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.

though it may be more expedient for the legislature to redraft the statute in its entirety. See Hill, 202 Ill. 2d at 156; McDougall, 389 Ill. at 155. Defendant further contends that the decision by another division of this appellate district in In re E.H., 355 Ill. App. 3d 564 (2005), which he claims held section 115 10 to be facially unconstitutional en toto, is "controlling." We begin by initially noting that defendant misstates the effect that the decision of one appellate court panel has upon the subsequent considerations of another. We are not bound by the decisions of the other divisions of this district so that even if E.H. held as defendant claims, it would not be "controlling" over our analysis. Muller v. Health & Hospital Governing Comm'n, 106 Ill. App. 3d 383, 386 (1982) (<HOLDING>), rev'd on other grounds, 93 Ill. 2d 543 (1983)
Holding statements: (A) holding res judicata applied to improper property division before holding parties were bound by their division agreement (B) holding that appellate court is not bound by the agencys interpretation of a statute or its determination of a strictly legal issue (C) holding that the attorney generals decision not to provide representation to an employee is reviewable by the appellate division not by the law division where the actions against the employee are pending (D) holding itself not bound by the opinion of another division of its own appellate district (E) holding that this court is not bound by decisions of the appellate division or the third circuit even where those decisions concern the same parties and legal issues
holding res judicata applied to improper property division before holding parties were bound by their division agreement

needlessly leave out of our decisions an important source of information about the child, and in the end, it is the dependent child who suffers. After all, the children count here, not the agency. I believe that we gain nothing, and lose precious information by refusing foster parents standing. Standing to sue simply ensures that a particular party has a sufficient stake in a controversy before the court to obtain a judicial resolution. It should not be a doctrine to close the court house doors on parties who have a real interest in the matter at hand. I believe that the Juvenile Act confers "standing," subject to traditional jurisprudential limits, for the agency, the grandparent, and the foster parents to file these petitions. See also Silfies v. Webster, 713 A.2d 639 (Pa.Super.1998)(<HOLDING>); McLaughlin v. Pernsley, 654 F.Supp. 1567
Holding statements: (A) holding that party standing in loco parentis has standing to seek custody of child (B) holding that a grandmother who frequently babysat her granddaughter was not in loco parentis and thus lacked standing to seek custody of her granddaughter (C) holding that prevailing party has no standing to appeal (D) holding that grandmother in loco parentis of her three grandchildren had protected liberty interest in their future care and custody (E) holding that domestic partner who assumed a parental status over her partners child and performed parental duties with the partners permission stood in loco parentis to the child and had standing to seek partial custody and visitation
holding that a grandmother who frequently babysat her granddaughter was not in loco parentis and thus lacked standing to seek custody of her granddaughter

not be supported by any evidence") (emphasis added). Daniel's point is denied, and the full-order of protection is affirmed. GARYW. LYNCH, J. CONCURS WILLIAM W. FRANCIS, JR., J. CONCURS 1 . Because the parties share the same last name, we will refer to them by their given names to avoid confusion. In doing so, we do not intend any disrespect or familiarity. 2 . Two additional brothers have become enmeshed in these quarrels one on the "side" of Steven and the other on the side of Daniel. 3 . All statutory references are to RSMo Cum. Supp. 2013. 4 . Daniel concedes in his brief that, absent a defense of justification, "his actions constitute an act of abuse [as defined] under [s]ection 455.010[ (1),]" and he relies on McAlister v. Strohmeyer, 395 S.W.3d 546, 554 (Mo.App.W.D.2013) (<HOLDING>). Steven claims in his brief that Daniel waived
Holding statements: (A) holding that district court error was not clear error in denying petition for mandamus (B) holding that the trial court committed no abuse of discretion in denying the appointment of the defendants requested expert as there was no undue prejudice to the defendant because the defendants claim on the predicted effect of the experts testimony was purely speculative (C) holding that no error was committed where issue of whether the defendant had committed another crime was injected into the trial by the codefendant but was immediately followed by the trial courts instructions to the jury that only the counts listed on the indictment be considered (D) holding no error was committed in denying an order of protection when the trial court found the respondents actions justified under the law (E) holding that the trial court committed fundamental error in not instructing the jury on the knowledge element of the offense of resisting an officer without violence when that element was in dispute at trial
holding that district court error was not clear error in denying petition for mandamus