Mr. Chi ever told anyone anything about what happened. As the district court noted, Peng has not cast doubt on the fact that, prior to Peng’s arrest, Jonathan Hu, acting as interpreter, told Gage that the two witnesses saw Peng grab the documents from Mei Hu. Peng has cast doubt on the identity of the witnesses and the veracity of Jonathan Hu, but Gage could not have known this at the time of the arrest. We are satisfied that Gage made a reasonable investigation under the circumstances before he arrested Peng. See Fuller, 950 F.2d at 1442-44 (<HOLDING>). We conclude that the presence of a factual 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that police officers have a duty to conduct an investigation into the basis of the witness report (B) holding that because the court could not consider police reports it could not rely on an attorneys argument based on the police report as the basis for determining the statutory basis for a conviction (C) holding that error in excluding a police officers report was harmless where the same evidence was presented by another witness (D) holding that an insurer has a duty to conduct an investigation reasonably appropriate under the circumstances (E) holding that witness statements in police report inadmissible
[A]: (A)


[Q]: matter by asserting that his claims in Miller II “arose and have been continuing to arise out of the same occurrences or transactions and series of occurrences or transactions adversely affecting and interfering with his rights in Nueces County, Texas, during the time period from September 24, 1993 [when Windsor filed the Windsor suit] through the present.” Thus, Miller’s claims in Miller II have the same factual basis as the claims raised in the Windsor suit. Such claims were accordingly required to be asserted as compulsory counterclaims. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 97(a); Getty Oil Co., 845 S.W.2d at 800. Miller is barred by res judicata from relitigating this same subject matter in Miller II. See, e.g., Soto v. Phillips, 836 S.W.2d 266, 268 n. 1 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1992, writ denied) (<HOLDING>). The trial court correctly granted Windsor a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a party may pursue what would be a compulsory counterclaim in a separate lawsuit but that party runs the risk of losing in the initial lawsuit and being bound by that result (B) holding that an injured former employees lawsuit was not barred by res judicata where he never authorized the union to represent his interest in a previous lawsuit over the same benefits (C) recognizing that where first suit is filed in response to notice of a planned lawsuit by the plaintiffs adversary that lawsuit may be dismissed (D) holding res judicata barred plaintiffs derivative suit because of a final judgment in a prior derivative lawsuit (E) holding first lawsuit and allegations in second lawsuit part of same transaction for res judicata purposes even though different theory of recovery and harm alleged in second lawsuit
[A]:
(E)