You will be given a definition of a task first, then some input of the task.
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.

by 1983. See Carlson, 446 U.S. at 19-22, 100 S.Ct. at 1472-73; Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584, 590-91, 98 S.Ct. 1991, 1995, 56 L.Ed.2d 554 (1978). Section 1983 provides that one who under the color of any state law deprives another of rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution shall be Hable in an action at law or equity. Id. Our analysis focuses on two questions. First, we must determine whether there is an impUed private right of action for damages against governmental entities for violations of the Texas Constitution. Second, we must decide whether we may look to the Constitution to define the element of duty for a Texas common law cause of action. A. Because Texas has no provision comparable to 1983, the first question must be answered 652, 459 N.E.2d 453 (1983) (<HOLDING>); Rockhouse Mountain Property Owners Ass'n v.
Holding statements: (A) holding that when there are no other remedies it is appropriate for the courts to imply one under the state constitution (B) holding that because of statutory remedial scheme court would not imply a cause of action arising directly under the state constitution (C) recognizing that oath taken to honor state constitution makes it the justices duty to apply the state constitution when it does not conflict with the federal constitution (D) holding that deprivation of personal property does not violate the constitution if there are adequate state remedies available (E) holding that the remedies are exclusive
Output:
holding that because of statutory remedial scheme court would not imply a cause of action arising directly under the state constitution