TASK DEFINITION: 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. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
PROBLEM: transcript has the same character as the act of denying a debtor the opportunity to register for class or to graduate, as it deprives a student of a service that would be available to her were she not a debtor ..." Id. at 534. Numerous courts have examined the issue whether an educational institution violates the automatic stay when it withholds a debtor's transcript due to an outstanding tuition balance or student loan debt. "The majority view is that the withholding of a debtor's transcript because of an outstanding tuition balance or unpaid student loans violates the automatic stay." In re Moore, 407 B.R. 855, 860 (Bankr.E.D.Va.2009) (citing In re Mu'min, 374 B.R. 149, 155 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.2007)); Parker, 334 B.R. at 534-36; see also In re Carson, 150 B.R. 228, 231 (Bankr.E.D.Mo.1993) (<HOLDING>). ANALYSIS Based on the foregoing, the Court
Holding statements: (A) holding that the denial of a motion to find a violation of the automatic stay was a final order (B) holding judgment in violation of automatic stay void (C) holding that university violated the automatic stay by withholding chapter 7 debtors transcripts because the debts were not yet determined nondischargeable (D) holding that creditors failure to voluntarily turn over property lawfully seized prepetition constituted violation of automatic stay (E) holding that a college withholding delivery of transcripts due to an outstanding prepetition debt is an act to collect in violation of the automatic stay

SOLUTION: holding that the denial of a motion to find a violation of the automatic stay was a final order

PROBLEM: in some respect. To me, such an approach invites municipal officials to substitute rank speculation and conjectural claptrap for genuine engineering expertise and constitutes an open invitation for local planners to engage in incompetent fear-mongering about perceived or imagined development risks, no matter how unfounded, unlikely, or controllable such risks may be. Such an open-textured standard for upholding the denial of subdivision applications will all too easily be converted into an impermeable cloak to cover confiscatory regulatory takings, official pandering to neighbors' antidevelopment biases, political shenanigans, and other such local governmental capriciousness of the sort that we recently condemned in L.A. Ray Realty v. Town Council of Cumberland, 698 A.2d 202 (R.I.1997) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the mere fact that the municipality
Holding statements: (A) holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc 1983 (B) holding that person in 42 usc 1983 does not include states (C) holding that 42 usc 1983 does not provide a remedy for flsa violations (D) holding that the petitioner property owners had established 42 usc 1983 substantive and procedural dueprocess violations against town officials who arbitrarily denied the plaintiffs request for subdivision approval (E) holding that plaintiffs had claim under 42 usc 1983 against state where state had created an intermediate care facility but placed plaintiffs on waiting list

SOLUTION: holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc 1983

PROBLEM: and decisions that such a party believed adversely affected his position. Because the premise for seeking removal is presumably a product of a lack of understanding of the process required by the Decree, it is best characterized as baseless. Accordingly, the request for removal will be denied. B. Plaintiffs' Right to a Jury Trial and the Special Master Process As an initial matter, Paragraph 11(2) of the Stage II Consent Decree provides in relevant part that: This Decree settles in full all class-claims for monetary relief of whatever kind for members of the plaintiff class against Local 542 ... which have been, are, or could have been raised in this litigation. This Decree is not intended, however, to affect, limit or in any way resolve any , 79 F.R.D. 98, 105-06 (E.D.Pa. 1978) (<HOLDING>). The court notes that Local 542 does not
Holding statements: (A) holding that a motion to terminate a consent decree was moot because the challenged provisions of the decree had expired (B) holding that where the action was filed as a class action and a consent decree was entered into entry of the consent decree was sufficient certification of the action as a class action under rule 23 (C) holding that consent decree could not preclude plaintiffs from bringing claims that could not have been brought at time consent decree was filed and to which they were legally and procedurally entitled (D) holding that a motion to terminate a consent decree was moot because there was no consent decree left to be terminated (E) holding a motion to revise an enrolled divorce decree because of a discrepancy between the separation agreement and the decree filed more than 5 years after entry of the enrolled decree was properly denied

SOLUTION:
holding that a motion to terminate a consent decree was moot because the challenged provisions of the decree had expired