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.
--------
Question: for a damages claim. See Williams, 216 S.W.3d at 828-29. Nor can Russell change the facts that render her remaining grounds not justiciable. As long as there is no dispute that the release between Metro and American Century is not binding on Russell, and Metro and its representatives have not been awarded and do not seek attorney fees based on section 417.003 of the Labor Code, there is no way in which Russell could re-plead her claims to confer jurisdiction on the trial court. See Bonham State Bank, 907 S.W.2d at 467; WesternGeco, L.L.C., 246 S.W.3d at 781. The trial court therefore did not err in refusing Russell an opportunity to further amend her pleadings. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment. 1 . S rters, Inc., 372 S.W.2d 525, 530-31 (Tex.1963) (<HOLDING>); Cobb v. Harrington, 144 Tex. 360, 366, 190
Holding statements: (A) holding governmental immunity was not implicated in a declaratoryjudgment action seeking an interpretation of a competitive bidding statute as applied to the highway commissions policy of requiring all materials furnished under contracts be manufactured in the united states (B) holding that a declaratoryjudgment action seeking to compel officials to perform their legal duties was not barred by 14 however a portion of the action seeking compensatory damages could not be maintained (C) holding a declaratoryjudgment action was proper to construe compulsory school attendance law and did not implicate governmental immunity (D) holding governmental immunity not implicated and a declaratoryjudgment action proper to seek determination of whether plaintiffs were motor carriers for purposes of tax statute (E) recognizing the protection of preliminary governmental materials

Answer: holding that a declaratoryjudgment action seeking to compel officials to perform their legal duties was not barred by 14 however a portion of the action seeking compensatory damages could not be maintained

Question: on the conditions stated in the publicly-filed limited partnership certificate. We affirm the appellants' liability under 106(l)(b). The certificates of limited partnership for TSG, TMG, and TSG 80 all state that, if necessary to satisfy the partnership's recourse obligations, each limited partner has agreed, upon demand, to make an additional capital contribution of up to three times the limited partner's original investment. These certificates were recorded publicly in New York County. Accordingly, the capital of the Limited Partnerships upon which creditors properly could rely included the limited partners' stated ob ligation to make additional capital contributions. See Arno Management Corp. v. 115 East 69th Assocs., 173 A.D.2d 258, 260, 569 N.Y.S.2d 656, 657 (1st Dept.1991) (<HOLDING>). Section 106(l)(b) explicitly provides a means
Holding statements: (A) holding that limited partner does not have standing to sue for injuries to partnership that merely diminish value of that partners interest (B) holding that appellate jurisdiction is limited to the issues contained in the certificate of appealability (C) recognizing partnership by estoppel only with respect to claims by persons who have reasonably relied upon outward representations of partnership (D) recognizing that same principle applies where defendant is general partner of limited partnership which in turn is general partner of limited partnership with contacts with state (E) holding that the information contained in the certificate of limited partnership binds the partnership and the partners with respect to third parties

Answer: holding that limited partner does not have standing to sue for injuries to partnership that merely diminish value of that partners interest

Question: or older "determined by the court to be in need of partial or full supervision, protection and assistance by reason of mental illness, physical illness or injury, developmental disability or other mental or physical incapacity." Tenn.Code Ann. 34-1-101(7). Persons do not attain the office of conservator by contract or family relationship. They are appointed to act in the best interests of the disabled adult person for whom they are partially or fully responsible in the discretion of the court. Although there is a statutory order of priority of persons the court is to consider when selecting a conservator, the order of priority is subject to the court's determination of "what is in the best interests of the disabled person." See In re Rockwell, 673 S.W.2d 512, 516 (Tenn.Ct.App.1983) (<HOLDING>). A conservator occupies a fiduciary position
Holding statements: (A) holding that the relevant inquiry is not whether the court has discretion to facilitate notice but whether this is an appropriate case in which to exercise discretion (B) holding the selection of the person to be appointed guardian is a matter which is committed largely to the discretion of the appointing court and an appellate court will interfere with the exercise of this discretion only in case of a clear abuse (C) holding that questions concerning the admissibility of hearsay evidence rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and this court will not interfere in the absence of abuse appearing on the face of the record (D) holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion (E) holding that the faas action in this case was analogous to an exercise of prosecutorial discretion and noting that when prosecutorial discretion is at issue the matter is presumptively committed to agency discretion by law

Answer:
holding that the relevant inquiry is not whether the court has discretion to facilitate notice but whether this is an appropriate case in which to exercise discretion