instruction:
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:
issue in question." Bradley Ventures, Inc. v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Ark., 371 Ark. 229, 264 S.W.3d 485, 490 (2007). UAMS maintains that collateral estoppel applies to Dodson I and II, barring both of Dodson's pending claims, but our discussion is considerably narrower. First, I would set aside Dodson I because I am uncertain that the court's relevant finding was "essential to the judgment." Powell, 289 S.W.3d at 444. Second, I would set aside Count II, which is Dodson's impliedeontract claim. Importantly, Count II is premised on UAMS's conduct after Dodson II, i.e., sending Dodson bills for the embryo storage fees, and therefore cannot be precluded by the earlier chancery court decision. See Ripplin Shoals Land Co. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 440 F.3d 1038, 1044 (8th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); cf. id. at 1042 ("[R]es judicata does not
Holding statements: (A) holding that an assignment does not modify the terms of the underlying contract (B) recognizing that a final judgment may provide for a particular standard upon which to modify a final judgment (C) holding that a prior judgment regarding a permit to modify an existing bridge does not preclude a plaintiff from challenging a decision on a new application describing and a different bridge design (D) holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit a design defect products liability expert to submit an untimely addendum stating a new claim of failure to warn after defense expert refuted the basis of original design defect opinion (E) holding untimeliness of motion to modify medical insurance payment did not preclude motion to modify maintenance
answer:
holding that an assignment does not modify the terms of the underlying contract

question:
victim's undisputed injuries, this court held that the statute required proof that the bodily injury was a foreseeable, rather than intentional, result of the rights-violating conduct. Woodlee, 136 F.3d at 1405. At no point did this court even consider the possibility that the statute might not require proof of foreseeability at all, i.e., that the statute, imposed strict liability .on a defendant for bodily .injury resulting from his conduct. Because there is no logical distinction between the statutory language at issue in Woodlee and the language of 841(b)(1)(E) that we are now tasked with interpreting, I believe that we are bound by Woodlee to interpret 841(b)(1)(E) as incorporating a proximate cause requirement. See United States v. Ensminger, 174 F.3d 1143, (10th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). To conclude otherwise creates an
Holding statements: (A) holding that in the absence of an intervening supreme court decision only the en banc court may overrule a decision by a threejudge panel (B) holding that a panel may not reconsider issues decided earlier in the same case by the en banc court (C) holding that one panel of this court is bound by the precedent of an earlier panel absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision of the supreme court (D) holding that only intervening law from the supreme court or this court sitting en banc can overrule a prior panel decision (E) holding that we are bound by prior panel opinions until they are overruled or abrogated by the supreme court or this court sitting en banc
answer:
holding that in the absence of an intervening supreme court decision only the en banc court may overrule a decision by a threejudge panel

question:
1946, no writ). 20 . 113 S.W.2d 1018 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1938, writ dism'd). 21 . McClung, 430 S.W.2d at 181. 22 . Id. 23 . Ford v. Exxon Mobil Chem. Co., 235 S.W.3d 615, 617-18 (Tex.2007) (per curiam). 24 . See Shell Oil Co. v. Ross, 356 S.W.3d 924, 928 (Tex.2011). 25 . HECI Exploration Co., 982 S.W.2d at 887; Ford, 235 S.W.3d at 617-18 (public records in a grantor's chain of title generally create an irrebuttable presumption of notice). 26 . Thigpen v. Locke, 363 S.W.2d 247, 251 (Tex. 1962). 27 . See In re Bank of Am., N.A., 278 S.W.3d 342, 345 (Tex.2009) ("The general rule is that in the absence of a showing of fraud or imposition, a party's failure to read an instrument before signing it is not a ground for avoiding it."). 28 . See HECI Exploration Co., 982 S.W.2d at 886 (<HOLDING>). 29 . Id. at 887. 30 . 457 S.W.3d 52, 59
Holding statements: (A) holding that the governments interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse but also protecting childrens interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents (B) recognizing minnesotas interest in protecting the interests of the child (C) recognizing virginias interest in protecting defendants from claims and in holding down insurance costs (D) recognizing that mineral interest owners bear some obligation to exercise reasonable diligence in protecting their interests (E) holding that pennsylvanias interest in compensating victim of defamation outweighed new yorks interests in protecting free discussion and financial injury to defendant
answer:
holding that the governments interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse but also protecting childrens interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents