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]: that placed a forty-five day time limit on the administrator’s decision to grant or deny a license. See Redner, 29 F.3d at 1500. In the event the administrator exceeded the forty-five day time limit, the ordinance stated that “the applicant may be permitted to begin operating the establishment for which a license is sought," unless and until the County Administrator notifies the applicant of a denial of the application.” See id. at 1500-01 (citation omitted). We held that the ordinance was unconstitutional on its face because its use of the word “may” rather than “shall” allowed the individuals responsible for enforcing the ordinance to suppress the protected expression for an indefinite time period prior to any action on their part or any judicial determination. See id. at 1501 (<HOLDING>). In Lady J. Lingerie, we examined the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a plaintiff had standing to attack an entire ordinance including portions of the ordinance not applied to the plaintiff (B) holding that a party may not invoke the capable of repetition yet evading review exception where its failure to obtain prompt relief has prevented judicial review (C) holding also that the ordinance failed to provide for prompt judicial review (D) holding that because here the statutes in issue provide for judicial review via citizen suit provisions yet do not set forth a standard for that review judicial review is limited to apa review on the administrative record (E) holding that the llupa does not provide for judicial review of a request to change a comprehensive zoning plan
[A]: (C)


[Q]: diligent effort' requires such pointed measures as an examination of telephone company records, utility company records, and records maintained by the county treasurer, county recorder, or similar ree-ord keepers."). {47 Here, the motion for publication Brown filed in 1978 states that "search has been made of the public records of the County of Weld and County of Morgan, State of Colorado." Such a search, if undertaken with reasonable diligence, should have resulted in the discovery of the 1950 Deeds, as they were readily available matters of public record and part of the relevant chain of title. Each document identified Tulsa, Oklahoma, as the city of the Gadbois' residence. Brown could-and should-have discovered this information. See In re Colon, 563 F.3d 1171, 1178 (10th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>) 4 48 Sunﬂarly, Brown could-and should-have 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that implied easement arose because each deed in chain of title referenced community plan (B) holding that a typographical error in a security deed does not necessarily invalidate the legal description when the deed also referred to the propertys physical address (C) holding that trustees have a duty to exercise the same judgment and prudence that a careful owner would exercise in the sale of his own property (D) recognizing that a per son exercising reasonable prudence and diligence in examining propertys chain of title would have located a deed containing a misstatement in its descmptlon of the property (E) recognizing that the right to seek reformation of a deed is limited to the original parties to the deed and their successors in title
[A]: (D)


[Q]: 17 n. 7; see also Vinson v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 459, 469, 522 S.E.2d 170, 177 (1999); Janis v. Commonwealth, 22 Va.App. 646, 651, 472 S.E.2d 649, 652, aff'd on reh’g en banc, 23 Va.App. 696, 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996); Penn v. Commonwealth, 13 Va.App. 399, 406-07, 412 S.E.2d 189, 193 (1991), aff'd per curiam, 244 Va. 218, 420 S.E.2d 713 (1992); Thompson v. Commonwealth, 10 Va.App. 117, 122, 390 S.E.2d 198, 201 (1990). The DUI statutes nowhere provide for a suppression remedy for procedural violations. Instead, Code § 18.2-268.11 states that a violation of the procedural steps of Code §§ 18.2-268.2 through 18.2-268.9 “shall go to the weight of the evidence and shall be considered with all the evidence in the case.” See Shumate v. Commonwealth, 207 Va. 877, 883, 153 S.E.2d 243, 247 (1967) (<HOLDING>); Snider v. Commonwealth, 26 Va.App. 729, 734, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a challenge to the weight of the evidence is waived for failure to present the issue first to the trial court (B) holding that procedural violations merely affect the weight of the evidence (C) holding that the postconviction court is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses (D) holding that new evidence must be evidence that is not merely cumulative (E) holding that allegation of procedural injury does not affect the issues of injury in fact or causation
[A]:
(B)