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:
resource. Power that is not exercised is not management or control even though in a legal sense the resource may belong in part or appertain to that party. While the Government is correct in their argument that there is not a double recovery until the total value of the damaged or injured resource has been recovered, a given trustee cannot recover more than what its stewardship is determined to be. To allow otherwise would create the undesirable situation of a race to the courthouse between co-trustees with the first in time being the first in right. Moreover, once a state, federal or other public trustee recovers such damages, res judicata would prevent a second trustee from recovering the same public losses. Alaska Sport Fishing Ass’n v. Exxon Corp., 34 F.3d 769 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Likewise, settlement would be discouraged by 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that claims to the vsf benefits under various theories were barred by the res judicata effect of the state court judgment in castellano iii (B) holding that the plaintiffs earlier claims of infringement by possession and its later claims of infringement by use of its source code arose from the same nucleus of operative facts and therefore the later claims were barred by res judicata (C) holding that a trustees claim was barred by res judicata and stating that the trustee could have asked the bankruptcy court to reserve his fraud claims for later adjudication which would have avoided his claims being barred (D) holding that the plaintiffs claims were barred by res judicata when the federal courts judgment was finalized by denial of his petition for certiorari (E) holding that the united states and the state of alaska as public trustees under the cwa and cercla could recover all lost use damages caused by the spill and that private claims for lost recreational use were barred under res judicata

Ex Output:
holding that claims to the vsf benefits under various theories were barred by the res judicata effect of the state court judgment in castellano iii


Ex Input:
in the petition no later than thirty days from the day on which the first defendant was served. Id. at 1262-63 (internal citations omitted). As a general premise, under the “first-served rule,” defendants who are properly served within thirty days of the first defendant’s service must join in the removal petition. The “failure to do so renders the petition defective.” Id. at 1262. Under the facts of Getty, however, the application of the first-served rule did not produce an inequitable result. Nonetheless, recognizing the potential for harsh results, other decisions provide that exceptional circumstances may sometimes require relief from strict application of the rule in order to achieve equitable results. See Milstead Supply Co. v. Cas. Ins. Co., 797 F.Supp. 569, 573 (W.D.Tex.1992) (<HOLDING>); Brown v. Demco, Inc., 792 F.2d 478, 482 (5th 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that all properly served defendants must join in petition for removal except for nominal unknown or fraudulently joined parties (B) holding that the defendants filing of a notice of removal before being served by plaintiffs did not render removal defective (C) holding that dismissal of some but not all of the defendants who had been served with complaint is not a final order (D) holding that joinder in or consent to the removal petition must be accomplished by only those defendants 1 who have been served and 2 whom the removing defendants actually knew or should have known had been served (E) holding that the defendants consent to search was voluntary although he had been served with a subpoena

Ex Output:
holding that all properly served defendants must join in petition for removal except for nominal unknown or fraudulently joined parties


Ex Input:
the words of Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, 'is of the very essence of judicial duty.”\’) (internal citation omitted); Columbia Falls Elem. Sch. Dist. No. 6 v. State, 326 Mont. 304, 109 P.3d 257, 260-61 (2005) (rejecting Baker v. Carr-based political question argument and concluding that, "[a]s the final guardian and protector of the right to education, it is incumbent upon the court to assure that the system enacted by the Legislature enforces, protects and fulfills the right [to education]”); Claremont Sch. Dist. v. Governor, 138 N.H. 183, 635 A.2d 1375, 1381 (1993) (concluding that constitutional right to adequate education is justiciable and that "any citizen” has standing to "enforce the State’s duty” to fulfill this right); Abbott v. Burke, 149 N.J. 145, 693 A.2d 417, 428-29 (1997) (<HOLDING>); Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State, 86 
 Holding statements: (A) holding in the absence of exceptional circumstances deference should be given to trial court (B) holding that a school board policy prohibiting employees from sending their children to private schools interfered with employees constitutional right to control the education of their children (C) holding that while legislative findings are due deference that cannot foreclose a courts constitutional analysis (D) holding that a trial courts statutory interpretation is given no deference on review (E) holding that while deference should be given to legislative content and performance standards it is still the courts duty to ensure that these standards together with funding measures comport with the constitutional guarantee of a thorough and efficient education for all new jersey school children

Ex Output:

holding in the absence of exceptional circumstances deference should be given to trial court