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.

Ex Input:
See Lorber 675 F.2d at 1067. The court noted that the classification of the surcharge as a non-tax fee was "a close question," but concluded that because the surcharge was triggered by "voluntary" choice, the surcharge was possessed more of the character of a service fee than that of a tax. See id. The Lorber court also held that extending priority status to the surcharge was contrary to the trend of then-recent amendments to 64 of the old Bankruptcy Act, which tended toward the erosion of the preferred status of taxes. See id., 675 F.2d at 1067-68. The court explained that, following the grant by Congress of priority status to claims for taxes, the federal government and its state and local counterparts began to increase the types and levels of taxation. See id. (citing S. REP. NO. (<HOLDING>). Even courts in the Ninth Circuit, purporting
Holding statements: (A) holding that reimbursement claims were excise taxes under lorber (B) holding that ohios reimbursement claims met the lorber criteria but were not excise taxes because they were not universally applicable to similarly situated entities and in addition disadvantaged private creditors with like claims (C) holding west virginias reimbursement claims were excise taxes under lorber suburban ii and the chateaugay district court decision (D) holding reimbursement claims were excise taxes under the lorber test without addressing the bankruptcy codes central policy of equal distribution (E) holding that michigan reimbursement claims were excise taxes under both lorber and suburban ii

Ex Output:
(E)

Ex Input:
the reasons for the plaintiffs failure to obtain the action or for not making the effort. Addressing the identical federal rule, the Supreme Court has stated that "[o]n its face, Rule 23.1 speaks only to the adequacy of the shareholder representatives pleadings." Kamen, supra, 500 U.S. at 96, 111 S.Ct. 1711. The rule itself does not create a demand requirement. Id. "[T]he function of the demand doctrine in delimiting the respective powers of the individual shareholder and of the directors to control corporate litigation clearly is a matter of 'substance, not procedure.' " Id. at 96-97, 111 S.Ct. 1711 (quoting Daily Income Fund, supra, 464 U.S. at 543-44 & n. 2, 104 S.Ct. 831 (1984) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment) (other citations omitted)); see also Bazata, supra, 400 A.2d at 316 (<HOLDING>). Thus, the demand requirement or its futility
Holding statements: (A) holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a 2 claim (B) holding that for purposes of super ct civ r 41b demand is not jurisdictional but an element of the shareholders claim (C) holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense (D) holding that a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading for purposes of super ct civ r 15a which permits a party to amend once as a matter of course before a responsive pleading is served (E) holding the connection is an element

Ex Output:
(B)

Ex Input:
no real purpose," unnecessarily expends the "energy and time of courts and litigants," and risks the introduction of potentially inflammatory, irrelevant evidence into the record. Id. The court also explained that once an employer concedes it is vicariously liable for any negligence of its employee, the employer becomes strictly liable to the plaintiff for damages attributable to the employee's conduct, regardless of the percentage of fault as between the employer and the employee. Id. 25 Several state supreme courts have adopted the rule articulated in McHaffie, and numerous intermediate appellate courts and federal district courts in other jurisdic tions have applied the McHaffie rule as well. But see, e.g., James v. Kelly Trucking Co., 377 S.C. 628, 661 S.E.2d 329, 332 (2008) (<HOLDING>). Although this case presents an issue of first
Holding statements: (A) holding that where employer acknowledges respondeat superior liability for the conduct of its employee direct negligence claims become duplicative (B) holding that employees violation of his employers policy against drinking on the job does not preclude liability under respondeat superior (C) holding that a plaintiffs direct negligence claims against an employer are not precluded by the employers admission of respondeat superior liability (D) holding that employees defamatory statements made at work about matters relating to work were within the scope of their employment for purposes of respondeat superior and recognizing that californias respondeat superior doctrine imposes a broad rule of liability on employers (E) recognizing respondeat superior liability

Ex Output:
(C)