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.

[EX 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
[EX A]: holding that gross income can include interest or dividends accruing to fathers ira

[EX Q]: Dr. Brewer's reports addressed the conduct of OGA's employees, Drs. Jacobs and Gunn, the reports identified Dr. Gunn as OGA's employee, and McCoy's original petition alleged that OGA was vicariously liable for the conduct of Jacobs and Gunn under the doctrine of respondeat superior and the requirements of the Texas Professional Association Act. See Troeger v. Myklebust, 274 S.W.3d 104, 110 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. denied) (rejecting claim that conduct of dentist, who was sole defendant, was not implicated because her name was omitted from expert report and holding that dentist waived challenges to expert report by failing to raise objections within twenty-one days after service); Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Dale, 188 S.W.3d 877, 879 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, no pet) (<HOLDING>). In response, OGA disputes that its conduct
Holding statements: (A) holding that medical center was not required to be named in expert report addressing its residents conduct because plaintiffs alleged no directliability claims against it and noting that medical center was implicated in report and so waived all its objections when it failed to object to sufficiency of report within twentyone days after service (B) holding that causation section of expert medical report was not eonclusory when read in context of entire report (C) holding expert report requirement fulfilled in claim against nurse by providing expert report of nurse as to standard of care and expert report of medical doctor as to causation (D) holding that expert report addressing hospitals conduct was not required when plaintiffs sole theory against hospital was vicarious liability based on ostensible agency and explaining that the conduct by the hospital on which the agency relationship depends is not measured by a medical standard of care these are principles of agency law on which no expert report is required (E) holding that a complaint that a report was not timely served was not subject to the twentyone day deadline to object to the sufficiency of a report under former section 74351a
[EX A]: holding that causation section of expert medical report was not eonclusory when read in context of entire report

[EX Q]: permitting defendant to evade his negotiated plea by filing a motion to mitigate would discourage the State from entering into future plea bargains with other defendants. See Swett, 772 So.2d at 52. Moreover, the trial court, pursuant to the plea agreement, did not have discretion over defendant's sentence and, therefore, should have denied defendant's motion to mitigate. See Arango v. State, 891 So.2d 1195, 1196 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (concluding that denial of a motion for extension of time to file a motion to mitigate was proper because the motion to mitigate would have been futile where the plea agreement imposed upon defendant a specific sentence and did not give the trial court any discretion over the length of the sentence); State v. Brooks, 890 So.2d 503, 505 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (<HOLDING>). We reverse the trial court's order and remand
Holding statements: (A) holding trial court erred in denying defendants motion for arrest of judgment where indictment was insufficient (B) holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss (C) holding that a trial court erred in granting a defendants motion to mitigate where the defendants original sentence was imposed pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement (D) holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment (E) holding that a trial court may rescind an order granting defendants motion for new trial within 75dayperiod allowed for ruling on the defendants motion
[EX A]:
holding trial court erred in denying defendants motion for arrest of judgment where indictment was insufficient