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: Consider Input: private property in the Fifth Amendment presupposes that it is wanted for public use, but provides that it shall not be taken for such use without compensation .... The general rule at least is that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it .will be recognized as a taking. 260 U.S. at 415, 43 S.Ct. at 160. The seminal case regarding the constitutionality of zoning ordinances is Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926). The Supreme Court first noted that zoning ordinances were, at that time, of recent vintage predating the case by approximately twenty-five years. 272 U.S. at 386, 47 S.Ct. at 117. See Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U.S. 394, 36 S.Ct. 143, 60 L.Ed. 348 (1915). The Euclid 60 (E.D.N.Y.1992) (<HOLDING>); Kasdon v. G.W. Zierden Landscaping, Inc., 541
Holding statements: (A) holding that cases claiming that government action requires just compensation must be determined on an ad hoc basis (B) holding that whether an exchange is substantially contemporaneous must be determined on a casebycase basis (C) holding state of the law must be determined at time of challenged action (D) holding that detailed exhaustion scheme of the civil rights of institutionalized persons act cripa is inconsistent with discretion to impose on an ad hoc basis a judicially developed exhaustion rule in other cases (E) holding that to constitute an enterprise under rico the enterprises structure must provide some mechanism for controlling and directing the affairs of the group on an ongoing rather than an ad hoc basis

Output: holding that whether an exchange is substantially contemporaneous must be determined on a casebycase basis

Input: Consider Input: period under IAD never commenced); Fields v. United States, 698 A.2d 485, 489-90 (D.C. 1997) (rejecting prisoner's substantial compliance argument and recognizing that court is bound by Fex); State v. Greenwood, 665 N.E.2d 579, 581-82 (Ind. 1996) (requiring strict compliance with IAD procedures and recognizing that procedures are "not mere technicalities"); Pinto v. Warden, C.A. No. 972412, 1999 WL 49378, at *7 (Conn. Super. Jan. 20, 1999) (stating that "[wjhile it is true that earlier decisions of courts were split on when the 180 day period begins, the majority of courts ... have held that the period begins to run once the request is actually received by the appropriate court and prosecutor"); Commonwealth v. Flores, C.A. No. 91-493, 1998 WL 792466, at *3 (Mass. Super. Nov. 6, 1998) (<HOLDING>). 48 . 1993 WL 138993, at *1 (Del. Super. Apr.
Holding statements: (A) holding that a pro se prisoner complaint is deemed filed as of the date the prisoner gives the complaint to prison officials to be forwarded to the court (B) holding that an noa filed by a pro se prisoner is deemed filed on the date that the prisoner delivers it to prison authorities for mailing (C) holding that the language of the statute and the courts duty to apply the statute as written requires the court to interpret the statute to apply when the prisoner is sentenced without regard to the institution where the prisoner is incarcerated after the sentencing (D) holding that the iad as construed by fex requires that a prisoner must be tried within 180 days of the date when his request for disposition is actu ally received by the state in which the charges are pending not when the prisoner provides that request to his custodial authorities (E) holding time begins when the prisoner knows the important facts not when the prisoner recognizes their legal significance

Output: holding that a pro se prisoner complaint is deemed filed as of the date the prisoner gives the complaint to prison officials to be forwarded to the court

Input: Consider Input: 966 So.2d 319, 326 (Fla.2007) (quoting 921.137(1), Fla. Stat. (2005)). See 921.137(1), Fla. Stat. (2008); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.203(b) (effective Oct. 1, 2004). 10 . Arnold testified that he was experienced in trying capital cases but because he won the guilt phase portions of all the capital cases he tried, except one, he had only handled one prior penalty phase proceeding. 11 . Dr. McClain also administered the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms test, the Trailmaking test, The State Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2 test, the Controlled Oral Word Association test, the Rey Complex Figure test, the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning test, and the Rey 15 Item test. She interviewed Hurst's mother and father, as well as his sister. 12 . Spencer v. State, 615 So.2d 688, 691 (Fla.1993)
Holding statements: (A) holding that the judge must allow the attorneys the opportunity to be heard on an initial 3850 motion in a capital case for the purpose of determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required and to hear legal argument relating to the motion (B) holding that a trial courts refusal to allow the defendant to attend the jury view was not prejudicial (C) holding that it was within the trial courts discretion to refuse any additional discovery and that the courts refusal to allow additional discovery was not an abuse of discretion (D) holding that the trial court should conduct a hearing to allow the parties to be heard including the defendant in person and to allow presentation of additional evidence before sentencing (E) holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance to allow defendant to present mitigating evidence in the form of letters and affidavits from family members when they were not requested until the day before the hearing
Output: holding that the judge must allow the attorneys the opportunity to be heard on an initial 3850 motion in a capital case for the purpose of determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required and to hear legal argument relating to the motion