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: Court would apply its own jurisprudence because Braun prescribes an objective just cause standard-the standard Jurgens requests. 65 . Cassel, 14 P.3d at 284 (quoting Univ. of Alaska v. Tovsen, 835 P.2d 445, 447 (Alaska 1992)). 66 . Id. at 284 (quoting Baldwin, 769 P.2d at 304). 67 . See NPMC 2.36.010(A) (stating that purpose of chapter is to "establish and operate a system of personnel administration based upon equitable merit principles and professional methods governing ... removal, [and] discipline ... of employees"), .310(A) (requiring system of "uniform and equitable administration of discipline"), .310(B) (requiring that "discipline [] be administered in increasingly progressive severity"), .321(F) (allowing board to impose "lesser disciplinary action"); Tovsenm, 835 P.2d at 447 (<HOLDING>). 68 . See Braun, 816 P.2d at 142. 69 . See 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a termination of a government contract does not constitute a taking of the plaintiffs property without just compensation or without due process of law (B) holding that words found evaluated and unsatisfactory in personnel regulation required an objective just cause termination (C) holding that beyond reasonable doubt standard not required in termination cases (D) holding that termination is an adverse employment action (E) holding that although a reason was provided in the termination letter the without cause termination provision was applicable

Output: (B)


Input: Consider Input: the reasons for the plaintiffs failure to obtain the action or for not making the effort. Addressing the identical federal rule, the Supreme Court has stated that “[o]n its face, Rule 23.1 speaks only to the adequacy of the shareholder representatives pleadings.” Kamen, supra, 500 U.S. at 96, 111 S.Ct. 1711. The rule itself does not create a demand requirement. Id. “[T]he function of the demand doctrine in delimiting the respective powers of the individual shareholder and of the directors to control corporate litigation clearly is a matter of ‘substance, not procedure.’ ” Id. at 96-97, 111 S.Ct. 1711 (quoting Daily Income Fund, supra, 464 U.S. at 543-44 & n. 2, 104 S.Ct. 831 (1984) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment) (other citations omitted)); see also Bazata, supra, 400 A.2d at 316 (<HOLDING>). Thus, the demand requirement or its futility 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a  2 claim (B) holding that for purposes of super ct civ r 41b demand is not jurisdictional but an element of the shareholders claim (C) holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense (D) holding that a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading for purposes of super ct civ r 15a which permits a party to amend once as a matter of course before a responsive pleading is served (E) holding the connection is an element

Output: (B)


Input: Consider Input: in prison as a condition of his probation; however, the written sentence re n in Florida State Prison as a condition of probation. As a result, the sentence is illegal and should be corrected. Although the written sentence imposed on count three is a nullity because it differs from the oral pronouncement, we also note the following. Possession of al-prazolam is a third-degree felony. The maximum permissible sentence for a third-degree felony is five years. § 775.082(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (2011). The written sentence imposed two years in prison followed by five years’ probation resulting in a total sentence of seven years. Because the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum for a third-degree felony, it is an illegal sentence. See Netkerly v. State, 804 So.2d 433, 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (<HOLDING>); Smith v. State, 584 So.2d 154, 154 (Fla. 2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding sentences need only be below the statutory maximum (B) holding sentence of thirtyfive years in prison with ten years probation for seconddegree murder is within the statutory maximum under 1997 statutes (C) holding that sentences of five years in prison followed by ten years probation were illegal sentences that exceeded the statutory maximum of five years for a thirddegree felony (D) holding that santoss concern regarding the evisceration of congresss choice of a low statutory maximum penalty for an underlying offense did not apply where the underlying offenses carried maximum sentences of twenty years and the money laundering offense carried a lower maximum sentence of ten years (E) holding that a potential prison sentence of up to five years was clearly serious


Output: (C)