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. 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.
question:
in some respect. To me, such an approach invites municipal officials to substitute rank speculation and conjectural claptrap for genuine engineering expertise and constitutes an open invitation for local planners to engage in incompetent fear-mongering about perceived or imagined development risks, no matter how unfounded, unlikely, or controllable such risks may be. Such an open-textured standard for upholding the denial of subdivision applications will all too easily be converted into an impermeable cloak to cover confiscatory regulatory takings, official pandering to neighbors' antidevelopment biases, political shenanigans, and other such local governmental capriciousness of the sort that we recently condemned in L.A. Ray Realty v. Town Council of Cumberland, 698 A.2d 202 (R.I.1997) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the mere fact that the municipality
Holding statements: (A) holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc 1983 (B) holding that person in 42 usc 1983 does not include states (C) holding that 42 usc 1983 does not provide a remedy for flsa violations (D) holding that the petitioner property owners had established 42 usc 1983 substantive and procedural dueprocess violations against town officials who arbitrarily denied the plaintiffs request for subdivision approval (E) holding that plaintiffs had claim under 42 usc 1983 against state where state had created an intermediate care facility but placed plaintiffs on waiting list
answer:
holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc 1983

question:
prejudice. Common v. W. Suburban Hosp. Med. Ctr., 301 Ill.App.3d 939, 235 Ill.Dec. 158, 704 N.E.2d 731, 738-39 (1998) (emphasis added) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). We quoted Common and echoed its sentiment in Sherrod v. Lingle, 223 F.3d 605, 614 (7th Cir.2000), where we held that a district court's failure to permit a plaintiff to amend his complaint in order to comply with section 2-622 was an abuse of discretion. Second, although the district court believed that plaintiffs' counsel should have known to submit an affidavit and report in accordance with section 2-622, it made no specific finding that the failure to do so was in bad faith or an attempt to delay litigation. See Cookson v. Price, 393 Ill.App.3d 549, 333 Ill.Dec. 22, 914 N.E.2d 229, 232 (2009) (<HOLDING>). Further, it did not explain whether or in
Holding statements: (A) 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 (B) holding no jurisdiction where appellant argued report was no report because it failed to mention appellant in any substantive way but trial court found report was merely deficient on element of causation as to appellant and granted extension (C) holding that it was error for the trial court to refuse to permit plaintiff to amend his complaint to include a new affidavit and report complying with section 2622 where there was no indication that the plaintiffs failure to file the report earlier in the litigation was in bad faith (D) holding that the trial courts failure to dismiss the action to quiet title was error because the plaintiff was not in possession of the land in question but the error was not fatal to the claim because the superior court could sua sponte amend the pleadings to include an action in ejectment (E) holding that rule was not violated where officer stated he made a report but was unable to find it because there was no report to tender to counsel
answer:
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

question:
of not more than 15 years, and it similarly concluded as follows: If a sentence under this paragraph provides for imprisonment, the sentence shall include a special parole term of not less than three years in addition to such term of imprisonment. 21 U.S.C. 960(b)(1). The language of 841(b)(1)(A) and 960(b)(1) thus squarely contradicts Walberg's contention, for each stated that the special parole term shall be a minimum of a certain number of "years in addition to [the] term of imprisonment." Accord United States v. Mack, 509 F.2d 615, 616 (9th Cir.1974) (per curiam), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 916, 95 S.Ct. 1578, 43 L.Ed.2d 783 (1975); Llerena v. United States, 508 F.2d 78, 82 (5th Cir.1975). Cf. Bifulco v. United States, 447 U.S. 381, 388, 100 S.Ct. 2247, 2252, 65 L.Ed.2d 205 (1980) (<HOLDING>). The legislative history of the Act and the
Holding statements: (A) holding conviction for cce murder 21 usc 848e1 is a separate offense from a cce 21 usc 848c (B) holding that no special parole term was authorized for a conviction for conspiracy in violation of 21 usc 846 which mentioned only fine and imprisonment and not special parole and emphazing the in addition to language of 21 usc 841b1b (C) holding that in order for a trial court to determine which of the three graduated penalty subsections of 21 usc 841b applies to defendants convicted of a 846 drug conspiracy the jury must be instructed to determine the threshold quantity of drugs attributable to each conspiracy defendant on trial (D) holding that the elements of a drug conspiracy under 21 usc 846 do include an overt act requirement (E) holding lopez was inapplicable to the language prior conviction for a felony drug offense in 21 usc 841b1a because felony drug offense was defined in 21 usc 80244 as an offense that is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year under any law of the united states or of a state
answer:
holding conviction for cce murder 21 usc 848e1 is a separate offense from a cce 21 usc 848c