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.

Ex Input:
filed, is the verdict, and a showing that the writing is incorrect is not an impeachment of the verdict itself." (punctuation omitted)). 19 See former OCGA 17-9-41 ("The affidavits of jurors may be taken to sustain but not to impeach their verdict."); Fulton County v. Phillips, 91 Ga. 65, 65 (16 SE 260) (1892) (syllabus by the court) ("According to repeated rulings of this court, the affidavits of jurors may be taken to sustain, but not to impeach, their verdict."); see also former OCGA 9-10-9 (providing the same rule in civil procedure). 20 See generally OCGA 24-1-2 (e) ("Except as modified by statute, the common law as expounded b tate, 323 Ga. App. 15, 17 (2) (747 SE2d 99) (2013). 34 Freeman, 264 Ga. at 278; see Wade v. State, 261 Ga. 105, 107-08 (6) (401 SE2d 701) (1991) (<HOLDING>); see also Ingram v. State, 290 Ga. 500, 503
Holding statements: (A) holding that trial court did not err (B) holding that trial court did not err in declining to accept jurys first verdict when form stated that the jury found the defendant undecided and trial courts interpretation of the verdict form to mean that the jury was either not unanimous or had not decided yet whether defendant was guilty or not guilty was reasonable and thus trial court properly instructed jury to continue deliberating (C) holding that where defense counsel made a timely objection and it was overruled by the trial court a further request for a mistrial was unnecessary and futile since the reasons for the objection were apparent and the trial courts denial of the objection indicated its belief the jury could properly hear the matter which was the subject of the objection (D) holding that upon objection to the form of the verdict trial court did not err in returning jury for further deliberations (E) holding that a district court did not err by submitting a special verdict form to the jury this particular verdict form did not specify a standard of proof

Ex Output:
(D)

Ex Input:
before his heart attack and had been "asymptomatic" up until the day after his training. Dr. Sander viewed Bill's physical activity during fire training as significantly higher than his usual physical activity during work. He testified there was a continuity of symptoms from the time that Bill left the fire training school until he had his heart attack and that he did not see any significance in the period of time from when he left the training to when he had his heart attack. Essentially, New Hampshire Insurance is asking us to presume that its expert's theory is reliable in order to determine that Peggy Allison's expert's theory is unreliable. Conflicting theories between experts, however, do not automatically render one unreliable. See Thota v. Young, 366 S.W.3d 678, 695 (Tex.2012) (<HOLDING>). The trial court could rely on Dr. Sander's
Holding statements: (A) recognizing the conflict (B) holding conflict between experts theories is matter to be resolved by jury (C) recognizing conflict between circuits (D) recognizing possible conflict between the cases (E) recognizing conflict

Ex Output:
(B)

Ex Input:
for Timely Disposition" adopted by the Oregon Judicial Conference, "'90% of all misdemeanors, infractions and other nonfelony cases should be adjudicated *** within 90 days from the date of arraignment, 98% within 180 days and 100% within one year, except for exceptional cases in which continuing review should occur.'" Brunoe, 204 Or App at 756 (quoting State v. Emery, 318 Or 460, 471 n 17, 869 P2d 859 (1994)). Simply put, we have not found an appellate decision in which the court upheld the denial of a motion to dismiss under ORS 135.747 in a misdemeanor case where, as here, the cumulative period of delay attributable to the state exceeded 15 months and where a significant part of the delay was determined to be unreasonable. See State v. Dobson, 240 Or App 315, 245 P3d 704 (2010) (<HOLDING>); Ton, 237 Or App at 453 (holding that
Holding statements: (A) holding that dismissal of indictment was abuse of discretion when delay attributable to the government was twelve months (B) holding only two months of four year and eight month delay attributable to commonwealth where defendant fled and concealed his whereabouts for four years and six months (C) holding that petitioners unexplained hence unjustified delay of at least six months was not reasonable for purposes of california law (D) holding that dismissal was required where overall length of prosecution was 16 months state was responsible for 13 months of delay and six months of that delay was due to simple neglect (E) holding that a 15month delay of which four months were unexplained was reasonable in a felony prosecution

Ex Output:
(D)