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.

Input: Consider Input: that placed a forty-five day time limit on the administrator’s decision to grant or deny a license. See Redner, 29 F.3d at 1500. In the event the administrator exceeded the forty-five day time limit, the ordinance stated that “the applicant may be permitted to begin operating the establishment for which a license is sought," unless and until the County Administrator notifies the applicant of a denial of the application.” See id. at 1500-01 (citation omitted). We held that the ordinance was unconstitutional on its face because its use of the word “may” rather than “shall” allowed the individuals responsible for enforcing the ordinance to suppress the protected expression for an indefinite time period prior to any action on their part or any judicial determination. See id. at 1501 (<HOLDING>). In Lady J. Lingerie, we examined the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a plaintiff had standing to attack an entire ordinance including portions of the ordinance not applied to the plaintiff (B) holding that a party may not invoke the capable of repetition yet evading review exception where its failure to obtain prompt relief has prevented judicial review (C) holding also that the ordinance failed to provide for prompt judicial review (D) holding that because here the statutes in issue provide for judicial review via citizen suit provisions yet do not set forth a standard for that review judicial review is limited to apa review on the administrative record (E) holding that the llupa does not provide for judicial review of a request to change a comprehensive zoning plan

Output: (C)


Input: Consider Input: abuse of a minor, the trial court may apply the statutory presumption that Junior and Saul are at substantial risk of being sexually abused. And if the trial court again finds that Rowan sexually abused Agnes, it can conclude that Junior and Saul are at substantial risk of being sexually abused. v. CONCLUSION We REMAND this case to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Jurisdiction is RETAINED. 1 . We use pseudonyms to protect the privacy of the parties. 2 . The record does not show that Rowan attempted to obtain the information any other way, such as by scheduling a deposition, before making his motion. 3 . AS 40.25.100-295. AST relied on AS 40.25.120(a)(2), records pertaining to juveniles, and (a)(6), law enforcement records. 4 . 533 P.2d 13, 16 (Alaska 1975) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Rhodes v. Erion, 189 P.3d 1051, 1053 
 Holding statements: (A) holding prison official is deliberately indifferent if he knew that prisoner faced a substantial risk of harm and disregarded that risk (B) holding that mere knowledge of a defect is not sufficient to amount to an eighth amendment claim defendant must also draw the inference that a substantial risk of serious harm exists (C) holding defendants prior conviction for assault related to sexual abuse of a minor even though it did not require an act of sexual abuse because it required intent to commit sexual abuse  and such a mens rea demonstrate the offense was one relating to sexual abuse (D) holding that fathers sexual abuse of daughter demonstrated serious disregard of parental responsibilities and lack of social and moral values that posed substantial risk of harm to sons (E) holding that a party who can show a significant risk of irreparable harm has demonstrated that the harm is not speculative

Output: (D)


Input: Consider Input: that “[e]ven if the release plate had not been designed at the time the contract was entered, the sonobuoys conformed to the description of the goods contained in the contract .... ” Def.’s Supp. Br. at 8. Defendant says the description of the sonobuoys in the contract was merely 335 sonobuoys with dual depth capability; the release plate was not significant to the overall sonobuoy design described in the ECP, and was only a passing reference. Def.’s Reply at 4; Def.’s Supp. Br. at 8. Sparton contests these points and argues that the patented inventions were never part of the offer for sale because the ’0465 Contract does not encompass each limitation of the claimed inventions or render them obvious. See e.g., Tec Air Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed.Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). In so arguing, Plaintiff points specifically 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the one challenging the patent must in part show that the subject matter of the sale or offer to sell fully anticipated the claimed invention or would have rendered it obvious by its addition to the prior art (B) holding a determination that an invention was onsale within the meaning of the statute requires that a sale be operable the complete invention claimed be embodied in or obvious from the device offered for sale and the sale or offer be primarily for profit rather than for experimental purposes (C) holding that even credited testimony by an interested party absent corroborating documents is not sufficient to support a finding that a patent was anticipated by prior knowledge or use of the claimed invention (D) holding that the moving party must show prior art references which alone or combined with other references would have rendered the invention obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (E) holding that an assignment or sale of rights in the invention and potential patent rights is not a sale of the invention within the meaning of section 102b


Output: (A)