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. 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: Chief Judge: The appellant, Craig G. Falk, appeals from a July 8, 1996, Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) decision denying his claim service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). As the appellant has limited his appeal to the denial of that claim, the Court deems the appellant to have abandoned his right to appeal with respect to the denial of entitlement to benefits under 38 U.S.C. 1151. Bucklinger v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 435, 436 (1993); see also Carbino v. West, 168 F.3d 32, 34-35 (Fed.Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Upon consideration of the pleadings of the
Holding statements: (A) holding that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal (B) holding that issues not presented in an appellants initial brief to the court need not be considered under this courts rules (C) holding that claims not raised in an appellants initial brief to our court are waived (D) holding that issues not raised in an appellants initial brief are deemed abandoned (E) holding an appellant may not use the reply brief to argue issues not argued in the initial brief

SOLUTION: holding that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal

PROBLEM: preventing employee from "working in any geographic space in which [employer] operates" where employer had interest in confidential information); Advanced Cable Ties, Inc. v. Hewes, No. 061995B, 2006 WL 3292810, at *1-2 (Mass.Super.Ct. Oct. 19, 2006) (lack of geographic scope restriction in non-compete not fatal to enforcement of restrictive covenant when employer was national company). 17 . See Miller Mech., Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11, 12-13 (Fla.1974) (citing Kenco Chem. and Manufacturing Co. v. Railey, 286 So.2d 272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)); Flickenger v. R.J. Fitzgerald & Co., Inc., 732 So.2d 33, 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Balasco v. Gulf Holding, Inc., 707 So.2d 858, 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); see also Health Care Financial Enterprises, Inc. v. Levy, 715 So.2d 341, 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (<HOLDING>). 18 .Under Florida law, courts are required to
Holding statements: (A) holding that a court may only enforce a settlement agreement if it constitutes an enforceable contract (B) holding that trial court is without authority to modify a settlement agreement but may enforce and interpret it (C) recognizing court has authority to modify agreement to cure any unreasonable provision as to duration or scope (D) holding that court may not refuse to enforce noncompete agreement solely because geographical area is unreasonable but rather must modify unreasonable restriction and enforce agreement as modified (E) holding an employer may partially enforce a noncompete agreement to the extent it is reasonable under the circumstances

SOLUTION: holding that a court may only enforce a settlement agreement if it constitutes an enforceable contract

PROBLEM: in the statute that would limit or guide a prosecution for indecent, immoral, obscene, vulgar, or insulting language. Allowing a prosecution where one utters "insulting" language could possibly subject a vast percentage of the populace to a misdemeanor conviction. Id. at 258-59 (emphasis added) (citations, internal quotations, and omissions removed). The court went on to state that, "[the statute], as currently drafted, impinges on First Amendment freedoms.... [It is] unquestionable that [the statute], as drafted, reaches constitutionally protected speech, and it operates to inhibit the exercise of First Amendment rights." Id. at 259. Thus, it is clear that probable cause for Leonard's arrest is not supported by 750.337. See Sandul v. Larion, 119 F.3d 1250, 1256 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Michigan's courts have not commented so
Holding statements: (A) holding that after the district court determined that the plaintiffs speech was protected the court was required to inform the jury of its ruling that knapps speech was constitutionally protected (B) holding that protected speech cannot serve as the basis for a violation of city ordinances at issue (C) recognizing the preliminary issue in a first amendment challenge is whether the speech at issue is protected or unprotected (D) holding that a city could not use past conduct to enjoin future protected speech (E) holding that when protected speech is inextricable from unprotected speech the court will treat the entire message as protected

SOLUTION:
holding that after the district court determined that the plaintiffs speech was protected the court was required to inform the jury of its ruling that knapps speech was constitutionally protected