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.

private property in the Fifth Amendment presupposes that it is wanted for public use, but provides that it shall not be taken for such use without compensation .... The general rule at least is that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it .will be recognized as a taking. 260 U.S. at 415, 43 S.Ct. at 160. The seminal case regarding the constitutionality of zoning ordinances is Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926). The Supreme Court first noted that zoning ordinances were, at that time, of recent vintage predating the case by approximately twenty-five years. 272 U.S. at 386, 47 S.Ct. at 117. See Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U.S. 394, 36 S.Ct. 143, 60 L.Ed. 348 (1915). The Euclid 60 (E.D.N.Y.1992) (<HOLDING>); Kasdon v. G.W. Zierden Landscaping, Inc., 541 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that cases claiming that government action requires just compensation must be determined on an ad hoc  basis (B) holding that whether an exchange is substantially contemporaneous must be determined on a casebycase basis (C) holding state of the law must be determined at time of challenged action (D) holding that detailed exhaustion scheme of the civil rights of institutionalized persons act cripa is inconsistent with discretion to impose on an ad hoc basis a judicially developed exhaustion rule in other cases (E) holding that to constitute an enterprise under rico the enterprises structure must provide some mechanism for controlling and directing the affairs of the group on an ongoing rather than an ad hoc basis
holding that whether an exchange is substantially contemporaneous must be determined on a casebycase basis

conversion should have an opportunity to reassert objections to exemptions. Indeed, Rule 1019(2) specifically addresses time period for actions after conversion, and provides for the re-running of times allowed for filing a claim, objecting to discharge and objecting to dischargeability. There is no new time period, however, for the trustee to assert objections to exemptions. “If a new time period for objections to exemptions began to run upon conversion of a case, one would expect to see it mentioned in Rule 1019(2), [and][i]t is not there.” In re Brown, 178 B.R. 722, 728 (Bankr.E.D.Tenn.1995). Where the statute is clear, it is not appropriate to look to policy arguments. United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 240-41, 109-S.Ct. 1026, 1030, 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989) (<HOLDING>), and none of the policy arguments are 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that legislative history is not used to create ambiguity where statutory language is clear (B) holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint (C) holding that the relevant dispositive inquiry  is whether it would be clear to a reasonable state official that his conduct was unlawful (D) holding that pursuant to 28 usc  2254d1 if  the state court reached the correct result with respect to petitioners claim of constitutional violation even if on erroneous reasoning that is the end of our inquiry (E) holding that where the statutory scheme is clear the inquiry should end
recognizing that legislative history is not used to create ambiguity where statutory language is clear

because it did not state the necessary facts to support a charge of criminal contempt, it is clear from the record of the hearing that the order to show cause was based on Tsokos’s purchase of the properties. Because the circuit court acted in excess of its jurisdiction, it is not necessary to address this deficiency. It is well-established that “[o]ne may not be held in contempt of court for violation of an order or a provision of a judgment which is not clear and definite so as to make the party aware of its command and direction.” And, “implied or inherent provisions of a final judgment cannot serve as a basis for an order of contempt.” Cooley v. Moody, 884 So.2d 143, 145 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (internal citations omitted). See also Keitel v. Keitel, 716 So.2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (<HOLDING>). Here, as Tsokos argues in the petition, the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence (B) holding that an order authorizing a sale is a final judgment (C) holding that even an order that establishes entitlement to a judgment is not final unless it  actually enters or renders a judgment  or includes specific language of finality necessary for a judgment  to be considered final for purposes of an appeal (D) holding that even though the former husbands visitation rights were implicitly obstructed by the former wifes relocation to new york the final judgment did not contain an express provision prohibiting relocation and implied or inherent provisions of a final judgment cannot serve as the basis for an order of contempt (E) recognizing that a final judgment may provide for a particular standard upon which to modify a final judgment

holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence