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.

Ex Input:
616.8. Like our general venue statute, section 616.8, known as our common carrier statute, has also remained virtually unchanged for over a century. Compare Iowa Code § 2582 (1873), with Iowa Code § 616.8 (2001). It provides: An action may be brought against any railway corporation, the owner of stages, or other line of coaches or cars, express, canal, steamboat and other river crafts, telegraph and telephone companies ... in any county through which such road or line passes or is operated. Iowa Code § 616.8. Although not expressly mentioned, we have held that semi-trucks carrying freight on a fixed schedule over a regular route with fixed termini constitute a “line of ... cars” for purposes of the statute. Bruce Transfer Co. v. Johnston, 227 Iowa 50, 52-55, 287 N.W. 278, 278-81 (1939) (<HOLDING>). The Richards contend section 616.8, like 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the court assumes the legislature acquiesced in our interpretation of the language because the legislature had not amended the language (B) holding that when the legislature enacts a statute it is presumed that the legislature is aware of existing statutes (C) holding the fact legislature could not have foreseen rise of semitrucks when it enacted common carrier statute in the nineteenth century did not foreclose an interpretation that would effectuate its intent (D) holding an administrative interpretation cannot change the meaning of a statute or control the courts interpretation of it (E) holding that shipper negligence does not absolve a carrier of liability if damage would not have occurred but for the concurrent fault of the carrier

Ex Output:
holding that the court assumes the legislature acquiesced in our interpretation of the language because the legislature had not amended the language


Ex Input:
required expert testimony at trial. We agree with other appellate courts that the statute does not violate the open courts provision by requiring an expert report sooner rather than later in the litigation. See, e.g., Gill v. Russo, 39 S.W.3d 717, 719 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.); Knie v. Piskun, 23 S.W.3d 455, 467 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2000, pet. denied). Mocega’s fifth point is overruled. Notice of Hearing Mocega’s final two points assert the trial court was required to grant her the grace period provided under art. 4590i, § 13.01(g). A motion under that section is timely if filed before “any hearing” on a defendant’s motion to dismiss. Urquhart’s motion was “heard” by submission on April 3rd. See Martin v. Martin, Martin & Richards, Inc., 989 S.W.2d 357, 359 (Tex.1998) (<HOLDING>). Mocega’s motion was not filed until April 
 Holding statements: (A) holding term successor does not contemplate acquisition by ordinary purchase from another corporation (B) holding that a hearing does not contemplate an oral presentation unless required by express language or context (C) holding that oral rendition of judgment supported by the courts docket sheet was insufficient express specific written order is required (D) holding that statutory authority to modify does not contemplate fundamental changes (E) holding that express oral agreement with government agent was not binding because among other factors applicable regulations required contract to be in writing

Ex Output:
holding term successor does not contemplate acquisition by ordinary purchase from another corporation


Ex Input:
that the social history is not. Accordingly, the social history is not discoverable. The court also concludes that the letter is not protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege because it was disclosed to a third party, and Officer Draper could not have had a reasonable expectation of privacy as to the letter. Accordingly, the court concludes that the letter is discoverable. Conversely, Officer Draper has a reasonable expectation of privacy as to the PTSD interview. Unlike the letter, the PTSD interview was not disclosed to the Ogden City Police Department. Accordingly, the court concludes that the psychotherapist-patient privilege applies to the PTSD interview, and therefore, it is not subject to discovery. See e.g., Caver v. City of Trenton, 192 F.R.D. 154, 162 (D.N.J.2000) (<HOLDING>); Williams v. District of Columbia, No. CIV. A. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the psychotherapistpatient privilege applied to mandatory postshooting evaluation where no confidential information was disclosed by the psychologist to the police chief but only a yes or no as to whether the officer was fit to return to duty (B) holding that the psychotherapistpatient privilege applied where an officer was required to undergo a psychological evaluation after killing a suspect and the psychotherapist merely opined whether the officer was fit to return to duty (C) holding that an exception to the general rule applied when counsel asked the court whether its ruling was the final order of the court and the court responded yes (D) holding the chief of police was an atwill employee because the parties agreed that the chief of police was an appointed officer and the citys charter stated that officers shall be appointed and may be removed by the mayor with consent of the council (E) holding that statements made only to supervisor and chief by police officer were matters of public concern

Ex Output:

holding that the psychotherapistpatient privilege applied where an officer was required to undergo a psychological evaluation after killing a suspect and the psychotherapist merely opined whether the officer was fit to return to duty