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.

Example Input: note that, contrary to Kooby and EHI’s assertion, the trial court is not required to hold a hearing on this m 2d 814) (1991) (same). 10 Rogers v. Norris, 262 Ga. App. 857, 857 (1) (586 SE2d 747) (2003) (“Although we review the trial court’s decision for an abuse of discretion, ‘the trial court must make findings on these issues before we may determine whether its discretion was abused.’ ” (quoting Ga. Dep’t of Human Res. v. Patillo, 194 Ga. App. 279, 279 (390 SE2d 431) (1990))); see also Wood v. Notte, 238 Ga. App. 748, 749 (1) (519 SE2d 923) (1999) (same); Crenshaw, 202 Ga. App. at 611 (1) (same). 11 See Rogers, 262 Ga. App. at 857 (1) (“Failure to make [findings of fact] mandates that we vacate the order dismissing the appeal and remand the case Ga. App. 40, 43 (555 SE2d 508) (2001) (<HOLDING>); A. Roberts Corp. v. Roberts, 207 Ga. App. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an issue was not properly before the court on appeal because the trial court did not have the opportunity to make any findings of fact regarding it (B) holding that trial court made sufficient findings of fact when it dismissed appeal (C) holding the findings of fact required to support an alimony award are sufficient if findings of fact have been made on the ultimate facts at issue in the case and the findings of fact show the trial court properly applied the law in the case (D) holding that a reviewing court will only presume that the trial court made implicit factual findings when such findings were necessary to its ultimate conclusion (E) holding because defendant does not argue in his brief that these findings of fact are not supported by    evidence in the record this court is bound by the trial courts findings of fact
Example Output: holding that an issue was not properly before the court on appeal because the trial court did not have the opportunity to make any findings of fact regarding it

Example Input: unlawful harm under that public policy may include actions that violate recognized and accepted standards of conduct, such as applicable codes of ethics. The critical question in this case is whether under all of the surrounding circumstances MacDougall’s termination by Weiehert violated that clear mandate of public policy and was in retaliation for either his vote on the municipal parking ban ordinance or his refusal to change the ordinance. At the outset, we recognize that conduct that is directed against constitutionally-protected activity may violate a clear mandate of public policy, even though it may not offend any other statutory or legal standard. Supra at 390, 393, 677 A.2d at 167, 168. Compare Shovelin v. Central New Mexico Elec. Coop., Inc., 115 N.M. 293, 850 P.2d 996 (1993) (<HOLDING>) with Novosel v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 721 F.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that employees retaliatory discharge based on employees election to public office did not violate public policy (B) recognizing public policy limits on employer discretion in discharging employees (C) holding public employees conduct and expression in internal investigation of employees at county prosecutors office to expose potential wrongdoing constituted matter of public concern (D) recognizing retaliatory discharge claim where employer prevented employees exercise of workers compensation rights because of employees intention to file claim (E) holding that the discharge of an employee hospitalized for illness did not violate public policy
Example Output: recognizing public policy limits on employer discretion in discharging employees

Example Input: no reversionary interest in the right-of-way could be affected by the NITU. Id. Therefore, the size of the proposed class “cannot be surmised merely by counting the number of all landowners adjacent to the corridor.” Id. at 7. Moreover, there is no merit to the assertion that the court should defer ruling on the number of individuals with an ownership interest in the right-of-way until some later date. Id. The prerequisites of RCFC 23 require the court to make findings, even if they overlap with issues on the merits. Id. (citing Gariety v. Grant Thornton, LLP., 368 F.3d 356, 365 (4th Cir.2004) (“[T]he factors spelled out in Rule 23 must be addressed through findings, even if they overlap with issues on the merits.”)); Szabo v. Bridgeport Machs., Inc., 249 F.3d 672, 675 (7th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). In sum, the Government is not depriving 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the court has no authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the merits of an action to determine whether it may be maintained as a class action (B) holding that nothing in eisen which proscribes an inquiry into the merits of a suit to determine if class certification is appropriate prevents the district court from looking beneath the surface of a complaint to conduct the inquiries identified in frcp 23 and exercise the discretion it confers (C) holding that while it is not appropriate to consider the merits in determining certification the admissibility of all evidence which has relevance to the merits is not barred if it is relevant to the purpose of refuting or supporting the existence of a class (D) holding that the relevant inquiry is not whether the court has discretion to facilitate notice but whether this is an appropriate case in which to exercise discretion (E) holding certification is not an occasion for inquiry into the merits
Example Output:
holding that the court has no authority to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the merits of an action to determine whether it may be maintained as a class action