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 Q]: 393 N.W.2d 286, 290-91 (S.D.1986). • GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, (dissenting).. [¶ 26.] I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the lower court on Issue 2. I would hold the trial court erred when it granted partial summary judgment to 01-esens, holding City’s operation of food service at the municipal bar was an ultra vires act. [¶27.] An express grant of authority from the legislature “includes those incidental or implied powers that are necessary to enable a municipality to perform the function authorized.” City of Rapid City v. Rensch, 77 S.D. 242, 246, 90 N.W.2d 380, 383 (1958) (citation omitted). A municipality is vested with discretion as to how it exercises specific powers conferred upon it by the legislature, as long as the methods employed are n , 59 N.W.2d 732, 734 (1953) (<HOLDING>). Actions taken under a municipality’s implied 
 Holding statements: (A) holding municipality had implied authority to enter into a long term contract to establish a golf course although state statute did not specifically grant authority to establish golf courses as public parks (B) holding grant of authority to an agency to adopt rules necessary to carry out this chapter clearly vested in the agency authority to interpret a statute (C) holding that the governments attorney had the implicit authority to bind the government although the contracting officer had the express authority (D) holding that plaintiff had no authority or statutory right for actions proper course was to report actions to proper legal authority (E) holding the court has the inherent authority to enter an order of confidentiality
[EX A]: holding grant of authority to an agency to adopt rules necessary to carry out this chapter clearly vested in the agency authority to interpret a statute

[EX Q]: advertising regarding the digestive benefits of “Align,” a daily food supplement. Plaintiff alleged that although Procter & Gamble promoted the “clinically proven” digestive benefits of “Align,” in fact, there was no clinical data showing that Align improved digestion. The Rikos court held that the plaintiff had alleged “injury in fact” in the form of economic injury: “Plaintiff purchased Align in reliance on P & G’s claims that the product provides defined health benefits, when these advertisements were allegedly false and deceptive.... Accordingly, Plaintiff maintains that [his] purchase of the product is the economic harm, because it was not provided as advertised.” Id. at 530, at *5. See also In re Celexa and Lexapro Mktg. and Sales Practices Litig., 751 F.Supp.2d 277 (D.Mass.2010) (<HOLDING>). Defendants’ reliance on “no-injury” products 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged injuryinfact where he alleged that the product an antidepression drug was unsatisfactory because it was inappropriate and not efficacious for his son (B) holding that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged injuryinfact based on impact to sites that the plaintiff had visited in the past and planned to revisit each year in the future (C) holding that police chiefs son who alleged that he was denied an interview for a position because his father had criticized the local officials did not have standing to assert the first amendment rights of his father (D) holding that evidence of prior drug sales was sufficiently similar to the crimes charged  to be probative of the fact that the defendant was not merely an innocent driver who was involved in the drug transaction by accident (E) holding that the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts in his complaint to state a claim for wrongful discharge where he alleged he was discharged due to his political affiliation and activities
[EX A]: holding that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged injuryinfact based on impact to sites that the plaintiff had visited in the past and planned to revisit each year in the future

[EX Q]: Judge. In this direct appeal, Scottie Lee White challenges his judgment and sentence for second-degree murder. He alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. We affirm without prejudice to White’s right to file a motion for postcon-viction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Corzo v. State, 806 So.2d 642, 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (<HOLDING>). Affirmed. FULMER and DAVIS, JJ., 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an appellate court will consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only in rare instances where counsels ineffectiveness is clearly apparent from the record prejudice to the defendant is obvious and no tactical explanation for the conduct can be conceived (B) holding that to the extent defendants claim is one of ineffective assistance of counsel it is not cognizable on direct appeal and rule 2915 is the exclusive procedure by which a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel can be advanced (C) holding ineffective assistance of counsel claims may be decided on direct appeal where the district court has developed a record on the ineffectiveness issue (D) holding that defendant may raise claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only if ineffective assistance is conclusive from the record (E) holding that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim must be raised on direct appeal when the facts supporting the claim are presented on the face of the record
[EX A]:
holding that to the extent defendants claim is one of ineffective assistance of counsel it is not cognizable on direct appeal and rule 2915 is the exclusive procedure by which a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel can be advanced