Definition: 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.
Input: rather than the neutral principles of law method. Michigan law provides that courts should generally use the hierarchical method. See, e.g., Calvary Presbyterian Church, supra-, Bennison, supra. However, the neutral principles of law method may be appropriate in situations such as those where "it appears from the church constitution, canons or rules, or from some other source, that an express trust exists in favor of one or the other of the contending parties . . . Bennison, supra at 724. LCC argues that this ty is limited because "civil courts may not redetermine the correctness of an interpretation of canonical text or some decision relating to government of the religious polity." Smith, supra at 684 (citation and quotation marks omitted). See also Milivojevich, supra at 709 (<HOLDING>). In this case, the Denomination, through the
Holding statements: (A) holding certification is not an occasion for inquiry into the merits (B) holding that when disputes require inquiry into religious law and polity civil courts shall not disturb the ecclesiastical bodys decision (C) holding that religious exercise is any exercise of religion whether or not compelled by or central to a system of religious belief and that the use building or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise shall be considered religious exercise (D) holding that the courts inquiry into the reasonableness of the governments proposed corrective action was proper (E) holding that a bare allegation of bad faith is insufficient to require an inquiry into the governments decision not to file 5k11 motion
Output:
holding certification is not an occasion for inquiry into the merits