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 Q]: until after the interview ended. Defendants therefore contend that we should ignore contrary testimony by Whalen and Connelly. On summary judgment, however, we do not merely accept the plaintiff's contentions as true. Instead, we must draw all justifiable inferences in the nonmovanfs favor. There is no requirement that inferences favorable to the plaintiff may only be based on evidence that she has submitted to us. Here, the justifiable inference favorable to plaintiff is that a question of fact exists regarding this issue. 6 . The Supreme Court's plurality decision in Al-bright casts some doubt on whether a plaintiff may state a claim for coercion of a confession under both the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments. See Albright,-U.S. at-,-,-, -, 114 S.Ct. at 813, 814, 817, 820-21 (<HOLDING>). The Second Circuit has stated that Albright
Holding statements: (A) holding that false arrest supports a claim against state police under 1983 because it violates the fourth amendment (B) recognizing 1983 substantive due process claim (C) holding that when a prisoners deliberate indifference claim is covered by the eighth amendment the substantive due process claims are duplicative and thus the substantive due process claims should be dismissed (D) holding that warrantless arrest based on probable cause did not violate the fourth amendment (E) holding in five separate opinions that 1983 claim based on persons arrest cannot be brought under substantive due process where more specific constitutional provision fourth amendment applies
[EX A]: (E)

[EX Q]: is adverse to its interests. Lamar cites no authority establishing that either "fact" was material to determining whether City exceeded the scope of its powers by surrendering and contracting away zoning authority that would otherwise have applied to Lamar's efforts to rebuild or relocate eight of the forty-two signs identified in the Agreement. For reasons we explain, neither factual contention prevented the entry of summary judgment in favor of City as a matter of law. We have already explained that the Agreement hindered City's zoning authority, and that zoning authority is an exercise of police powers. City thus established all that was necessary to demonstrate that the Agreement exceeded the scope of City's powers in violation of section 432.070. Stewart, 165 S.W.2d at 629 (<HOLDING>). It is true that "[t]he due process clauses of
Holding statements: (A) recognizing governmental interest in rehabilitation (B) holding that a local governmental body exceeds its jurisdiction under crcp 106a4 when it exercises discretion it does not have (C) holding that if a contract surrenders or contracts away governmental functions then it exceeds the scope of a governmental entitys powers and is void (D) holding governmental immunity is no defense to contractual liability (E) holding section 1010215 does not waive governmental immunity merely because a governmental action falls within the listed governmental functions thus further inquiry under the act is necessary
[EX A]: (C)

[EX Q]: indicate that "all types of sarcoido-sis necessarily have a quick and rapid onset of severe symptomatology." Id. at *3. Mr. Mathis argued that the report contained inadequate analysis, but the Veterans Court explained that "there is no reasons or bases requirement imposed on [an] examiner." Id. at *2 (quoting Acevedo v. Shinseki 25 Vet.App. 286, 293 (2012)). Similarly, while Mr. Mathis complained that the examiner cited no medical authorities, the Veterans Court explained that an examiner is presumed to know about medical authorities under the .presumption of competence: The presumption that VA medical examiners are competent "includes a presumption that physicians remain up-to-date on medical knowledge and current medical studies." Monzingo v. Shinseki 26 Vet.App. 97, 106-07 (2012) (<HOLDING>). Id. at *3. Mr. Mathis also objected to the
Holding statements: (A) holding that the mere fact that an examiner did not cite any studies is not evidence that he is unaware of such studies and is not a basis for finding an examination report inadequate (B) holding that an examiner is not estopped from rejecting a divisional application because of an earlier requirement for division (C) holding that it is not (D) holding that dui is not such an offense (E) holding that claim construction is an issue of law for the court not a question of fact for the jury
[EX A]:
(A)