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.

Input: Consider Input: court failed to question any of the prospective jurors regarding their understanding and acceptance of the first Zehr principle, defendant is presumed innocent of the charges against him. With regard to the second Zehr principle, the State's burden of proof, the circuit court questioned the prospective jurors as to whether they would sign the appropriate verdict form if the State had or had not met its burden of proof. This was a "general question concerning the juror's willingness to follow the law" (177 Ill. 2d R. 431, Committee Comments, at lxxix) which did not comply with the 2007 amended rule's requirement that the court question the prospective jurors regarding their understanding and acceptance of the State's burden. See also People v. Anderson, 389 Ill. App. 3d 1, 8 (2009) (<HOLDING>). The circuit court questioned the prospective
Holding statements: (A) holding that plan did not comply (B) holding that such a general question regarding the prospective jurors willingness to follow the law did not comply with the 2007 amended version of rule 431b (C) recognizing general rule (D) holding that the february 28 2007 interim rule was invalid because it failed to comply with the administrative procedure act (E) recognizing that jurors are presumed to follow instructions

Output: (B)

Input: Consider Input: 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994). In Landgraf, the Court noted that a statute only truly operates retroactively if applying it would "impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party's liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed." Id. 114 S.Ct. at 1505; see also RTC v. Ford Motor Credit Corp., 30 F.3d 1384, 1387-88 (11th Cir.1994)(analyzing retroactivity of lease repudiation damage limitation provision of FIRREA). Thus, like other courts that have analyzed similar FIRREA provisions, we must address prior banking law to determine whether application of the damage limitation provisions of 1821(e)(3) would have the retroactive effect defined in Landgraf. See, e.g., Ford Motor Credit, 30 F.3d at 1388 (<HOLDING>). We conclude that, in the Crafts' case, it
Holding statements: (A) holding that the act is not retroactive (B) holding that firreas damage limitations for repudiation of leases worked no substantive change in the law and thus their application was not retroactive (C) holding retroactive application (D) holding no retroactive application (E) recognizing that the application of a retroactive amendment is discretionary

Output: (B)

Input: Consider Input: Allwhite directs us to cases where a loss of consciousness by a driver qualified for an instruction of unavoidable accident. For example, in First City Nat'l Bank v. Japhet, 390 S.W.2d 70, 71 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston 1965, writ dism'd), the defendant suffered a heart attack while driving his vehicle; then, his car crossed the median, crossed the divided road, and drove onto the plaintiffs property, causing certain damages. On appeal, the appellate court found a fact issue had been raised of unavoidable accident and reversed and remanded the trial court's directed verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Id. at 74. Other jurisdictions have found circumstances similar to this case also warranted an instruction on unavoidable accident. See Houston v. Adams, 239 Ark. 346, 389 S.W.2d 872, 875 (1965) (<HOLDING>); Lutzkovitz v. Murray, 339 A.2d 64, 67
Holding statements: (A) holding that such a threat would not supply exceptional circumstances (B) holding in the absence of exceptional circumstances deference should be given to trial court (C) holding that where the board of immigration is permitted to reopen proceedings in exceptional circumstances its decision not to reopen a case is unreviewable because there are no statutory regulatory or caselaw definitions of exceptional circumstances and thus no manageable standard to apply on review (D) holding hardship is discovered in the rare case based on exceptional circumstances (E) holding unavoidable accident instruction permitted in most exceptional circumstances such as unanticipated heart attack
Output: (E)