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.

[EX Q]: negligence placed the plaintiff...." Brown v. Philadelphia Coll, of Osteopathic Med., 449 Pa.Super. 667, 674 A.2d 1130, 1135-36 (1996). Russell's actions were intentional, not negligent. The impact rule, which depends upon the negligence of a defendant, is therefore inapposite to this case. 7 . Because DiSalvio's federal cause of action survives Russell's Motion to Dismiss, the Court retains supplemental jurisdiction over DiSalvio's remaining state law claims. 9 . Unlike the School District Defendants, Russell has not argued that this tort is unavailable to plaintiffs in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 10 . The Court similarly rejects Russell's argument that DiSalvio cannot recover punitive damages from him under her 1983 claim. See Coleman v. Kaye, 87 F.3d 1491, 1497 (3d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). 11 . DiSalvio suggests that Magill should
Holding statements: (A) holding that punitive damages may be awarded for egregious violations of the lmrda (B) holding that punitive damages may be imposed against employer for tortious conduct of employee (C) holding that punitive damages may be awarded under 1983 when the defendants conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others (D) holding that a supervisor with no personal involvement may be liable for the constitutional violation of a subordinate for culpable action or inaction in the training supervision or control of his subordinates acquiescence in the constitutional deprivation or reckless or callous indifference to the rights of others (E) holding that since the complaint set out a deliberate indifference claim it follows logically that reckless or callous indifference has been noticed
[EX A]: holding that punitive damages may be awarded for egregious violations of the lmrda

[EX Q]: rule may be outdated, we have also recognized that "it is uniquely a province of the legislature to change it." Reiter v. Yellowstone County (1981), Mont., 627 P.2d 845, 849, 38 St.Rep. 686, 690. In Reiter, we noted that because of the operation of section 39-2-503, MCA, the at-will employee was not employed on a "discharge for cause only" basis. We stated, "assuming arguendo that appellant had an implied contract with an implied covenant of good faith, the employer did not act in bad faith because its conduct was statutorily permissible." 627 P.2d at 849-850, 38 St.Rep. at 690. In other words, under section 39-2-503, MCA, an employer or employee could terminate employment for any or all reasons, provided the reasons or manner of termination did not 7), 373 Mass. 96, 364 N.E.2d 1251 (<HOLDING>); and Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co. (1974), 114
Holding statements: (A) recognizing a contract action when employee terminated in order not to receive earned bonuses or commissions (B) holding employee not terminated in bad faith because no evidence suggested that employer discharged employee in order to retain em ployees previously earned sales commissions (C) recognizing contract action and limiting damages to those for breach of contract when employee terminated for refusal to date foreman (D) holding um did not act under color of state law when it terminated an employee (E) recognizing a tort action for wrongful discharge when employee was terminated because he refused to commit a criminal act
[EX A]: holding employee not terminated in bad faith because no evidence suggested that employer discharged employee in order to retain em ployees previously earned sales commissions

[EX Q]: review. 2 . The record is inconsistent as to who placed the documents in the sealed envelope. In his March 16 letter to Target's outside counsel Jeffrey D. Wohl ("Wohl"), Clayton Halunen wrote, "we had [Doe] remove ... any documents which involved any in house or outside counsel. These documents were then immediately placed into an envelope." Halunen Decl., Ex. E. However, Thome and Doe aver Thome reviewed the documents and placed those she believed may be privileged into the sealed envelope. Thome Decl. 17; Doe Aff. 15. 3 . At this time, the Halunen firm had not yet agreed to represent Gifford. 4 . The telephonic advisory opinion Halunen received from the Board is not binding on this Court. See In re Admonition Issued in Panel File No. 99-42, 621 N.W.2d 240, 244-45 (Minn.2001) (<HOLDING>). 5 . The Complaint and Amended Complaint
Holding statements: (A) holding that advisory opinions of the minnesota lawyers professional responsibility board are not binding (B) holding that decisions by prior panels are binding (C) holding that stipulations involving questions of law are not binding on the court (D) holding that nontreating physicians opinions are entitled to little weight when contradictory to treating physicians opinions and will not constitute substantial evidence standing alone (E) holding that statements that employee was doing a good job are more akin to opinions than statements of fact and on this basis are not actionable in fraud and citing a state case as holding that neither opinions nor statement that are general and indefinite are representations of fact giving rise to a misrepresentation claim
[EX A]:
holding that decisions by prior panels are binding