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.

Input: Consider Input: give several reasons for their decision to terminate the plaintiff; namely, that he was over-extended, refused to delegate work, failed to share information, had poor people management skills, and treated 010 employees in an abusive manner. As the "proverbial straw that broke the camel's back," defendants also point to, and plaintiff concedes, his use of profanities and abusive language during the phone conversation with Clark. (Doc. 41 at 25.) Defendants were concerned that plaintiffs behavior would result in a lawsuit by Clark or potentially lawsuits by other employees. An employee's inappropriate behavior toward other employees is a legitimate business reason for termination in the context of a close corporation. See Priebe v. O'Malley, 89 Ohio App.3d 8, 12, 623 N.E.2d 573 (1993) (<HOLDING>). The record demonstrates that defendants acted
Holding statements: (A) holding that unless a shareholder can show personal cause of action and personal injury claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty belong to the corporation and not the shareholder (B) holding that shareholder could not prevail on breachoffiduciaryduty claim against other shareholder because alleged mishandling of funds did not result in any injury to the corporation (C) holding that majority shareholders had legitimate business reasons for terminating a shareholder which included the reason that the shareholder was not working well with other employees (D) holding that sole shareholder could recover on behalf of company but not in individual capacity for former shareholder and officers misappropriation of corporate assets (E) holding that corporate officer and majority shareholder could be held liable for acting in a manner that served his interests at the expense of the other shareholders because his interests and the corporations were not necessarily aligned

Output: (C)

Input: Consider Input: was a "substantial factor" or "motivating factor" in Walker's allegedly retaliatory actions. Abrams argues that a reasonable jury could infer, as a result of this chronology, that he was "falsely arrested" and that he was arrested "because of what [he] said." Abrams then opines that "the arrest was for an illegal purpose" and finally that "[a]nger often leads to unthinking retaliation." After reviewing the record and the standards presented in our line of cases, we agree with the district court's finding that this chronology is unconvincing, as it fails to present "definite, competent evidence to rebut the motion," Michael v. St. Joseph County, 259 F.3d 842, 845 (7th Cir.2001), contains mere speculation, and demands the making of unreasonable inferences in suppo -84 (11th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). We recognize that such a step would not be
Holding statements: (A) holding that qualified immunity applies only if an officer had arguable probable cause to arrest (B) holding that probable cause is a complete defense to an action for false arrest (C) holding that the existence of probable cause for an arrest is a complete defense to a first amendment retaliation claim under the doctrine of qualified immunity (D) holding that the existence of probable cause is a complete defense to a 1983 claim alleging false arrest (E) recognizing first amendment retaliation right

Output: (C)

Input: Consider Input: must disagree with the District Court on this point because, as noted above, the presence or absence of property rights under state law is not dispositive of the question whether a person has a property interest protected by substantive due process. We reach the same conclusion concerning the question whether the defendants' alleged campaign of harassment against the plaintiffs would "shock the contemporary conscience." Again, the state court found only that Desi's was a common nuisance under state law and that the defendants were justified in believing Desi's to be such. It does not follow from the state court's findings that the defendants' alleged act of singling out Desi's for harsher treatment with the goal of driving African-Americans and Latinos out of W 0, 312 (6th Cir. 1996) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Rooker-Feldman does not apply to
Holding statements: (A) holding that question of whether former employer was entitled to preliminary injunction ordering former employees to comply with noncompetition provisions of employment agreements was moot since the noncompetition restriction expired by time of appeal (B) holding that where a noncompetition clause in a contract had expired by its own terms the plaintiffs appeal from the district courts denial of the plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction enforcing the clause was moot (C) holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction (D) holding that where a district courts preliminary injunction preventing the appellant from terminating its agreement with the defendant had expired the appellants appeal of the district courts decision to grant that injunction was moot (E) holding plaintiffs appeal of the denial of a preliminary injunction moot where defendants directive no longer in effect
Output: (B)