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. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

Q: rights, it must be settled in court. The permit may thus be perfectly valid, so far as the conservation laws are concerned, and yet the permittee's right to drill under it may depend upon his establishing title in a suit at law. Id. at 191. While we noted that the Railroad Commission "should not do the useless thing of granting a permit to one who does not claim the property in good faith," the Railroad Commission's determination of the propriety of the permit has no effect on the propriety of the permittee's potentially tortious actions. Id. Of course, statutory remedies may preempt common law actions or other standards that may set the bar for liability in tort, but a permit is not a get out of tort free card. Cf. MCI Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Hinton, 329 S.W.3d 475, 494, 499 (Tex.2010) (<HOLDING>). But in this case, the statute authorizing the
Holding statements: (A) holding that a state common law claim seeking to require automobile manufacturers to install airbags would frustrate the purposes of the federal safety standard regulations adopted under the federal motor vehicle safety act which did not require manufacturers to do so and therefore was preempted by conflict (B) holding design planning and enforcement of bus safety rules for school bus transportation were not operation of motor vehicle under section 4145 (C) holding that the sensible and popular understanding of what a motor vehicle accident entails necessarily involves the motor vehicle being operated as a motor vehicle (D) holding the federal motor vehicle safety standards do not preempt jury findings that a bus manufacturers buses were defectively designed (E) holding that the statutory definition of motor vehicle is not controlling

A: (D)
****
Q: of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered. These contacts are to be evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue. 6 . The Supreme Court of Connecticut has already rejected the ex loci delicti rule in workers' compensation actions in favor of "interest analysis" and the Restatement (Second) "most significant relationship" approach. See Simaitis v. Flood, 182 Conn. 24, 29-33, 437 A.2d 828, 831-32 (1980); Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws 181 (1971). 7 . See Conn.Gen.Stat. 52-555 (1977) (measure of wrongful death recovery equal to value of decedent's life and expenses); Marko v. Stop and Shop, Inc., 169 Conn. 550, 553, 364 A.2d 217, 219 (1975) (<HOLDING>); see also Halstead II, supra, 535 F.Supp. at
Holding statements: (A) holding warranty liability and strict liability were both shown by proof a product was defective (B) holding that to prevail on strict liability claim for a defective product plaintiff must show the product was defective when it left the defendants possession and control (C) recognizing that a violation of the mbta is a strict liability offense (D) recognizing the significance of control in strict products liability (E) recognizing strict product liability actions

A: (E)
****
Q: see Danden Petroleum, Inc. v. Northern Natural Gas Co., 615 F.Supp. 1093, 1099 (N.D.Tex.1985) ("Injuries which can be compensated by money damages at a later time are not irreparable and do not warrant the extraordinary remedy of an injunction."). In analyzing the evidence in this case, the Court revisits Robert Perkins's testimony that PEI's reputation would be damaged by-continued display of PEI images in close conjunction with "hard-core pornography." Although the Court did not find the past harm to have risen to the level of tarnishment required for dilution of trademark under all the circumstances, the evidence is at least probative on the issue of potential harm for which legal remedy is inadequate. See Valley v. Rapides Parish Sch. Bd., 118 F.3d 1047, 1053-56 (5th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, the Court finds a strong
Holding statements: (A) holding that potential loss of a contract constitutes irreparable injury (B) holding that monetary damages do not generally constitute irreparable harm (C) holding potential damage to reputation to constitute irreparable harm (D) holding that the lack of control over ones mark creates the potential for damage to reputation which constitutes irreparable injury for the purpose of granting a preliminary injunction in a trademark case (E) holding that the potential loss of valuable business may constitute irreparable harm

A:
(C)
****