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.

rule may be outdated, we have also recognized that “it is uniquely a province of the legislature to change it.” Reiter v. Yellowstone County (1981), Mont., 627 P.2d 845, 849, 38 St.Rep. 686, 690. In Reiter, we noted that because of the operation of section 39-2-503, MCA, the at-will employee was not employed on a “discharge for cause only” basis. We stated, “assuming arguendo that appellant had an implied contract with an implied covenant of good faith, the employer did not act in bad faith because its conduct was statutorily permissible.” 627 P.2d at 849-850, 38 St.Rep. at 690. In other words, under section 39-2-503, MCA, an employer or employee could terminate employment for any or all reasons, provided the reasons or manner of termination did not 7), 373 Mass. 96, 364 N.E.2d 1251 (<HOLDING>); and Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co. (1974), 114 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing a contract action when employee terminated in order not to receive earned bonuses or commissions (B) holding employee not terminated in bad faith because no evidence suggested that employer discharged employee in order to retain em ployees previously earned sales commissions (C) recognizing contract action and limiting damages to those for breach of contract when employee terminated for refusal to date foreman (D) holding um did not act under color of state law when it terminated an employee (E) recognizing a tort action for wrongful discharge when employee was terminated because he refused to commit a criminal act
holding employee not terminated in bad faith because no evidence suggested that employer discharged employee in order to retain em ployees previously earned sales commissions

documents that may be exempt from disclosure under the Sunshine Law. See Chasnoff v. Bd. of Police Comm’rs, 334 S.W.3d 147, 150 (Mo.App. E.D.2011) (noting trial court reviewed investigative file log of 59 documents in camera to determine disclosure under Sunshine Law); Bill, 935 S.W.2d at 663 (noting trial court granted in camera review of retirement benefit records of government employees; subsequently finding records exempt from disclosure under Sunshine Law); accord State ex rel. Lester E. Cox Med. Ctr. v. Keet, 678 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Mo. banc 1984) (in discovery context, trial court has discretion to examine privileged documents in camera to determine whether redaction and production of documents is appropriate); State ex rel. Fusselman v. Belt. 893 S.W.2d 898, 901 (Mo.App. W.D.1995) (<HOLDING>). In light of the Sunshine Law and the Missouri 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that trial court properly refused to permit disclosure of privileged communications in part because use of the privileged information was not essential to the defense (B) holding that where a party claims a document is privileged and the trial court fails to conduct an in camera review or balancing test the trial court has departed from the essential requirements of the law (C) holding the government has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant (D) holding in camera review by trial court to determine whether crime stoppers information contained brady information would meet the balance of defendants constitutional rights against the states interest in fostering law enforcement (E) holding trial court should have reviewed records requested by criminal defendant in camera to determine whether they contained exculpatory evidence while protecting against unnecessary publication of privileged information
holding that trial court properly refused to permit disclosure of privileged communications in part because use of the privileged information was not essential to the defense

of being performed by the estate representative. See TPS Freight Distribs., Inc. v. Texas Commerce Bank-Dallas, 788 S.W.2d 456, 458-59 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1990, writ denied); see also Solomon v. Greenblatt, 812 S.W.2d 7, 17 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1991, no writ). Thus, to the extent there is a “presumption” regarding survival of a contractual obligation after the death of one of the parties, it is exactly the converse of that advanced by the Estate and adopted by the trial court. Neither the historical treatment of alimony in Texas, nor Texas case law, indicates that the general rules of alimony—i.e., court-ordered spousal support—should apply to contracts for spousal support, particularly the rule that alimony presumptively terminates on the obligor’s death. Cf. Hutchings, 406 S.W.2d at 421 (<HOLDING>). Because Texas law mandates that we apply 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that parents may not voluntarily terminate their rights in a child to avoid child support payments or contract away a child support obligation (B) holding that an obligors voluntary unemployment would not affect his child support payments (C) holding that agreement for periodic child support payments is governed by law of contracts (D) recognizing that payments to secured creditors are only required in equal monthly amounts if property to be distributed  is in the form of periodic payments (E) holding that agreement for periodic child support payments is governed by law of contracts and under contract principles payments survive obligors death absent agreement to contrary shown by provisions of contract or surrounding circumstances

holding that parents may not voluntarily terminate their rights in a child to avoid child support payments or contract away a child support obligation