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.

[Q]: preventing employee from "working in any geographic space in which [employer] operates” where employer had interest in confidential information); Advanced Cable Ties, Inc. v. Hewes, No. 061995B, 2006 WL 3292810, at *1-2 (Mass.Super.Ct. Oct. 19, 2006) (lack of geographic scope restriction in non-compete not fatal to enforcement of restrictive covenant when employer was national company). 17 . See Miller Mech., Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11, 12-13 (Fla.1974) (citing Kenco Chem. and Manufacturing Co. v. Railey, 286 So.2d 272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)); Flickenger v. R.J. Fitzgerald & Co., Inc., 732 So.2d 33, 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Balasco v. Gulf Holding, Inc., 707 So.2d 858, 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); see also Health Care Financial Enterprises, Inc. v. Levy, 715 So.2d 341, 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (<HOLDING>). 18 .Under Florida law, courts are required to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a court may only enforce a settlement agreement if it constitutes an enforceable contract (B) holding that trial court is without authority to modify a settlement agreement but may enforce and interpret it (C) recognizing court has authority to modify agreement to cure any unreasonable provision as to duration or scope (D) holding that court may not refuse to enforce noncompete agreement solely because geographical area is unreasonable but rather must modify unreasonable restriction and enforce agreement as modified (E) holding an employer may partially enforce a noncompete agreement to the extent it is reasonable under the circumstances
[A]: holding that a court may only enforce a settlement agreement if it constitutes an enforceable contract


[Q]: of G.D.’s older sibling, C.D., based on the abuse of G.D. The court may not terminate parental rights based on the abuse of a sibling without a finding of a nexus between the abuse and the prospective abuse. O.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. (In re G.C.A.), 863 So.2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (citing R.F. v. Dep’t of Children & Families (In re M.F.), 770 So.2d 1189 (Fla.2000)); see also C.M. v. Dep’t of Children & Families (In re C.M.), 844 So.2d 765, 766 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“Children who have not been abused may be adjudicated dependent based on abuse inflicted upon their siblings; however, the evidence must demonstrate a nexus between the abuse and any prospective abuse to another sibling.”). But see T.P. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 860 So.2d 1084, 1089 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>). “Generally, this nexus is established when 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that parental rights may be terminated based on the egregious abuse of a sibling without a showing of a nexus but providing that the parent should be afforded the opportunity to show a lack of a nexus (B) holding that in order to support a termination of parental rights based on prospective abuse it is necessary to show that the behavior of the parent was beyond the parents control likely to continue and placed the child at risk and citing as an example the parents mental illness (C) holding the parental rights of a child may not be terminated unless that parent has been represented by counsel at every critical stage of the proceedings (D) recognizing that a court is not limited in what it may consider in determining whether parental rights should be terminated (E) recognizing petitioners must be afforded the opportunity to show good cause for filing a longer petition
[A]: holding that in order to support a termination of parental rights based on prospective abuse it is necessary to show that the behavior of the parent was beyond the parents control likely to continue and placed the child at risk and citing as an example the parents mental illness


[Q]: policymaking authority sufficient for imposition of municipal liability); Powell v. City of Pittsfield, 143 F.Supp.2d 94, 125 (D.Mass.2001)(failing to apply Praprotnik and holding that a may- or’s admission that he was the ultimate decision-maker regarding police appointments sufficient to establish final policy-making authority in that area); Martineau v. Kurland, 36 F.Supp.2d 39, 43 (D.Mass.1999) (Keeton, J.) (applying the Praprotnik finality framework and holding that city hospital director lacked final poli- eymaking authority because constrained by city’s formal policy against discrimination or retribution); Armstrong v. Lamy, 938 F.Supp. 1018, 1035-36 (D.Mass.1996) (Keeton, J.) rev’d on other grounds by Educadores Puertorriqueños en Accion v. Hernandez, 367 F.3d 61 (1st Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted); Gonsalves v. City of New 
 Holding statements: (A) holding a board of education independently liable despite the intentional nature of the conduct of its employee a school principal (B) holding that the law of the state of incorporation applies (C) holding that petitioners status as school board members does not permit them to step into the shoes of the school board and invoke its right to appeal (D) holding that members of the board of trustees of an elementary school had standing to challenge the actions of the county board of education because they suffered an actual injury when the county board nullified their unanimous vote to reject a candidate for principal of the elementary school (E) recognizing jetts incorporation of specific portions of praprotnik but holding that school committee members have final authority to establish school policy despite fact that state law subjected such authority to standards established by the board of education
[A]:
holding a board of education independently liable despite the intentional nature of the conduct of its employee a school principal