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.

Example Input: The defendants, contend that, assuming their conduct was unlawful and negligent as charged in the complaint, it was nevertheless not the proximate cause of the injuries suffered. But a tortfeasor is generally held answerable for the injuries which result in the ordinary course of events from his negligence and it is generally sufficient if his negligent conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the injuries. The fact that there were also intervening causes which were foreseeable or were normal incidents of the risk created would not relieve the tortfeasor of liability. Ordinarily these questions of proximate and intervening cause are left to the jury for its factual determination. [Ibid, (citations omitted).] See also, J.S. v. R.T.H., 155 N.J. 330, 352, 714 A.2d 924 (1998) (<HOLDING>); Cowan v. Doering, 111 N.J. 451, 465-66, 545
Holding statements: (A) holding that prolonged sexual abuse of neighboring adolescent girls by defendants husband with known proclivity for such behavior not a superseding cause of wifes negligent failure to warn victims or take other reasonable steps to prevent harm to them (B) holding that defense may only be raised in context of negligent failure to warn claims (C) holding the wifes testimony that husbands release would cause psychological harm to other family members was insufficient to support commitment courts finding that husband would cause serious bodily harm to another person (D) holding that section 4149 did not apply to the plaintiffs state law claims of breach of duty to protect foster care children from harm and of negligent supervision negligent entrustment and negligent failure to warn (E) 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
Example Output: (A)

Example Input: issue, we need not consider the second argument raised. 7 . In a dissent to Smith, Judge Friedman, joined by Judges Pellegrini and Kelley, objected to following the Miller/Lewis/Selan line of cases which automatically equated the refusal to sign a hospital consent form with a refusal to submit to chemical testing. The dissenting judges expressed preference for the other line of caselaw, particularly Conrad, and noted that because Smith orally agreed to the blood test and only refused to sign the hospital consent form, which was a pre-test procedure linked to the test, although not required by section 1547, Smith did not make a knowing and conscious refusal to submit to chemical testing. 8 . Wheatley v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, 104 Pa.Cmwlth. 171, 521 A.2d 507 (1987) (<HOLDING>). 9 Although Renwick does not expressly
Holding statements: (A) holding refusal to sign hospital waiver of liability form is not a refusal under section 1547 (B) holding that refusal to consent to search cannot support a finding of reasonable suspicion (C) holding that refusal to submit to breathalyzer test did not result from custodial interrogation (D) holding that a refusal to sign an implied consent form is not a refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test for purposes of section 1547 (E) holding that a district court did not clearly err in crediting agents testimony that a defendant had orally consented despite his refusal to sign consent form
Example Output: (D)

Example Input: expressly conferred jurisdiction in district courts for cases with a minimum of $500.00 in controversy. Tex. Const, art. V, 8 (1876); Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. Ann. art.l906(6) (1925), repealed by Act of May 17, 1985, 69th Leg., R.S. ch 480, 26(1), 1985 Tex. Gen. Laws 1720, 2048. When article 1906 was codified it no longer included the $500.00 minimum amount and instead provides that district courts have jurisdiction as provided by Article V, section 8 of the Texas Constitution. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. 24.007 (West 2004). At the time of the codification, Article V, section 8 of the Texas Constitution provided that a district court's minimum juris 7947, at *2 (Tex.App.-Amarillo Mar. 1, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.), Arteaga v. Jackson, 994 S.W.2d 342, 342 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999, pet. denied)(<HOLDING>), Moore v. TDCJ-CID, No. 13-04-425-CV, 2005 WL
Holding statements: (A) holding after the 1985 constitutional and statutory amendments district courts jurisdiction extends to cases involving more than 20000 (B) holding that the faa extends to employment cases for employees other than those engaged in transportation (C) holding that the faa extends to employment cases for employees other than those engaged in transportation of goods (D) holding the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment extends the right to jury trial to defendants in serious criminal cases in state courts (E) holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts
Example Output:
(A)