instruction:
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.
question:
The appellant's first point relied on is also deficient in that it does not comply with Rule 84.04(d)(5) inasmuch as the authority cited by the appellant in support of the claim raised relates only to our standard of review and the manner in which we are to interpret a statute. Rule 84.04(d)(5) provides: In support of each "Point Relied On," and immediately following the statement of the Point, the appellant or relator shall cite all authorities upon which the argument rests. If more than three authorities are cited, the three authorities on which the appellant, relator, or petitioner principally relies shall be cited first. The appellant does not, as required by the rule, provide any authority for his claimed interpretation of the implicated statutes. See Coleman, 969 S.W.2d at 274 (<HOLDING>). If no such citations exist because this is a
Holding statements: (A) holding that an appellate court cannot consider an issue that was not preserved for appellate review (B) holding the trial court was without authority to dismiss an appeal on the ground that the amount of the judgment required the appellant to file an application for discretionary review (C) holding that an appellate court may not review errors that have not been assigned by a party or a point of error (D) holding that a claim is waived on appeal when not supported by citation to relevant authority (E) holding that an appellate court is not required to review an appellants point relied on which appears without citation of applicable or relevant authority
answer:
(E)

question:
to the federal district court, see 28 U.S.C. 1441 and 1446, and moved for summary judgment, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Defendants argued, among other things, that Preston lacked a property interest in his volunteer position with the VFD. Preston rejoined he was a "fire code official" under the Code and IFC and could not be fired except after a hearing and upon a showing of just cause. In December 2009, the district court granted defendants' motion and dismissed Preston's case with prejudice. Preston filed a motion to reconsider, see Fed. R.Civ.P. 59, which the district court denied. Preston appeals. II. DISCUSSION Before considering the merits of Preston's appeal, we briefly examine the latent issue of subject matter jurisdiction. See Clark v. Baka, 593 F.3d 712, 714 (8th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>) (quoting McAdams v. McCord, 533 F.3d 924, 927
Holding statements: (A) recognizing federal courts duty to determine matter of its own jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it becomes apparent that jurisdiction may be lacking (B) holding that even where subjectmatter jurisdiction may go unchallenged on appeal we have an obligation to inquire sua sponte into our jurisdiction over the matter (C) recognizing that even if neither party disputes this courts subject matter jurisdiction under 38 usc 7292 we are obligated to consider the issue sua sponte if there is reason to doubt that jurisdiction exists (D) holding that the court can raise res judicata sua sponte even on appeal (E) recognizing every federal appellate court has a special obligation to consider its own jurisdiction even if it must do so sua sponte
answer:
(E)

question:
Original Petition does not affirmatively reveal that the amount in controversy exceeds the federal jurisdictional minimum, despite the existence of statutory caps on the kinds of damages claimed by Plaintiff in excess of the required amount for federal jurisdiction. Because Plaintiffs Original Petition does not contain "a specific allegation that damages are in excess of the federal jurisdictional amount," the Court finds that Plaintiffs Original Petition did not start the thirty-day time limit for removal set forth in 1446(b). Chapman, 969 F.2d at 163. Furthermore, Defendant timely removed the instant cause upon receipt of Plaintiffs Amended Petition, which unequivocally asserts that the amount in controversy exceeds the federal jurisdictional requirement. See Bosky, 288 F.3d at 212 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the Court's exercise of
Holding statements: (A) holding that notice of removal was defective on its face because it failed to contain a copy of the process as required by the removal statute (B) holding other paper must be unequivocally clear and certain to start the time limit running for a notice of removal under the second paragraph of section 1446b (C) holding that the defendants motion to amend their notice of removal was proper due to plaintiffs waived objections to the sufficiency of the notice of removal by failing to seek remand within thirty days of removal (D) holding that the information supporting removal in a copy of an amended pleading must be unequivocally clear and certain to start the time limit running for a notice of removal internal quotation omitted (E) holding that any defect in removal procedure must be cured within the 30day removal period or it is fatal to the removal and defendants failure to attach exhibits to the notice of removal within that time required remand
answer:
(D)