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: a right to enjoy over the land of another for the benefit of the easement holder’s land, but it does not create an interest in the land itself." (footnote omitted; emphasis added)). 2 . 25 Am. Jur. 2d Easements and Licenses § 100 (2004) (footnotes omitted); see Cameron v. Barton, Ky., 272 S.W.2d 40, 42 (1954) ("Appellant finally contends that the easement in controversy was extinguished by merger when a former owner of the dominant estate bought an adjoining lot which offered a means of ingress and egress to and from the Highway Department’s property. The answer to this contention is that the doctrine of merger could not apply because the former owner of the dominant estate did not acquire the ser-vient estate." (emphasis added)); Sievers v. Flynn, 305 Ky. 325, 204 S.W.2d 364 (1947) (<HOLDING>); City of Franklin v. St. Mary's Roman Catholic 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that owners of a dominant estate had a duty to keep the easement in a proper state of repair to avoid damaging the servient estate through erosion (B) holding that the burden on the servient estate cannot be increased without the consent of the owners of the servient estate and that the owner of the dominant estate to which the appurtenant easement is attached has no power to convey or expand use of that easement in connection with a tract of land owned by another (C) holding that an easement is not a separate estate when dominant and servient tracts are under the same ownership (D) holding that an express easement ran with the dominant estate (E) recognizing that the dominant easement owner not the servient estate owner bears responsibility for maintaining an easement
Example Output: (C)

Example Input: uncon-scionability.” Woebse, 977 So.2d at 632 (citing Bland ex rel. Coker v. Health Care & Ret. Corp. of Am., 927 So.2d 252, 256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)). Procedural uncon-scionability necessarily takes into account the manner in which the agreement was made. Id. At the hearing, the Estate argued that the facts are identical, really, to the Woebse case, in that it was a five-minute process where she was told to sign here and here, that she didn’t read the agreement. It wasn’t explained as an arbitration agreement to her. It was not explained that it was a voluntary process. Thus, the Estate sufficiently demonstrated that a disputed issue exists as to the making of the agreement so as to require an evidentiary hearing. See Linden v. Auto Trend, Inc., 923 So.2d 1281, 1283 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the trial court should have held 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a party seeking to compel arbitration must establish the existence of an arbitration agreement and show that the claims raised fall within the scope of that agreement (B) holding that an evidentiary hearing is necessary only if the party requesting the hearing raises a significant disputed factual issue (C) holding university grievance committee hearing was not an arbitration proceeding even though hearing had significant characteristics of arbitration without substantial evidence to support an arbitration agreement (D) holding that the faa requires arbitration of age discrimination claims when a valid arbitration agreement exists (E) recognizing that a party may demonstrate that a disputed issue exists as to the making of an arbitration agreement through arguments of counsel at a hearing
Example Output: (E)

Example Input: stated that he conveyed all plea-bargain offers to appellant. Following the hearing, the trial court denied appellant’s motion for new trial. Appellant’s issue in this appeal states generally that he complains of ineffective assistance of counsel during the “plea bargain process.” Appellant specifically complains of ineffective assistance concerning his counsel’s alleged failure on October 3 to convey the 15-year plea-bargain offer made by the State; appellant argues that he lacked sufficient time to consider the offer that he admittedly rejected on October 4. At the hearing on his motion for new trial, however, appellant complained of ineffective a rwise — between the error and the judgment of guilt. Sanchez v. State, 98 S.W.3d 349, 353 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>); but see Brink v. State, 78 S.W.3d 478, 484 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that because judgment of youngs guilt was not rendered independently of trial courts ruling on motion to suppress evidence of offense and judgment would not be supported without that evidence error not waived by plea of guilty (B) holding that a defendants guilty plea was unconditional where the guilty plea was not in writing and the government did not consent to it being conditional (C) holding that a brady violation is waived by guilty plea (D) holding that courts mention of a guilty plea and acceptance of responsibility to defense counsel was not reversible error (E) holding that appellants plea of guilty was not rendered independently of trial courts ruling on motion to reveal identity of confidential informant and that error was thus not waived by plea of guilty because informants testimony was relevant to and needed for defense to prosecution
Example Output:
(E)