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.

[Q]: detention of the van, its driver, and its passenger exceeded the valid reason for the initial stop and violated the Fourth Amendment. The subsequent search of the vehicle was an unconstitutional search, and the drugs and drug paraphernaha discovered were fruit of the poisonous tree. The trial court's denial of appellants' motions to suppress should have been granted. In light of this holding, we need not address the third point, that omissions of facts in Ramsey's affidavit for search warrant undermined the drug dog's reliability and amounted to a Franks violation; or the fourth point, that the search warrant was objectively unreasonable and that there was no basis for a nighttime search. Reversed and remanded. Hart, Robbins, and Neal, JJ. te, 84 Md. App. 243, 578 A.2d 816 (1990) (<HOLDING>). In this case, after Ramsey determined that
Holding statements: (A) holding that coming from the wrong neighborhood does not give rise to reasonable suspicion (B) holding innocent facts when considered together can give rise to reasonable suspicion (C) holding that the fact that defendant granted consent to police to search some items and then refused to give consent to additional searches cannot support a finding of reasonable suspicion (D) holding the drivers refusal to consent to search of automobile did not give rise to reasonable suspicion that vehicle contained narcotics (E) holding that refusal to consent to search cannot support a finding of reasonable suspicion
[A]: (D)

[Q]: of the state action is sought. First, federal courts handling in personam cases have generally limited their decisions to enjoin state court proceedings to MDLs or complex national class actions. "Under an appropriate set of facts, a federal court entertaining complex litigation, especially when it involves a substantial class of persons from multiple states, or represents a consolidation of cases from multiple districts, may appropriately enjoin state court proceedings in order to protect its jurisdiction." Diet Drugs I, 282 F.3d at 235. In fact, several courts have declined to enjoin state court proceedings specifically because the federal action did not involve an MDL or a certified class action. See Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 523 F.3d 1091, 1103 (9th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Gooch, 589 F.3d at 330-31 (declining to
Holding statements: (A) holding that there was no record of a hearing about settlement objections (B) holding that because the alleged settlement was never approved by the court under rule 9019 the settlement agreement was unenforceable (C) holding that the commissions approval of a nonunanimous settlement agreement did not violate intervenors due process rights because the record shows that the appellant presented arguments in opposition to the settlement during the agenda conference in which the appellant was allowed thirty minutes to present its views in opposition to the settlement agreement (D) holding a settlement privilege exists as to thirdparty discovery of settlement negotiations (E) holding that an injunction was inappropriate because this was not an mdl case discovery was not complete no class settlement was imminent in fact as far as the record shows no serious settlement progress had been made
[A]: (E)

[Q]: Plaintiff provided Defendant timely notice of his claim with regard to the Schering suit. State Sec. Ins., 145 Ill.2d at 431, 583 N.E.2d at 551, 164 Ill.Dec. at 635. Plaintiff argues that he did provide timely notice to Defendant. Plaintiff asserts that he immediately contacted Defendant's agent, James Markwell, upon learning that Scher-ing had filed a petition for a rule to show cause with Judge Hart. Moreover, based upon his prior dealings with Markwell, Plaintiff claims that he did not believe that a written notice of his claim was necessary. However, the Court cannot say that Plaintiff timely notified Defendant of the "occurrence." First, it is highly questionable whether Markwell was Defendant's agent, .App.3d 232, 237, 456 N.E.2d 348, 352, 74 Ill.Dec. 846, 850 (1983) (<HOLDING>); see also Illinois Valley Minerals Corp. v.
Holding statements: (A) holding that a one month delay is acceptable (B) holding that a six month delay was unreasonable (C) holding that a 14 month delay was unreasonable (D) holding that a 13 month delay was unreasonable (E) holding that a five month delay was unreasonable
[A]:
(E)