Detailed Instructions: 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:the same as two years ago." Mark D. Killian, Lawyers' Income is Flat as Firms Brace for Lean Times, Fla. B. News, Feb. 1, 2009, at 8. 4 . Although Mr. Hagopian styled his filing as an ''objection," it was in effect a motion to withdraw from Mr. Green's case. For this reason, we will refer to Mr. Hagopian's ''objection" as a motion to withdraw in the balance of this opinion. 5 . The JAC has filed a separate petition for certiorari from another order challenging various aspects of the payment arrangements for Mr. Hagopian ordered by the circuit court. This petition is pending in this court under case number 2D09-98. 6 . We note that the State did not oppose Mr. Hagopian's motion to withdraw in the circuit court. Cf. State v. Public Defender, 12 So.3d 798, 800-01 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (<HOLDING>). 7 . We commend Kevin T. Beck and Todd A.
Holding statements: (A) holding that although the defendant filed a number of motions because the original trial date never changed as a result of those motions no delay could be attributed to the motions (B) holding that there is a presumptive common law right to public access to all material filed in connection with nondiscovery pretrial motions but no such right as to discovery motions and their supporting documents (C) holding that the state had standing to oppose motions to withdraw filed by the public defender (D) holding in part that the presumption of public access attaches to pretrialnondiscovery motions whether preliminary or dispositive and the materials briefs and documents filed with the court in support of or in opposition to such motions but not to pretrial discovery motions (E) holding that it was inappropriate to allow petitioner to withdraw while motions were pending before the court and ready to be argued
Solution:
holding that although the defendant filed a number of motions because the original trial date never changed as a result of those motions no delay could be attributed to the motions