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.
--------
Question: Const, amend. XIV, 1 ("nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws") (emphasis added). Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment protects all persons, whether they can prove membership in a specially protected class or not. The Court does not, in so holding, suggest that membership in a particular class of persons is irrelevant to a determination of whether a constitutional violation has occurred. Courts must evaluate discrimination based on membership in an identified suspect class such as race, alien-age, or national origin, with the most strict scrutiny. See City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 440, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985) (<HOLDING>). In contrast, the Eighth Circuit has held that
Holding statements: (A) holding that the government interest in preventing crime is compelling (B) holding on summary judgment that a regulation is narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest (C) recognizing the compelling interest in highway safety (D) holding that such classifications are permissible only when suitably tailored to serve a compelling state interest (E) holding grandparent visitation statute serves compelling state interest in maintaining grandparentgrandchild relationship where grandparents had raised child for period of time but agreeing with trial court that something more than childs best interest must be established to serve compelling state interest

Answer: (D)

Question: the Chapter 13 Plan, and by selecting which exemptions, if any, the Debtor should claim on Schedule C, the Defendants engaged in providing legal advice to the Debtor in violation of 110(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. "Advising of available exemptions ... or actually choosing an exemption for the debtor ... requires the exercise of legal judgment beyond the capacity and knowledge of lay persons." In re Kaitangian, 218 B.R. 102, 110 (Bankr.S.D.Cal.1998). See also In re Dunkle, 272 B.R. 450 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.2002) (classifying and selecting exemptions violates 110); In re Moffett, 263 B.R. 805 (Bankr.W.D.Ky.2001) (advising upon available exemptions violates 110). Such business practice also constitutes the unlawful practice of law. See In re Bachmann, 113 B.R. 769 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1990) (<HOLDING>). Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 110(Z)(1), the
Holding statements: (A) recognizing legal services organizations first amendment right of associating to advocate legal rights (B) holding that bpps may not engage in legal assistance make inquiries or answer legal questions (C) recognizing that inmates have no freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance (D) recognizing that courts may make reasoned adjustments in legal system (E) holding that many courts have recognized that an employer may make reasonable inquiries into the retirement plans of its employees

Answer: (B)

Question: sexual assault victims." Id. at 1026. Conversely, in People v. Spicola, the New York Court of Appeals recently held "the trial judge did not abuse his discretion when he allowed the expert to testify about CSAAS [Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome] to rehabilitate the boy's credibility." 16 N.Y.3d 441, 922 N.Y.S.2d 846, 947 N.E.2d 620, 635 (2011). Significantly, here, the State offered the challenged expert testimony in its case in chief against Dudley, not in rebuttal. Spi-cola is therefore distinguishable. But, the observation of the Spicola dissent (concluding that allowing an expert to connect general characteristics to a specific complainant is equivalent to bolstering the victim's credibility and is therefore inadmissible); State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116, 1130 (La.1993) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. La-Caprucia, 41 Mass.App.Ct.
Holding statements: (A) holding trial court was proper in admitting a doctors testimony that a delay between the occurrence of an incident of child sexual abuse and the childs revelation of the incident was the usual pattern of conduct for victims of child sexual abuse (B) holding that an expert testifying to child sexual abuse symptoms must limit the testimony to general characteristics that cannot directly concern the particular victims (C) holding defendants prior conviction for assault related to sexual abuse of a minor even though it did not require an act of sexual abuse because it required intent to commit sexual abuse and such a mens rea demonstrate the offense was one relating to sexual abuse (D) holding that the testimony of an expert witness is admissible when the witness outlines the general characteristics of sexually abused children and then states that the victims symptoms are consistent with those characteristics (E) holding that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing expert testimony that directly linked the characteristics of sexually abused children to the complainants in this case

Answer:
(B)