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.

[Q]: (“Due process requires that no one shall be personally bound until he has had his ‘day in court.’ ”). The 1992 statute, as applied in this case, provided State Farm no “fair opportunity” to be heard before it was called upon to divest itself of a significant property interest if it chose to preserve its long-recognized right of subrogation. Instead, the statute placed State Farm in the untenable position of being bound by law to the outcome of private settlement negotiations between the Hassens and UniSun that essentially determined its immediate liability for an award of damages, including noneconomic damages, even though it was not a party to the negotiations and had no available means to assert any legal defenses to the Hassens’ claim. Cf. Freidus v. Freidus, 89 So.2d 604 (Fla.1956) (<HOLDING>). The fact that the statute entitled State Farm 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that it is not (B) holding that foreign states are not persons entitled to rights under the due process clause (C) holding that it may not (D) holding that an arbitration agreement enforceable against party who signed the agreement even where the other party did not sign it because generally it is enough that the party against whom the contract is sought to be enforced signs it (E) holding that a corporation is entitled to due process of law insofar as property rights are concerned so that a money judgment may not be entered against it where it was not a party to a cause and was not served with process even though the principal stockholder was a party to the cause
[A]: holding that it is not


[Q]: in Bowman were appointed by the court to make educational decisions for children who were wards of the district, so that the advocates effectively acted as “parents” under the IDEA. See id. Accordingly, even though they were licensed attorneys, they could not recover fees as educational advocates because they were not acting in an attorney-client capacity. See id. Pressley distinguishes from this scenario because she was employed by the Chris Anwah Law Firm, instead of being appointed by the court as an advocate. See Adewusi Deck ¶ 1. Furthermore, Pressley’s work on this matter was similar to that performed by the billing attorneys. See PL’s Mot., Ex. B. Yet because she is not a member of the D.C. Bar, Pressley is not entitled to attorney rates. See Dickens, 724 F.Supp.2d at 120 (<HOLDING>); Agapito v. District of Columbia, 477 
 Holding statements: (A) holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees (B) holding that the magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion in considering the prevailing hourly rates in the southern district of new york when awarding attorneys fees (C) holding that lexis fees are not taxable as costs but reserving ruling on whether such fees are recoverable as attorneys fees (D) holding that attorneys not admitted to the dc bar are not entitled to reimbursement but awarding fees at paralegal rates as equitable relief (E) holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal because it was filed before the final order awarding attorneys fees
[A]: holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees


[Q]: the defective motor. See Tucker v. Aqua Yacht Harbor Corp., 749 F.Supp. 142 (N.D.Miss.1990) (applying Mississippi law) (finding that in a case which was instituted while repairs were being made to piston defect on boat motor, manufacturer should have been allowed to cure and thus could not be held liable for breaches of express and implied warranties). ¶ 15. Also, this case is readily distinguishable from our prior opinions in which we found that the right to cure was not unlimited in the wake of repeated deficiencies and repeated attempts at repair. Guerdon Indus., Inc. v. Gentry, 531 So.2d 1202 (Miss.1988) (finding right to cure not unlimited in case where seller made ten attempts to repair a mobile home’s defects in a five-month period); Rester v. Morrow, 491 So.2d 204 (Miss.1988) (<HOLDING>). II. WHETHER MERCURY MARINE’S “REPAIR OR 
 Holding statements: (A) holding employer justified in relying upon plaintiffs physician (B) holding that buyers retention and use of boiler was an act inconsistent with sellers ownership and constituted acceptance precluding rejection (C) holding that performance may be valid acceptance (D) holding likewise in a ease where plaintiffs renault automobile experienced problems with its electrical system air conditioner and oil indicator gauge justified buyers revocation of acceptance (E) holding that although sellers acknowledgment was not valid acceptance of buyers offer under  22071 buyers subsequent acceptance of and payment for goods along with buyers objection to a particular term within counteroffer constituted assent to remaining terms of counteroffer
[A]:
holding employer justified in relying upon plaintiffs physician