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.

defense, or a development in the controlling law that foreclosed the claim. The record here betrays no significant change in circumstances prior to trial that reasonably should have caused the plaintiffs to conclude that their claims were no longer viable. In fact, the most notable development in the case prior to trial sent a contrary signal: the court denied the Mayor’s post-discovery summary judgment motion as to the plaintiffs’ central political discrimination claim. While the fact that a claim has survived summary judgment is not, on its own, “entitled to decretory significance,” Foster, 943 F.2d at 144, it has some value in determining whether a claim was or became unreasonable or without foundation. See id.; Walker v. NationsBank of Fla. N.A., 53 F.3d 1548, 1559 (11th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Jensen v. Stangel, 762 F.2d 815, 818 (9th 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that district court abused its discretion in finding suit unreasonable and groundless where inter alia the court had denied two prior summary judgment motions (B) holding district court abused its discretion in admitting state court findings of fact (C) holding that the trial court grants or denies motions for summary judgment on the basis of what is contained in the motions for summary judgment and the responses thereto (D) holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint (E) holding district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on summary judgment motion where inter alia plaintiff had been given repeated notices court intended to rule on motion and it was plaintiffs burden to rebut defendants evidence
(A)

essential element of an elevated breath alcohol level. Consequently, he contends that the judge’s ruling was essentially a determination that the exclusion of the BAT results left the State without sufficient proof to convict Defendant of the DWI charge, and that this constituted an adjudication of his innocence. Defendant also asserts that the judge’s oral comments that he had “reasonable doubt” and that he found Defendant “not guilty” further indicate that the judge deliberated on the merits of the case and acquitted Defendant of the DWI charge. Defendant does not, however, argue that the judge expressly ruled that Defendant was acquitted of the charges, nor would the record support such an assertion. See County of Los Alamos v. Tapia, 109 N.M. 736, 741, 790 P.2d 1017, 1022 (1990) (<HOLDING>). {20} The State concedes that jeopardy 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that when a cause of action is reduced to a judgment the cause of action is merged into the judgment and thereafter only an action on the judgment exists (B) recognizing that an actual express judgment of acquittal precludes retrial regardless of any defects in the process leading to the judgment (C) holding that defects in service of process must be raised in preliminary objections (D) holding on summary judgment that an attorney who failed to timely file an answer leading to a default judgment was on notice that a malpractice claim might be filed against him (E) recognizing that an appeal from a final judgment permits an attack against any nonfinal order or ruling leading up to it
(B)

problem. The state laws at issue in Takaha-shi and Graham were found to interfere with the federal government’s regulation of immigration despite the fact that, as here, neither law resulted in the removal or inadmissibility of any aliens. 16 . 66 Stat 163, as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. 17 . Pub.L. No. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105 (1996). 18 . It is clear, therefore, that PRWORA does not consider mere admission or attendance at a public post-secondary institution to he a public benefit. Otherwise, Virginia would be required to deny admission to illegal aliens, unless the state affirmatively enacted a law allowing for their admission into public colleges and universities. 19 . But see League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson, 997 F.Supp. 1244, 1256 (C.D.Cal.1997) ("LULAC II”) (<HOLDING>). LULAC II is neither controlling nor 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that pursuant to prwora and iirira congress had evinced its intention to occupy the field of alien eligibility for postsecondary education and invalidating on federal preemption grounds section 8 of californias proposition 187 which denied public postsecondary education to immigrants not lawfully present (B) holding that exhaustion was not required under a federal education statute where the gravamen of the complaint was not that the plaintiff had been denied the type of education the statute guarantees and hence the relief sought was not available through the statutory appeals process (C) holding that sc const art xi  3 which requires the general assembly to provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free public education guarantees only a minimally adequate education and does not call for this court to dictate what programs are to be used in this states public schools (D) holding that it is impermissible to dismiss a teacher for openly criticizing the board of education on its allocation of school funds between athletics and education and its methods of informing taxpayers about the need for additional revenue (E) holding that postsecondary education support orders are modified pursuant to the statute governing child support modification

(A)