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]: fees for tax years 1995 through 1999, the parties stipulated that judgment was sought against Connie Ogg in rem only. 3 . Although it has been amended several times since its enactment in 1985, section 33.011 has always provided a process for a taxpayer to request a waiver of penalties and interest if the act or omission of an officer, employee, or agent of the appraisal district or taxing unit caused or resulted in the taxpayer’s failure to pay the tax before delinquency. See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 33.011 (Vernon 2001). Here, the trial court stated in a finding of fact that the Oggs did not request a waiver of penalties or interest pursuant to section 33.011. The parties do not challenge that particular finding of fact. See McGalliard v. Kuhlmann, 722 S.W.2d 694, 696 (Tex.1986) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Act of May 24, 1979, 66th Leg., R.S., ch. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding unchallenged findings of fact are binding unless contrary is established as matter of law or there is no evidence to support finding (B) holding that unless an affirmative defense is established as matter of law defendant bears burden of obtaining jury findings necessary to support defense (C) holding that findings of fact are conclusive if supported by clear and convincing competent evidence even where the evidence might support contrary findings (D) holding that judgment on the pleadings will not be granted unless the movant clearly establishes that there are no material issues of fact and that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law (E) holding that motion to dismiss should not  be granted unless the moving party has established that there is no material issue of fact to resolve and that it is entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law
[A]: (A)


[Q]: Thus, CERC-LA specifically provides for a private right of action to institute civil actions to recover the costs involved in the cleanup of hazardous wastes from those responsible for their creation. Dedham Water Co. v. Cumberland Farms Dairy, Inc., 889 F.2d 1146, 1150 (1st Cir.1989); 3550 Stevens Creek Assocs. v. Barclays Bank of Cal., 915 F.2d 1355, 1357 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 917, 111 S.Ct. 2014, 114 L.Ed.2d 101 (1991). Moreover, an entity that is responsible for the remediation of a hazardous waste site under CERCLA may assert a claim for contribution against other responsible parties under § 9613(f). New Castle County v. Halliburton NUS Corp., 111 F.3d 1116, 1122 (3d Cir.1997). See also SC Holdings, Inc. v. AAA Realty Co., 935 F.Supp. 1354, 1362 (D.N.J.1996)(<HOLDING>). In its reply papers, the Novak Group does not 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the michigan department of natural resources liable under cercla for remedial actions which exacerbated the contamination at a site (B) recognizing a right to contribution (C) holding that investigatory costs are considered costs of response under cercla (D) holding that parties liable for at least a portion of the costs of remediating a hazardous site are limited to the contribution scheme under section 9613f of cercla (E) holding that site control alone is an improper basis for imposition on lessees of owner liability under cercla
[A]: (D)


[Q]: claim in the third amended complaint, this complaint was not filed until after the summary judgment briefing was filed. Next, Elliott challenges the grant of summary judgment on her supervisory liability claim against Harnett. Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment to Harnett on the supervisory liability claims for substantially the same reasons as those stated in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned order. Critically, Elliott failed to produce any evidence to demonstrate that Harnett was personally involved in Glace’s death. See Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865, 873 (2d Cir.1995); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); see also Grullon v. City of New Haven, 720 F.3d 133, 139 (2d Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>). Although Elliott argues that Harnett was 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing conflict between interests of the highest order (B) recognizing conflict (C) recognizing the conflict (D) recognizing possible conflict between the cases (E) recognizing conflict between circuits
[A]:
(D)