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:
century context. We hold, therefore, that a plaintiff may not recover for mental anguish for a potential injury to her unborn child that is wholly unsupported by any physical suffering during and after the incident in question and that explicitly has been ruled out by routine medical diagnostics. We are mindful of the fact, however, that pregnancy and childbirth continue to pose great mysteries that escape complete comprehension and control, and that carry risks with them, which, despite the latest advancements in medical research and technology, cannot be fully assessed. This has led some of our sister states to sustain their holdings in cases involving mental anguish suffered by pregnant women in recent decisions. See, e.g., Simons v. Beard, 188 Or.App. 370, 72 P.3d 96 (2003) (<HOLDING>). We emphasize that in an appropriate case this
Holding statements: (A) holding that a woman who was six months pregnant at the time of the accident was permitted to recover damages for her apprehension that her child may be born dead or deformed as a result of striking her abdomen against the steering wheel in the accident (B) holding that a pregnant woman whose baby died just before being born as a direct result of defendantdoctors negligence was permitted to recover damages for her apprehension about the childs wellbeing before death after she learned that the baby was in a transverse position across the upper part of the birth canal and defendant did not undertake any steps to correct the position until after the baby had died (C) holding female supervisors alleged comments that she did not want to add stress to the baby were sufficient direct evidence in a pregnancy discrimination mixed motives case (D) holding woman who claimed she was terminated after giving birth because she became pregnant was part of the protected class (E) holding that there was sufficient evidence to show that the victim suffered before she died based on numerous bruises on her forearms that appeared to be defensive wounds and the large amount of blood found at the scene of the crime indicating that many of the wounds were inflicted before the victim died
answer:
holding that a woman who was six months pregnant at the time of the accident was permitted to recover damages for her apprehension that her child may be born dead or deformed as a result of striking her abdomen against the steering wheel in the accident

question:
subjective, although it is usually proved by inference from the acts of the accused. Thus, intentionally entering or intentionally remaining unlawfully upon the described premises with the intent to commit any crime against a person or property rights constituted burglary, and therefore, it cannot logically be said that specifying the particular crime intended to be committed is, under our statutes, an essential element which must be alleged in order to charge the crime of burglary actual commission of a second underlying offense, in order to sufficiently charge the offense, it is incumbent on the State to allege the essential elements of the underlying offense; identification of the offense by name or statutory reference will not suffice. Cf. Elliott, 77 Hawaii at 312, 884 P.2d at 375 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we adopt the rule set out in
Holding statements: (A) holding that where the writings on file were insufficient to constitute an effective charge a charge had not been effectively filed despite the fact that the eeoc had assigned the case a charge number (B) holding that a charge not taken under oath or affirmation is not a valid charge (C) holding that the omission of an element from the jury charge is subject to harmlesserror review (D) holding that trial court did not err in refusing to give charge because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his requested charge was tailored to the evidence (E) holding that statutory references in charge did not cure the omission of essential elements in the challenged counts of the charge
answer:
holding that where the writings on file were insufficient to constitute an effective charge a charge had not been effectively filed despite the fact that the eeoc had assigned the case a charge number

question:
that possession of the following depictions violates 1466A(b)(1): Prosecution Exhibits 26, 27, 28, 30, 34, 40, 54, 55, 77, 90, 106, 120, 121, 122, 123, 132, 143, 149, 154, 156, 157, 183, 184, 206, 277, 285, 316, 319, 326, and 335. 4 . Contrary to the military judge's special findings of Specification 3 of The Charge, we are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that possession of the depiction in Prosecution Exhibit 13 violates 1466A(b)(1). 5 . Appellant does not contend that 1466A(b)(1) is facially unconstitutional. This subsection is neither vague nor overbroad because it explicitly requires the offending material meet the Miller definition of constitutionally unprotected obscenity. See United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 293, 297, 128 S.Ct. 1830, 170 L.Ed.2d 650 (2008)
Holding statements: (A) holding that declaring statute facially unconstitutional deprives trial court of subjectmatter jurisdiction (B) holding that person challenging statute as facially vague must show that the challenged law is unconstitutional in every possible application (C) holding texas flagdesecration statute facially unconstitutional (D) holding section 61132b2c facially unconstitutional (E) holding that a statute whose definitions precisely track the material held constitutionally proscribable in ferber and miller was not facially unconstitutional
answer:
holding that declaring statute facially unconstitutional deprives trial court of subjectmatter jurisdiction