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.

Ex Input:
litigation. The district court can correct any abuses at the fees for fees stage under the “reasonableness” standard. The presumptive cap mostly takes away the discretion afforded to the district court in the statute. See 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) (“[T]he court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs... .”). , Congress knows how to set caps on fee applications and has done so in other contexts, yet it did not do so in § 1988. See, e.g., Baker Botts LLP v. ASARCO LLC, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2158, 2165, 192 L.Ed.2d 208 (2015) (concluding that a fee-shifting provision in the Bankruptcy Code does not allow for “[t]ime spent litigating a fee application”); In re Meese, 907 F.2d 1192, 1203 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (<HOLDING>); cf. Kaseman v. Dist. of Columbia, 444 F.3d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the countys permit fee violated the first amendment (B) holding that time entries such as preparation for hearing or preparation for school visit were too vague and reducing overall fee award by twentyfive percent (C) holding that fee application must be sufficiently detailed to allow court to make an independent evaluation as to what fees are actual and necessary and finding that failure to keep contemporaneous records does not automatically result in denial of the fees but the lack thereof justifies a reduction of the fee to the level proven (D) holding that attorneys fees for the preparation of the fee application are compensable (E) holding that the independent counsel reauthorization act does not permit fees claimed for the preparation of a fee application

Ex Output:
holding that the countys permit fee violated the first amendment


Ex Input:
the common level ratio. The Board may hold a hearing to consider the objections, but it may also decide the objections have merit and adjust its calculations. If not satisfied with the outcome of the hearing, the taxpayer may “appeal de novo such ratio determination to the Commonwealth Court.” Id. It has long been established that “[wjhere a remedy is provided by an act of assembly, the directions of the legislation must be strictly pursued and such remedy is exclusive.” Lurie v. Republican Alliance, 412 Pa. 61, 63, 192 A.2d 367, 369 (1963). This Court has explained that “where a statutory remedy exists, it is exclusive unless the jurisdiction of the courts is preserved thereby.” Lashe v. Northern York County School District, 52 Pa.Cmwlth. 541, 417 A.2d 260, 264 (1980) (emphasis added) (<HOLDING>). Where the statutory remedy is an 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a district of columbia consumer protection statute that authorized representative actions and did not reference class action requirements or mandate class certification was a separate and distinct procedural vehicle from a class action and thus did not constitute a class action under cafa (B) holding that a litigant could not avoid the procedure prescribed by statute in favor of a class action in equity (C) holding that the right of all putative members of a proposed class in an action filed pursuant to kansass class action rule of civil procedure to file a separate action is preserved pending the determination of whether the initial case shall be maintained as a class action (D) recognizing cause of action by class member against class counsel for negligence in providing notice (E) holding that district court in making class certification decision should avoid focusing on merits of underlying class action

Ex Output:
holding that a district of columbia consumer protection statute that authorized representative actions and did not reference class action requirements or mandate class certification was a separate and distinct procedural vehicle from a class action and thus did not constitute a class action under cafa


Ex Input:
RICO against the Bowlings, it may do so in its affirmative cross-claim. Wfhirl-pool’s belief to the c 46 (2003) (adopting the approach set forth in the Second Restatement defining the elements of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress); Doe Parents No. 1 v. Dep’t of Educ., 100 Hawai'i 34, 58 P.3d 545, (2002) (relying on Second Restatement for definition of duty set forth in the Second Restatement § 314A); Gonsalves v. Nissan Motor Corp. in Haw., 100 Hawai'i 149, 170, 58 P.3d 1196, 1217 (2002) (adopting Second Restatement § 577 by holding "If the circumstances indicated that communication to a third party is likely, however, a publication may properly be held to have occurred”); and see, McKenzie v. Hawai 'i Permanente Med. Group, 98 Hawai'i 296, 47 P.3d 1209 (2002) (<HOLDING>); Zanakis-Pico v. Cutter Dodge, Inc., 98 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that second restatement  302 does not establish per se that a doctor owes a duty to the plaintiff it only describes the manner in which he may be negligent if he owed that duty (B) holding that although violation of rules of professional conduct does not constitute negligence per se such violations may be relevant and admissible in assessing the legal duty of an attorney in a malpractice action and whether that duty was breached (C) holding that in the absence of a product malfunction a plaintiff cannot establish that a defendant breached any duty owed (D) holding defendant owes a duty to disclose where the defendant alone has knowledge of material facts which are not accessible to the plaintiff (E) holding that an agent owes a fiduciary duty to his principal

Ex Output:

holding that although violation of rules of professional conduct does not constitute negligence per se such violations may be relevant and admissible in assessing the legal duty of an attorney in a malpractice action and whether that duty was breached