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: (“Due process requires that no one shall be personally bound until he has had his ‘day in court.’ ”). The 1992 statute, as applied in this case, provided State Farm no “fair opportunity” to be heard before it was called upon to divest itself of a significant property interest if it chose to preserve its long-recognized right of subrogation. Instead, the statute placed State Farm in the untenable position of being bound by law to the outcome of private settlement negotiations between the Hassens and UniSun that essentially determined its immediate liability for an award of damages, including noneconomic damages, even though it was not a party to the negotiations and had no available means to assert any legal defenses to the Hassens’ claim. Cf. Freidus v. Freidus, 89 So.2d 604 (Fla.1956) (<HOLDING>). The fact that the statute entitled State Farm 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that it is not (B) holding that foreign states are not persons entitled to rights under the due process clause (C) holding that it may not (D) holding that an arbitration agreement enforceable against party who signed the agreement even where the other party did not sign it because generally it is enough that the party against whom the contract is sought to be enforced signs it (E) holding that a corporation is entitled to due process of law insofar as property rights are concerned so that a money judgment may not be entered against it where it was not a party to a cause and was not served with process even though the principal stockholder was a party to the cause

Answer: holding that it is not


Question: on the circuit court orders and the statements of defense counsel at the hearing. We hold that neither the doctors nor the trial court could rely on facts and legal conclusions within the circuit court orders. Thus, the doctors’ assertions at the hearing, which were based on facts within the orders, constituted factual statements of counsel. Moreover, the orders were, in effect, memoranda submitted by counsel. In any event, the trial court could not properly consider factual statements from either when deciding the motions, however they are characterized. Cf. Stiles v. Onorato, 318 S.C. 297, 457 S.E.2d 601 (1995) (noting that the ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss must be based solely upon the allegations set forth on the face of the complaint); Gilmore, 290 S.C. 53, 348 S.E.2d 180 (<HOLDING>). This is not to say that circuit court orders 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the judge cannot consider factual statements of counsel in a motion for summary judgment (B) holding that unsworn statements may not be considered on a motion for summary judgment (C) holding that a trial court can only consider admissible evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment (D) holding that motion to dismiss cannot be treated as summary judgment (E) holding that conclusory statements without factual support are of no value to the court when deciding a summary judgment motion

Answer: holding that unsworn statements may not be considered on a motion for summary judgment


Question: Judge. The husband, Theodore C. Rogers, appeals from an order granting the wife’s motion for temporary attorney’s fees and costs in a dissolution of marriage action. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. In March 2001, after approximately nineteen months of marriage, the husband filed for divorce. Shortly thereafter, the wife filed a motion for temporary attorney’s fees and costs. Following an eviden-tiary hearing, the lowe CA 1997)(<HOLDING>); Meighen v. Meighen, 813 So.2d 173, 176 (Fla. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that trial court did not err in imputing income to wife for purposes of child support based on the continued monthly payment of wifes living expenses by wifes mother (B) holding that trial court did not err (C) holding that it was error to impute income to wife where there was no evidence of regular periodic payments and where assistance from wifes mother was of a temporary nature during the pendency of the divorce proceedings holding that lower court properly imputed income to husband where husbands parents maderegular periodic payments that allowed parties to maintain a high standard of living (D) holding that the order on the wifes petition for modification of child support was a final order because it disposed of all the issues except for the ancillary issue of attorneys fees (E) holding that the wifes testimony outlining the family living expenses constituted evidence from which the trial court could find that  the needs of the children exceed  the maximum support pursuant to the guidelines 

Answer:
holding that trial court did not err