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: June 1993 was being denied. Katz asserts that he never received the letter and, therefore, until March 27, 1995, when he received the notice of the denial of coverage, Colonial had led him to believe that his policy covered registered nursing care provided at a general hospital. As the dispute as to whether Katz actually received the letter cannot be resolved at this juncture, I now consider whether, if he did not receive the letter, Colonial should be estopped from denying coverage for the October/November private nursing care. In order to prevail under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, Katz must show (1) a material representation, (2) reasonable reliance upon that representation, and (3) damage resulting from that representation. Lee v. Burkhart, 991 F.2d 1004, 1009 (2d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Katz asserts that Colonial’s failure to 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing difference between tolling and equitable estoppel (B) recognizing cause of action (C) holding that ejven if there were no express preemption under erisa  514a of the cause of action in that case it would be preempted because it conflicted directly with an erisa cause of action (D) recognizing the cause of action (E) recognizing cause of action for equitable estoppel under erisa

A: (E)
****
Q: activity, not objectionable under the prevailing standards of lawful and approved social conduct in the community---- Informed public sentiment is only against unlicensed gambling, which is unsupervised, unregulated by law and which affords no protection to customers and no assurance of fairness or honesty of the operation of the gambling devices.” Similarly, the New Jersey Supreme Court, in Caribe Hilton Hotel v. Toland, 63 N.J. 301, 307, 307 A.2d 85, 88 (1973), stated that “[w]hile New Jersey continues to take a strict view of those forms of gambling that are prohibited, the fact that wagering in various different ways is now authorized demonstrates that our public policy can no longer be said to condemn gambling per se.” See also, Castilleja v. Camero, 414 S.W.2d 424 (Texas 1967) (<HOLDING>); In re Smith, 66 B.R. 58 (Bankr.D.Md.1986), 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an attorney approval clause in a contract for the sale of real estate was a part of that contract and would have to be satisfied for the underlying contract to be enforceable (B) holding that a contract is not effective until the performance of the conditions precedent and that a condition precedent calls for the happening of some event or the performance of some act after the terms of the contract have been agreed on before the contract shall be binding on the parties (C) holding that for a suit to be brought in the venue in which the contract was to be performed the contract must expressly state where the performance of the contract was to occur (D) holding that the place of performance governs the legality of the contract and because the contract was to be performed in mexico texas public policy against gambling was not implicated (E) holding that place of performance of a life insurance contract was the state where premiums were made payable even if the contract was made in another state

A: (D)
****
Q: to present their objections.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 657, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950). ¶ 20 In this case, appellants were not given the time, place, or date of the final adoption hearing. Because they were not given notice of, and thus did not appear at, the final adoption hearing, appellants were also not afforded an opportunity to be heard. While the court may consolidate adoption petitions and determine that “one petition is the primary matter to be decided,” In re Adoption of A.B., 991 P.2d 70, 1999 UT App 315 at ¶ 14, notice must nevertheless be given t appellate review that the nature and extent of an opinion rendered by an appellate court is largely discretionary with that court”). Cf. Reese v. Reese, 1999 UT 75, ¶ 8, 984 P.2d 987 (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION ¶ 22 We remand the issue of 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing the right to petition for writ of certiorari as a form of appellate review (B) holding that a state court criminal judgment is final for purposes of collateral attack in federal court at the conclusion of review in the united states supreme court or when the time for seeking certiorari review expires (C) holding in a similar case that certiorari was the proper vehicle for review (D) holding that this court will consider a petition for a writ of certiorari only after the court of appeals has overruled the application for rehearing on the point challenged in the petition implying that the decision by the court of criminal appeals must be final before certiorari review would be available (E) holding that for purposes of certiorari review court of appeals must identify the basis for refusing to treat an issue

A:
(E)
****