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:
of the debtor. This distinction appears immaterial under the language of sec. 409.402(7), Stats. 7 In other contexts, a security interest properly perfected at one time may later become unperfected through creditor inaction. See, e.g. sec. 409.103(l)(d)l, (2)(b), (3)(e), Stats, (four month grace periods preserving perfection in collateral removed from jurisdic tion); sec. 409.403(2) (lapse of financing statements after 5 years unless continued). 8 Interestingly, the Ansley court held that a filing under "the name Ansley Farms instead of the debtor's true name Emory Ansley is seriously misleading, making [the]. . . security interest unperfected.. . ." Id,., 467 F.Supp. at 55. Other cases reaching similar results are In Re Wishart, 10 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 1296 (Bankr.W.D. Mich. 1972) (<HOLDING>); In Re Brawn, 7 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 565 (D.C.
Holding statements: (A) holding that the filing of notice without motion is insufficient (B) holding a filing under mccauleys reprographics and mapping insufficient to perfect a security interest in the assets of the debtor corporation (C) holding that the reservation of a claim need not name a defendant but only identify the type of claim the debtor seeks to retain (D) holding a filing under wishart equipment co insufficient to identify the debtor horace wishart (E) holding a filing under john and mayella lintz insufficient to identify the debtor corporation
answer:
holding that the filing of notice without motion is insufficient

question:
in Bowman were appointed by the court to make educational decisions for children who were wards of the district, so that the advocates effectively acted as "parents" under the IDEA. See id. Accordingly, even though they were licensed attorneys, they could not recover fees as educational advocates because they were not acting in an attorney-client capacity. See id. Pressley distinguishes from this scenario because she was employed by the Chris Anwah Law Firm, instead of being appointed by the court as an advocate. See Adewusi Deck 1. Furthermore, Pressley's work on this matter was similar to that performed by the billing attorneys. See PL's Mot., Ex. B. Yet because she is not a member of the D.C. Bar, Pressley is not entitled to attorney rates. See Dickens, 724 F.Supp.2d at 120 (<HOLDING>); Agapito v. District of Columbia, 477
Holding statements: (A) holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees (B) holding that the magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion in considering the prevailing hourly rates in the southern district of new york when awarding attorneys fees (C) holding that lexis fees are not taxable as costs but reserving ruling on whether such fees are recoverable as attorneys fees (D) holding that attorneys not admitted to the dc bar are not entitled to reimbursement but awarding fees at paralegal rates as equitable relief (E) holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal because it was filed before the final order awarding attorneys fees
answer:
holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees

question:
Ins. Co., 616 A.2d 1192, 1195-96 (Del.1992)). 10 . Hallowell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 443 A.2d 925, 926 (Del.1982). 11 . Id. 12 . 18 Del. C. 3902(b). 13 . Frank v. Horizon Assur. Co., 553 A.2d 1199, 1201-02 (Del.1989) (citing State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Abramowicz, 386 A.2d 670, 673 (Del.1978)). 14 . Temple, 2000 WL 33113814, at *6. 15 . Temple, 782 A.2d 267, 2001 WL 760864, at *1. 16 . Adams-Baez, 2005 WL 2436220, at *3. 17 . Appellant's Amended Opening Br. at 28. 18 . White v. Liberty Ins. Corp., 975 A.2d 786, 790-91 (Del.2009) (alteration in original) (omission in original) (quoting Account v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 780 A.2d 245, 248 (Del.2001)). 19 . White, 975 A.2d at 788. 20 . Id. at 789. 21 . See Eaquinta v. Allstate Ins. Co., 125 P.3d 901, 904 n. 5 (Utah 2005) (<HOLDING>). 22 . Gloe v. Iowa Mut. Ins. Co., 694 N.W.2d
Holding statements: (A) holding that premature payment of estate taxes was not a recoverable loss in a wrongful death action because the test is a measurement of benefits of pecuniary value that the decedent might have been expected to contribute to the surviving spouse and children had the decedent lived (B) recognizing the majority rule (C) recognizing that a majority of courts hold that uim benefits for wrongful death are not available for a noninsured decedent (D) holding that plaintiffs failure to prove decedents death was caused by the wrongful acts of the defendant precludes any recovery of wrongful death damages under mississippis wrongful death statute (E) recognizing cause of action for wrongful death
answer:
holding that premature payment of estate taxes was not a recoverable loss in a wrongful death action because the test is a measurement of benefits of pecuniary value that the decedent might have been expected to contribute to the surviving spouse and children had the decedent lived