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: The State Defendants also cite to cases from other circuits refusing to apply Ex Parte Young in suits challenging statutorily-created private rights of action. Okpalobi, 244 F.3d at 416-24; Children’s Healthcare is a Legal Duty, Inc. v. Deters, 92 F.3d 1412, 1416-17 (6th Cir.1996); see also Summit Med. Assocs., 180 F.3d at 1342. Their holdings are unsurprising given that no state officials were charged with enforcing those laws. However, in the case before me, certain state officials are expressly charged with enforcing the law. Indeed, the Eleventh and Sixth Circuits distinguished the cases before them from cases challenging penal laws enforceable by state officials, finding the latter suitable for application of Ex Parte Young. See Summit Med. Assocs., 180 F.3d at 1337-41 (<HOLDING>); Deters, 92 F.3d at 1416 n. 10 (distinguishing 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the statute as applied violates the commerce clause (B) holding no error occurred in excluding portion of statement offered by defendant because the rejected portion of the conversation in no manner explains or modifies that portion of the conversation which came into evidence (C) holding that an offender convicted under the bestiality portion of the criminal sodomy statute does not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of die portion of the statute that criminalizes homosexual conduct (D) holding that clear language in one portion of a later may cause ambiguity in another portion to dissipate (E) holding that ex parte young applied to plaintiffs claims against the criminal portion of the statute

A: (E)
****
Q: the reasons for the plaintiffs failure to obtain the action or for not making the effort. Addressing the identical federal rule, the Supreme Court has stated that “[o]n its face, Rule 23.1 speaks only to the adequacy of the shareholder representatives pleadings.” Kamen, supra, 500 U.S. at 96, 111 S.Ct. 1711. The rule itself does not create a demand requirement. Id. “[T]he function of the demand doctrine in delimiting the respective powers of the individual shareholder and of the directors to control corporate litigation clearly is a matter of ‘substance, not procedure.’ ” Id. at 96-97, 111 S.Ct. 1711 (quoting Daily Income Fund, supra, 464 U.S. at 543-44 & n. 2, 104 S.Ct. 831 (1984) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment) (other citations omitted)); see also Bazata, supra, 400 A.2d at 316 (<HOLDING>). Thus, the demand requirement or its futility 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a  2 claim (B) holding that for purposes of super ct civ r 41b demand is not jurisdictional but an element of the shareholders claim (C) holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense (D) holding that a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading for purposes of super ct civ r 15a which permits a party to amend once as a matter of course before a responsive pleading is served (E) holding the connection is an element

A: (B)
****
Q: 652, (Tex.App.Waco 1993, writ denied); see also Ex parte Threet, 160 Tex. 482, 333 S.W.2d 361, 364 (1960) (evidence that couple was introduced as husband and wife to a few friends was no evidence that they held themselves out as married). Whether the evidence is sufficient to establish that a couple held themselves out as husband and wife turns on whether the couple had a reputation in the community for being married. Eris, 39 S.W.3d at 715; see also Danna v. Danna, No. 05-05-00472-CV, 2006 WL 785621, at ⅜1 (Tex.App.-Dallas Mar. 29, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.) (a “couple’s reputation in the community as being married is a significant factor in determining the holding[-]out element”), quoted in Smith v. Deneve, 285 S.W.3d 904, 910 (Tex.App.Dallas 2009, no pet.); Giessel, 734 S.W.2d at 31 (<HOLDING>). Proving a reputation for being married 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that police did not enjoy qualified immunity for a period where they acknowledged that plaintiff had to be released but nevertheless kept him handcuffed (B) holding that couple held themselves out as married when they had reputation in community for being married even though they had kept marriage secret from a few family members (C) holding that the defendants statement in an application for citizenship that he had only been married once was false even if the second marriage had been a nullity because it was bigamous (D) holding victims statements to coworkers admissible to rebut defendants claim that they had a good marriage (E) holding that samesex partners who would  have chosen to marry before a childs birth had they been permitted to are entitled to a statutory presumption of parentage that otherwise conferred benefits only upon a married spouse

A:
(B)
****