Detailed Instructions: 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: amounts of $19,905.51 for mortgage interest, property taxes, and maintenance expenses and $19,955.62 for lost rent? V. Did the district court err by determining that RTB is entitled to prejudgment interest under Minn.Stat. 549.09, subd. 1(b) (2014), beginning on September 20, 2010? VI. Did the district court err by ordering Minnwest to pay $12,000 in administrative costs to correct the property line? ANALYSIS I. RTB argues that the district court erred by refusing to adopt the advisory jury's finding that RTB is entitled to $100,563.75 in conveyance damages separate and distinct from the diminution-in-value damages award of $638,434. We review a district court's decision to award or not award damages for an abuse of discretion. Gabler v. Fedoruk, 756 N.W.2d 725, 734 (Minn.App.2008) (<HOLDING>); see also Wenigar v. Johnson, 712 N.W.2d 190,
Holding statements: (A) holding that it was necessary for this court to reach methodofvaluation arguments because the district court abused its discretion by incorrectly awarding damages (B) holding district court abused its discretion in admitting state court findings of fact (C) recognizing that an appellant seeking to establish that the district court abused its discretion must do so by a discussion of facts arguments and rulings that appear in the record (D) holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint (E) holding that district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs motion to file fourth amended complaint
A:
(A)