instruction:
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.
question:
to landslide, even though earth movement was the most immediate cause). We therefore conclude that this is a case of multiple causation. B. We must now determine whether the deterioration or the fungicide manufacturers’ failure to warn is the “proximate efficient cause” of the damage to Berry’s irrigation pipes. In Sabella, the California Supreme Court defined “proximate efficient cause” both as “the one that sets others in motion” and as “the predominating or moving efficient cause.” Sabella, 27 Cal.Rptr. at 695, 377 P.2d at 895; see Garvey, 257 Cal.Rptr. at 296, 770 P.2d at 708 (“Sabella defined ‘efficient proximate cause’ alternatively as the ‘one that sets others in motion’ and as ‘the predominating or moving efficient cause.’”) (citations omitted); Howell, 267 Cal.Rptr. at 716 (<HOLDING>); Brian Chuchua’s Jeep, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d at 445 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing the existence of purely jurisdictional elements (B) recognizing existence of two tests (C) recognizing first two exceptions (D) recognizing that the existence of an agency relationship is ordinarily a question of fact (E) recognizing the existence of the special relationship
answer:
recognizing the existence of purely jurisdictional elements


question:
and therefore, need only show that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his challenges for cause. “[A] challenge for cause should be granted, even when a prospective juror declares his ability to remain impartial, if the juror’s responses as a whole reveal facts from which bias, prejudice or inability to render judgment according to law may be reasonably implied.” State v. Hallal, 557 So.2d 1388, 1389-90 (La.1990). The proper standard for determining when a prospective juror may be excluded for cause because of his views on capital punishment is whether the juror’s views would “prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.” Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968) (<HOLDING>); see also Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that graham which prohibited the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide does not apply to a lengthy termofyears sentence that might constitute a de facto life sentence (B) holding that an effective life sentence of fortyfive years for seconddegree forgery was excessive and that a life sentence was cruel and unusual in violation of the eighth amendment (C) holding that a prospective juror who would vote automatically for a life sentence is properly excluded (D) holding life sentence mandatory under 21 usc  841b and district court could not depart from the mandatory life sentence unless government made a motion (E) holding that time excluded from a speedy trial clock for pretrial motion preparation is not automatically excluded under  3161h1 but may only be excluded when a court makes appropriate reasonableness findings under  3161h7
answer:
holding that graham which prohibited the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide does not apply to a lengthy termofyears sentence that might constitute a de facto life sentence


question:
and fired North Bay’s employees, and that Elmar Lee Pettit made the decision that North Bay would be non-union. Nor does appellants’ evidence contradict appellees’ proffer that Elmar Lee Pettit transferred Nor-Cal accounts to North Bay. Elmar Lee Pettit does declare that “I told [customers] I could not help them, that they should call North Bay Plumbing.” (C.R. 229.) But these general denials of involvement in North Bay’s affairs conflict with his sworn statements on North Bay’s business license that he would “supervis[e] and control” North Bay’s plumbers. Such internal inconsistencies in a party’s own testimony fail to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether North Bay was the alter ego of Nor-Cal. See Radobenko v. Automated Equip. Corp., 520 F.2d 540, 544 (9th Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>). 2 Intent Even though the district court 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a plaintiff cannot create an issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment through an affidavit that contradicts prior testimony (B) holding that mere speculation does not satisfy the nonmoving partys burden of establishing a dispute of material fact sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (C) holding that the necessity of choosing between the appellants two conflicting versions of a material fact does not defeat summary judgment (D) holding that conflicting expert evidence regarding function establishes material issue of fact (E) holding that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact
answer:

holding that a plaintiff cannot create an issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment through an affidavit that contradicts prior testimony