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.

Example Input: S.E.2d at 629 (emphasis added). Similarly, in Sparks v. Peacock, plaintiff husband filed an action in superior court seeking contributions for payments on promissory notes executed by both he and his wife. Unlike the Garrison litigants, however, the parties in Sparks had not brought an action for equitable distribution in district court. Based on the wife’s motion, the superior court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, this Court acknowledged the jurisdictional nature of section 7A-244, stating that if the parties had indeed brought an equitable distribution action and such action was pending pursuant to section 7A-244, the superior court would not have jurisdiction over the propriety of payments on the promissory note. Id. at 641, 500 S.E.2d at 118 (<HOLDING>); see also Ward v. Ward, 116 N.C. App. 643, 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that defendant correctly stated that the district court has jurisdiction over equitable distribution actions and citing section 7a244 (B) holding that the information must establish that the court has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties (C) holding that personal jurisdiction over partner did not follow from jurisdiction over partnership citing sher (D) holding that court of claims has jurisdiction over actions for breach of standard contract (E) recognizing the difference between jurisdiction over an action and jurisdiction over an issue and holding that although section 2074207 vests the family court with exclusive jurisdiction over actions to determine paternity under section 621302a1 the probate court has jurisdiction to resolve the issue of paternity when the issue is essential to the probate courts determination of heirs
Example Output: (A)

Example Input: by a party under this section which is not accepted and the party recovers a judgment which is greater than or equal to the amount specified in the offer of settlement, the party is entitled to interest at the annual rate of 12% on the amount recovered from the date of the offer of settlement until the amount is paid. Interest under this section is in lieu of interest computed under ss. 814.04 (4) and 815.05 (8). 2 The parties do not attempt to draw a distinction between a reasonable degree of professional certainty on the one hand, and a reasonable degree of professional probability on the other — Casimere v. Herman, 28 Wis. 2d 437, 445-446, 137 N.W.2d 73, 77 (1965), uses the phrases as apparent synonyms. See also Hennekens v. Hoerl, 160 Wis. 2d 144, 166, 465 N.W.2d 812, 821 (1991) 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the phrases can be used interchangeably (B) holding that statements taken in violation of massiah can be used for impeachment purposes (C) holding floor can be used as deadly weapon (D) holding that rule 35a can be used to challenge sentences that are not authorized by the judgment of conviction (E) recognizing that there can be compelling circumstances in which a trial court can determine that neither party prevailed in a contract case
Example Output: (A)

Example Input: overseeing use of budget appropriations held to be an unconstitutional encroachment on powers of the executive); In re Opinion of the lustices to the Governor, 369 Mass. 990, 341 N.E.2d 254, 257 (1976)('[T]o entrust the executive power of expenditure to legislative officers is to violate [the mandated separation of powers] by authorizing the legislative department to exercise executive power.’); State ex rel. Meyer v. State Board, 185 Neb. 490, 500, 176 N.W.2d 920, 926 (1970)('[The legislature] cannot through the power of appropriation exercise or invade the constitutional rights and powers of the executive branch of the government. It cannot administer the appropriation once it has been made.’); People v. Tremaine, 252 N.Y. 27, 56, 168 N.E. 817, 827 (1929)(Crane, J., concurring)(<HOLDING>).” Opinion of the Justices No. 87-314, 129 N.H. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding un constitutional a requirement that a legislative committee sit with the governor in decisions regarding spending of money on state buildings see separate opinion of justice crane (B) holding even though experts are permitted to give an opinion they may not offer an opinion regarding the credibility of others (C) holding that a federal court does not sit as a superpersonnel department to review the prudence of employment decisions (D) holding that sovereign immunity does not bar a mandamus action against the governor and the department of transportation to compel their performanee in accordance with constitutional and legislative mandates (E) holding that the governor of new york has only those powers delegated to him by the state constitution and the statutes
Example Output:
(A)