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.

Q: designs. Moreover, we also note that the similarity of the products need not be identical, as Exmark seems to argue, because the similarity may be defined in terms of the defect and any differences among the products may merely go to the weight of the evidence and not its discoverability or admissibility. See Jackson v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 788 F.2d 1070, 1082-88 (5th Cir.1986); see also Uniroyal Goodrich Tire, 977 S.W.2d at 341; Davidson Oil Country Supply, Inc. v. Klockner, Inc., 908 F.2d 1238, 1245 (5th Cir.1990). We note that many other decisions from courts around the nation reject the notion that discovery in a strict product liability case is uniformly limited to the specific product at issue. See, e.g., In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 568 F.3d 1180, 1191 (10th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); Brownlow v. General Motors Corp., No. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiffs work environment was not affected by comments and conduct of which she was not aware (B) recognizing trial courts decision on discovery issues implies a finding that requested discovery was not reasonably available (C) holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law (D) holding that plaintiffs allegation that defendant had exclusive knowledge as the manufacturer did not support claim that defendant was aware of a defect (E) holding that discovery on other tires was not overbroad where plaintiffs alleged that defendant was aware of tread separation problem

A: (E)
****
Q: such equitable relief as may be appropriate. 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1). A. Serious Health Condition Wells Fargo first argues that Vincent did not suffer a “serious health condition” as that term is defined by the FMLA. The parties agree that the Court should examine the regulations implementing the FMLA in order to determine whether Vincent suffered from a serious health condition. The parties disagree, however, as to whether the interim regulations or the final regulations, which became effective on April 6, 1995, should be used by the Court in arriving at its determination. The Court finds that the interim regulations which were in effect in January of 1995, the time of Vincent’s termination, govern this action. See Gay v. Gilman Paper Company, 125 F.3d 1432, 1434 n. 4 (11th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Having resolved the dispute as to which set 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that agency regulations cannot be applied retroactively unless congress has so authorized the administrative agency and the language of the regulations require it (B) holding that as the court has made clear in several recent decisions a claim that the application of government regulations effects a taking of a property interest is not ripe until the government entity charged with implementing the regulations has reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue (C) holding that the interim regulations governed a dispute in which the serious health condition and subsequent termination occurred prior to april 6 1995 the effective date of the final regulations (D) holding that iiriras effective date is april 1 1997 (E) holding that habeas petitions challenging judgments of conviction that became final before the effective date of the aedpa are not time barred if filed within one year from aedpas effective date april 241996

A: (C)
****
Q: injuries, except her aff concerning the degree of disability associated with the preexisting condition versus that arising from the falls, the Commission was not compelled to believe it and could reject all or any part of it which it did not consider credible. Hutchinson v. Tri-State Motor Transit Co., 721 S.W.2d 158, 162 (Mo.App. S.D.1986). “The degree of disability resulting from an injury and preexisting conditions are questions of fact resolved by the Commission.” Carter v. Frito-Lay, 913 S.W.2d 341, 343 (Mo.App. E.D.1995). “The decision to accept one of two conflicting medical opinions is an issue of fact for the Commission.” Johnson v. Denton Constr. Co., 911 S.W.2d 286, 288 (Mo.banc 1995); see also Duncan v. Springfield R-12 Sch. Dist., 897 S.W.2d 108, 113 (Mo.App. S.D.1995) (<HOLDING>). The Commission chose to accept the testimony 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the weight of a classification determination depends upon all those factors which give it power to persuade (B) holding that the interests of two insurance companies were adverse under wis stat  102231a 19891990 relating to workers compensation when the respective liability of the two insurance companies depends on the determination of the date of injury (C) holding that under the doctrine the district court should have stayed the diversityjurisdiction case pending the state workers compensation commissions final decision on whether the defendant properly paid certain workers compensation claims (D) holding that wjhere the right to compensation depends upon which of two conflicting medical theories should be accepted the issue is peculiarly for commissions determination (E) holding that deference to the guidelines depends on the thoroughness of the commissions analysis and the validity of its reasoning

A:
(D)
****