Teacher: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.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? Solve this instance: RFDI's behalf) and Schmidt (subcontractor to Stokes for installation of the racking system). Interlake also introduced no expert testimony of its own; it did not introduce the testimony of the previously precluded experts, Kath leen Murphy R.N., or Gary Barach. Instead, Interlake elected to rely on: its cross-examination of Rice and a reading from the transcript of Rice's deposition taken before the first trial. N.T., 02/23/10 at 7-25. In addition, Interlake read to the jury selections from: the transcript of the prior trial testimony of Dr. Jeffrey Ketchman, plaintiff's design expert {id. at 27-125); the deposition of Brian Tumulty, formerly RFDI's chief financial officer {id. at 128-131); the prior trial testimony of Charles Daniel Willis, a former em 598, 493 A.2d 669, 672-74 (1985) (<HOLDING>); Berkeihiser v. DeBartolomeo, 413 Pa. 158,
Holding statements: (A) holding that superior court erred in granting judgment nov and remanding for a new trial generally (B) holding that superior courts erred in granting judgment nov on a wrongful death claim and remanding for new trial on that claim and on damages (C) holding that superior court erred in reversing trial courts order granting new trial and remanding for a new trial limited to apportionment of damages (D) holding that the superior courts erred to the extent that it allowed a new trial on a lung cancer claim and affirming the grant of a new trial limited to noncancer injury claims (E) holding that trial court erred by granting a directed verdict on statute of limitations defense and remanding for a new trial on the statute of limitations only
Student:
holding that superior court erred in granting judgment nov and remanding for a new trial generally