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.

the necessity for government to be able to take private property for governmental purposes, see The Federalist No. 10 (James Madison), that power could be exercised only by making the private property owner whole. Thus the distinction plaintiffs attempt to draw is unavailing. Analytically, whether common law-based tort and contract law is subject to statutes of limitations, with or without sovereign immunity in the case of suits against the government, is unrelated to the question of whether constitutionally based takings claims may be made subject to such statutes. Which leads to the question of the applicable law. This court hears a goodly number of takings cases. In some the plaintiff property owner prevails. See, e.g., Ciene-ga Gardens v. United States, 331 F.3d 1319 (Fed.Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Palm Beach Isles Assocs. v. United States,
Holding statements: (A) holding that unenforced tobacco regulations did not constitute a taking of vending machine owners contracts (B) holding that island owners had rights to the thread of the channel (C) holding housing statutes create no rights in tenants for purposes of section 1983 (D) holding that a cause of action for an unconstitutional taking accrues at the time the taking occurs (E) holding that statutory abrogation of lowincome housing owners contract rights was a taking
holding that unenforced tobacco regulations did not constitute a taking of vending machine owners contracts

the evidence of rape discussed above in Division 1, we conclude that the evidence at Martin's trial was sufficient to support the statutory aggravating circumstances found as to both murders. See OCGA 17-10-35 (c) (2) (requiring a review of the statutory aggravating circumstances foundby the jury);UAP Rule IV (B) (2) (providing that, in all death penalty cases, this Court will determine whether the verdicts are supported by the evidence). See also Ring, 536 U. S. 584; Jackson, 443 U. S. 307. 20. Considering both the murders for which Martin has been sentenced to death and Martin as a defendant, we find that the death sentences imposed in his case were not disproportionate punishment within the meaning of Georgia law. See OCGA 17-10-35 (c) (3); Gissendaner, 272 Ga. at 716-717 (<HOLDING>). The cases cited in the Appendix support this
Holding statements: (A) holding that this courts statutorily mandated proportionality review concerns whether a particular death sentence is excessive per se or is substantially out of line (B) holding that the failure to hold a faretta hearing is per se reversible error and reversing the defendants conviction vacating his death sentence and remanding for a new trial (C) holding that per se statutory rule is not permissible under fourth amendment (D) holding such agreements to be per se illegal (E) holding that denial of access per se is noncompensable
holding that the failure to hold a faretta hearing is per se reversible error and reversing the defendants conviction vacating his death sentence and remanding for a new trial

fall within the scope of ERISA, but then be excluded from ERISA coverage because it is a governmental plan."). Likewise, in Lovelace, this Court held that a health insurance plan established by the Wilmington City Public School System qualified as an employee welfare benefit plan under ERISA but nevertheless fell within ERISA's governmental plan exclusion. Lovelace, 775 F.Supp. at 229-30 ("ERISA regulates employee benefit plans, such as the plan at issue [bu cv-519, 2013 WL 4832066, at *3 (S.D.Ohio Sept. 10, 2013) ("Since [plaintiff] is an employee of the State of Ohio and her insurance plan was established and maintained by the State of Ohio, ERISA is not applicable."); Robert v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Brown Cnty., Kan., No. 08-2150-EFM, 2011 WL 836729, at *9 (D.Kan. Mar. 3, 2011) (<HOLDING>); Kirkpatrick v. Merit Behavioral Care Corp.,
Holding statements: (A) holding that healthcare plan established by the state of vermont for eligible employees qualified for governmental plan exclusion (B) holding that disability plan established by state university for benefit of employees qualified for governmental plan exclusion (C) holding that a payment is under the plan when the debt is provided for in the plan (D) holding that county governments healthcare plan qualified for governmental plan exclusion (E) holding that employee benefit plan sponsored by two participating employers cook county and the cook county forest preserve district qualified for governmental plan exclusion
holding that healthcare plan established by the state of vermont for eligible employees qualified for governmental plan exclusion