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. 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.
PROBLEM: is adverse to its interests. Lamar cites no authority establishing that either "fact" was material to determining whether City exceeded the scope of its powers by surrendering and contracting away zoning authority that would otherwise have applied to Lamar's efforts to rebuild or relocate eight of the forty-two signs identified in the Agreement. For reasons we explain, neither factual contention prevented the entry of summary judgment in favor of City as a matter of law. We have already explained that the Agreement hindered City's zoning authority, and that zoning authority is an exercise of police powers. City thus established all that was necessary to demonstrate that the Agreement exceeded the scope of City's powers in violation of section 432.070. Stewart, 165 S.W.2d at 629 (<HOLDING>). It is true that "[t]he due process clauses of
Holding statements: (A) recognizing governmental interest in rehabilitation (B) holding that a local governmental body exceeds its jurisdiction under crcp 106a4 when it exercises discretion it does not have (C) holding that if a contract surrenders or contracts away governmental functions then it exceeds the scope of a governmental entitys powers and is void (D) holding governmental immunity is no defense to contractual liability (E) holding section 1010215 does not waive governmental immunity merely because a governmental action falls within the listed governmental functions thus further inquiry under the act is necessary

SOLUTION: (C)

PROBLEM: 26 Ariz.App. 265, 270-71, 547 P.2d 1065, 1070-71 (1976), which held that a party is precluded from raising for the first time on appeal the trial court's failure to make findings when specifically required to do so by Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a). 179 Ariz. at 301, 878 P.2d at 657. Accordingly, I perceive that Trantor's waiver rule applies with as much vigor to statutes or rules that specifically require findings as it does when the requirement is imposed by case law. Cf. Galloway v. Vanderpool, 205 Ariz. 252, 256, 17, 69 P.3d 23, 27 (2003) ("Once published, our interpretation [of a statute] becomes part of the statute."); Local 266, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, A.F. of L. v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement and Power Dist., 78 Ariz. 30, 43, 275 P.2d 393, 402 (1954) (<HOLDING>). 31 One further point. Because my colleagues
Holding statements: (A) holding principle of statutory construction is to give effect to every clause and word of a statute (B) holding that the courts in the absence of ambiguity should as a general rule confine themselves to a construction of a statute as written and not attempt under the guise of construction to supply omissions or remedy possible defects in the statute or to insert exceptions not made by the legislature (C) recognizing rule of statutory construction that statutes must be read as a whole and sections which are part of the same general statutory scheme must be construed together and each given effect if it can be done by any reasonable construction (D) recognizing that unreversed statutory construction is to be held part of the statute as if originally so written (E) holding that the term shall is mandatory for purposes of statutory construction when the statute is unambiguous

SOLUTION: (D)

PROBLEM: denied. PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. ** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. 1 . Torres does not contest the IJ's finding that he committed an aggravated felony and is therefore ineligible for asylum under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C); he merely argues that his aggravated felony conviction did not constitute a particularly serious crime, a sufficient finding to disqualify him from withholding of removal relief. 2 . The government argues that 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C) also bars our jurisdiction of Torres's CAT claim. We disagree because in denying relief under the CAT, the BIA considered the merits and did not rely on Torres's prior conviction. Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 410 (9th Cir.2009)
Holding statements: (A) recognizing that to survive dismissal a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter accepted as true to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face internal quotation marks omitted (B) holding that as to factual issues when an ij does not rely on an aliens conviction in denying cat relief and instead denies relief on the merits none of the jurisdictionstripping provisions apply to divest this court of jurisdiction ellipsis in original internal quotation marks omitted (C) recognizing that an aliens ability to secure reopening depends on a demonstration of prima facie eligibility for relief which means she must show a realistic chance that she will be able to obtain such relief internal quotation marks omitted (D) holding that the attorney generals discretionary power to suspend deportation did not apply to aliens within the country on parole because parole by statute was not to be regarded as an admission of the alien citation and internal quotation marks omitted (E) holding that an appeal is not moot so long as the appellate court can fashion relief that is both effective and equitable internal quotation marks omitted alteration in original

SOLUTION:
(B)