TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: requirements under UFTA, Gulf and Security nevertheless contend that as a matter of law and of public policy the statute of limitations should not have commenced in this action until they obtained the default judgment against Clark in August of 1997 in California. ¶24 As far as the law is concerned, Gulf and Security vigorously argue under the mistaken assumption that a creditor may not assert an UFTA claim until after the underlying judgment is entered. This persistent assumption represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the law under UFTA. ¶25 Gulf and Security base their theory on our decision in Murphy v. Atkinson (1993), 262 Mont. 164, 864 P.2d 273, as well as a recent appellate court decision from California, Cortez v. Vogt (Cal.Ct.App. 1997), 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 841, 853-54 (<HOLDING>). In Murphy, we determined that a cause of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the twoyear time limitation of rule 3850 does not commence until the sentence becomes final (B) holding that statements and charges by municipality may not be amended in light of legislative purpose of shielding police and similar employees from harassment (C) holding that in view of legislative statements of policy and purpose of the ufta as a cumulative and additional remedy limitation period did not commence until debtorcreditor relationship existed after judgment was made final (D) holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence (E) holding that statements made in the course of negotiation were not contracts and such statements were merged into the final written agreement

SOLUTION: (C)

PROBLEM: (3) Dr. Hickman’s observation that Seever’s surgeries, residual pain, and physical limitations “have taxed his psychological coping abilities,” ApltApp. at 372. But Dr. Hick man interpreted this information as presenting no more than a slight impairment—meaning that he could still function well—as to understanding, remembering, and carrying out detailed instructions, and he declined to identify any other mental capabilities affected by Seever’s depression. We will not fault the ALJ for failing to interpret Seever’s symptoms and test results differently than Dr. Hickman. See Winfrey v. Chater, 92 F.3d 1017, 1022 (10th Cir.1996) (observing that an ALJ may not substitute his lay opinion for a medical opinion); Hamilton v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 961 F.2d 1495, 1500 (10th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Nor are we convinced that the ALJ should have 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that this court may not reweigh evidence (B) recognizing this method (C) recognizing this presumption (D) recognizing this distinction (E) recognizing this rule

SOLUTION: (A)

PROBLEM: of litigation. Both Curry and Moscow deny giving or authorizing disclosure of the diary to Mr. Alexander, and Denis Daly, general counsel to Dayco, avers that only senior employees and officers of Dayco, and Dayco’s counsel and accountants have been permitted access to the diary. Exhibit attached to doc. # 79; doc. # 88. Plaintiffs have not offered any challenge to these statements, by way of affidavits or otherwise. Under these facts, and based on the Court’s in camera review of the document in question, it seems clear that the Curry diary should be considered to fall under both the attorney-corporate client privilege, and work-product immunity (for the latter, at least since December of 1981). See Baxter Travenol Laboratories, Inc. v. LeMay, 89 F.R.D. 410, 413-14 (S.D.Ohio1981) (<HOLDING>), appeal dismissed mem., 708 F.2d 721 (6th 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that privilege applies in similar factual circumstances (B) holding that no discovery is permissible in similar circumstances (C) holding so under circumstances similar to the present ones (D) recognizing privilege (E) holding that in similar factual situation no due process violation occurred

SOLUTION:
(A)