Q: 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.
procedure. Our role is not to search for evidence to defeat the district court's judgment, but rather, to broadly construe the court's findings and view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the judgment. Johnson, 637 N.W.2d at 177. However, what we do know from the evidence is that the procedure has been used "hundreds" of times by Chrysler in the past without knowledge that it adversely affected the venue rights of litigants. This evidence would support a finding that the chance of invading the protected interest and the number of people likely to be adversely affected is minimal. The final factor in considering reasonableness is the extent of the potential harm. Restatement (Second) of Torts 293, at 58; Vaughn v. Ag Processing, Inc., 459 N.W.2d 627, 634 (Iowa 1990) (<HOLDING>). In considering this factor, it is important
Holding statements: (A) holding that the source of the federal funds was not a relevant factor in determining the number of violations (B) holding that while the nonprevailing partys financial condition is not appropriate to consider in determining whether to award attorneys fees it is appropriate to consider when determining the amount of the attorneys fees (C) holding factor to consider in determining whether employer took reasonable steps to remedy discrimination in the workplace was the gravity of the harm (D) holding that previous sworn statements made by a plaintiff in his request for disability benefits is a material factor for the court to consider in determining whether he is entitled to ada relief (E) holding that in determining whether a state officer is entitled to qualified immunity for 1983 purposes courts may not consider whether the constitutional right was clearly established before determining first that a constitutional right was violated
A:
holding that the source of the federal funds was not a relevant factor in determining the number of violations