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: criminal activity, strictly liable to a person injured by such handgun during the course of a crime? 3) Does the Rohm Revolver Handgun Model RG38S, serial number 0152662, fall within the category referred to in question 2? Kelley, 304 Md. at 131, 497 A.2d 1143. 7 . The Court also discussed the effective date of the "modification of Maryland common law tort principles" it had fashioned. Id. at 161-62, 497 A.2d 1143. 8 . The majority of these cases have discussed the Court's ability or willingness to modify the common law. See Parker v. State, 337 Md. 271, 283 n. 7, 653 A.2d 436 (1995); State v. Hawkins, 326 Md. 270, 292-94, 604 A.2d 489 (1992); Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia, 325 Md. 420, 469-70, 601 A.2d 633 (1992); Murphy v. Edmonds t, Inc., 17 Md.App. 646, 659, 303 A.2d 432 (1973) (<HOLDING>) 10 . We alternatively based our decision on
Holding statements: (A) holding that the court of appeals lacks the authority to overrule decisions of the supreme court of north carolina and has a responsibility to follow those decisions until otherwise ordered by the supreme court (B) holding that the court of appeals may not overrule modify or withdraw language from a previously published decision of the court of appeals (C) holding that this court will consider a petition for a writ of certiorari only after the court of appeals has overruled the application for rehearing on the point challenged in the petition implying that the decision by the court of criminal appeals must be final before certiorari review would be available (D) holding the fact remains however that such standard appears to be the law of this state as enunciated in the decisions of the court of appeals discussed previously unless those decisions are either explained away or overruled by the court of appeals itself this court must follow what a majority of its members discern to be the precept to be drawn from them ie proof of fraud in a civil action either in law or in equity must be clear and convincing only the court of appeals could disabuse of that notion (E) holding that the court need not follow a decision of the district of columbia court of appeals where it appears that the court of appeals itself would not follow that decision

A: (D)
****
Q: is narrowly crafted to get to the heart of the motion for summary judgment without allowing a lot of potentially unnecessary discovery. Montoya has said he did not show Wilks or Armijo his computer screen, or tell them Todd's crimes; if Wilks says othexwise, there will likely be a genuine issue of fact requiring .the Court to deny the motions and allow the parties to proceed to trial. It seems fundamentally unfair to dismiss Todd's case when a deposition of Wilks may make his case. Further, this deposition will not burden any government employees or entities. Accordingly, the Court finds that this limited discovery falls within the exceptions to disallowing discovery once the defense of qualified immunity has been raised. See Garrett v. C.A. Stratmen [Stratman], M.D., 254 F.3d at 953 (<HOLDING>). The Court does not believe this one
Holding statements: (A) holding that as a general rule interlocutory trial court orders rejecting defenses of common law sovereign immunity governmental immunity public official immunity statutory immunity or any other type of immunity are not appealable under the maryland collateral order doctrine (B) holding that where defendant claiming qualified immunity relies on facts that are in dispute qualified immunity cannot be granted (C) recognizing that a discovery order in the context of qualified immunity is not immediately appealable when the defendants immunity claim turns at least partially on a factual question when the district court is unable to rule on the immunity defense without further clarification of the facts and which are narrowly tailored to uncover only those facts needed to rule on the immunity claim are neither avoidable or overly broad (D) holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit (E) holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity

A: (C)
****
Q: "there are many ways to show presentment of a motion for new trial to the trial court," but "merely filing a motion is insufficient." Id. at 24. Nonetheless, " '[presentment' must be apparent from the record, and it may be shown by such proof as the judge's signature or notation on the motion or proposed order, or an entry on the docket sheet showing presentment or setting a hearing date." Gardner, 306 S.W.3d at 305. It is undisputed that there was no ruling on Hiatt's motions for new trial. The trial judge's signature does not appear on either Hiatt's motions for new trial or the proposed orders accompanying them. Additionally, there are no entries on the court's docket .-Dallas 1992, no pet.), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. State, 870 S.W.2d 43, 46 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (<HOLDING>). As for the anonymous notations and markings
Holding statements: (A) holding trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion for new trial by operation of law because motion was not properly presented even though a notice of presentment was filed and the docket sheet contained an entry for the motion having been filed (B) holding a statement in the motion for new trial entitled certificate of presentment in which appellate counsel stated the motion was handdelivered to the trial court insufficient to establish presentment (C) holding a certificate of presentation appearing on the last page of appellants motion for new trial did not establish presentment (D) holding that certificate of presentment and docket entry noting filing of motion were insufficient evidence of presentment (E) holding a certification of service and presentment was insufficient to establish the trial court received actual notice of the defendants motion for new trial

A:
(E)
****