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.

Q: will "potentially eliminat[e] a substantial expenditure of time, resources, and money of the parties, their counsel, and the Court that may later be determined to have been unnecessary." Pis.' Br. filed Nov. 19, 2007, at 9. Because the opinion and order meets all of the requirements for certification, the court, in its discretion, grants plaintiffs' motion to certify an interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, as follows: 1. The paragraph of the ordering language on page 25 in the court's November 9, 2007 opinion and order is amended, as follows: Defendant's cross-motion for partial summary judgment is granted, and plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is denied. Because controlling questions of law are involved with respect to which there are substantial grounds for di 5)
Holding statements: (A) holding that gross income can include interest or dividends accruing to fathers ira (B) holding that an overstatement of basis can constitute an omission from gross income within the meaning of irc 6501e1a (C) holding that trial judge has discretion to not include bonuses as part of gross income if he or she determines that the bonus income is not dependable or would place a hardship on a parent (D) holding gross receipts provision provides exception for trade or business to general meaning of gross income provided in section 61a so reporting of gross proceeds alone from sales of commodities would not prevent application of irc 6501e1a (E) holding gross receipts provision to supply exception to general definition of gross income in case of trade or business and applying irc 6501e1a to omission of income

A: holding that gross income can include interest or dividends accruing to fathers ira
****
Q: seeking to invoke the exception must establish that they agreed to engage in a joint effort and to keep the shared information confidential from outsiders. See, e.g., United States v. Schwimmer, 892 F.2d 237, 243-44 (2d Cir.1989) (finding valid joint defense privilege where information was "imparted in confidence" between parties "who had agreed upon and undertaken a joint strategy"); United States v. Sawyer, 878 F.Supp. 295, 297 (D.Mass.1995) (despite similar interests between employer and employee, insufficient evidence that communications were made during the course of a joint defense effort; proponent could neither establish time frame of agreement nor acts creating and/or terminating the agreement); United States v. United Tech. Corp., 979 F.Supp. 108, 110, 112 (D.Conn.1997) (<HOLDING>); Libbey Glass, Inc. v. Oneida, Ltd., 197
Holding statements: (A) holding common interest doctrine shielded information consortium members shared pursuant to collaboration agreement (B) recognizing doctrine (C) recognizing that tribes and states understood that they shared the right to manage the exercise of in common hunting and fishing rights (D) recognizing a subset of the common interest privilege as parents and schools have a corresponding interest in the free flow of information about administrators and faculty members (E) holding that there was no waiver of the work product protection because the business and public relations firm specializing in litigationrelated crisis management shared a common interest

A: recognizing doctrine
****
Q: Supreme Court carefully analyzed Schmerber and other opinions. The court concluded that its decision was in accord with the view of a majority of the courts that had considered the issue. The court also considered the burden on law enforcement of obtaining a warrant: Further, requiring law enforcement to consider other factors places an unreasonable burden on law enforcement. For instance, though the officer may be familiar with the area in which the accident occurred, the officer has no control over how long it would take to travel to a judge or the judge's availability. The officer 335 (1992) (relying mainly on the Oregon Constitution in declining to hold that blood-alcohol dissipation creates a per se exigency); Bristol v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 568, 636 S.E.2d 460, 464 (2006) (<HOLDING>). 11 . 90 P.3d 156. 12 . Schmerber, 384 U.S. at
Holding statements: (A) holding that the dissipation of alcohol from a persons blood stream constitutes a sufficient exigency to justify a warrantless blood draw (B) holding that blood alcohol dissipation was not sufficient by itself to create an exigent circumstances exception to virginia statutory requirement that the driver be arrested within three hours of the offense (C) holding that exigent circumstances were created by dissipation of bloodalcohol content in time needed to obtain a warrant (D) holding that in drunkdriving investigations the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant (E) recognizing exigent circumstance exception to warrant requirement

A:
holding that the dissipation of alcohol from a persons blood stream constitutes a sufficient exigency to justify a warrantless blood draw
****