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:
the interpretation of the statute has clearly been vested by a provision of law in the agency's discretion. See Iowa Code 17A.19(10)(c), (l). If the agency has been clearly vested with interpretive authority, we generally defer to the agency's interpretation, and may grant relief only if the agency's interpretation is "irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable." Id. 17A.19(10)(i). If the agency has not been clearly vested with discretion to interpret the statute, "we are free to substitute our judgment de novo for the agency's interpretation and determine if the interpretation is erroneous." Auen v. Alcoholic Beverages Div., 679 N.W.2d 586, 589-90 (Iowa 2004) (citing Iowa Code 17A.19(10)(e)). The legislature has delegated broad authority to 643 N.W.2d 205, 207 (Iowa 2002) (<HOLDING>). Section 147.76 clearly'vests the board of
Holding statements: (A) holding board cannot ignore the rules it adopts under the delegation of authority to prescribe rules for its governance and the governance of the university because such rules have the force and effect of statute (B) holding grant of authority to an agency to adopt rules necessary to carry out this chapter clearly vested in the agency authority to interpret a statute (C) holding that director of police department does not have final policymaking authority in miamidade county despite having some discretionary authority (D) holding statute providing the director shall have the power and authority to prescribe all rules not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter necessary and advisable for its detailed administration and to effectuate its purposes vested authority in the department of revenue and finance to interpret section 4224520 (E) holding that congress had exceeded its authority by using its section five power under the fourteenth amendment to enact the statute

Ex Output:
(D)

Ex Input:
Inc., 299 F.Supp.2d 1307, 1321 (S.D.Fla.2004). First, the PSLRA altered Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement by mandating the following: [T]he complaint shall specify each statement alleged to have been misleading, the reason or reasons why the statement is misleading, and, if an allegation regarding the statement or omission is made on information and belief, the complaint shall state with particularity all facts on which that belief is formed. 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(b)(l)(B). Thus, the PSLRA requires greater specificity than Rule 9(b). Druskin, 299 F.Supp.2d at 1321. Second, the PSLRA raised the standard for pleading scienter by making it clear that a plaintiff can no longer plead scienter generally. In order to properly allege scienter, the plaintiff m 2 n. 2 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, the Eleventh Circuit has
Holding statements: (A) recognizing defense in securities case (B) recognizing doctrine (C) holding that morrison precludes securities claims brought by us investors who purchase securities on a foreign exchange even where those securities are also listed on a us exchange (D) holding the doctrine applied in a case of mistake (E) recognizing the incorporation by reference doctrine in a securities case

Ex Output:
(E)

Ex Input:
1152 ("The doctrine of alter ego does not rest upon a particular creditor's dealings with or reliance on the control entity, nor does the doctrine require a showing of fraud on a particular creditor."). 32 . 11 U.S.C. 304 (1994). 33 . In re Koreag, 961 F.2d at 348. 34 . See H.R.Rep. No. 95-595, 2nd Sess., at 324-25 (1977). 35 . In re Culmer, 25 B.R. 621, 624 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1982). 36 . 11 U.S.C. 304(c)(1)-(6) (1994). 37 . S.I. Acquisition, 817 F.2d at 1148; In re Davis, 191 B.R. 577, 586 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (compiling citations). 38 . S.I. Acquisition, 817 F.2d at 1147-48; Audio Data Corp. v. Monus, 789 S.W.2d 281, 286 (Tex.Ct.App.1990). 39 . Courts have noted, with curiosity, the different statutory language used in subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2). See, e.g., In re Koreag, 961 F.2d at 349 (<HOLDING>). 40 . 81 B.R. 267 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1988). 41 .
Holding statements: (A) holding that because property was no longer property of the estate the court could not order turnover (B) recognizing that exempt property ceases to be property of the estate (C) recognizing that congress per mits injunctions to be issued under subsection b1 regarding property involved in the foreign proceeding but subsection b2 only authorizes turnover of property of the estate leading to the conclusion that the two sections must perform different functions (D) holding that funds held in escrow are property of the estate only to the extent of the debtors independent right to that property (E) holding that determining the nature and extent of property of the estate is also a fundamental function of a bankruptcy court and therefore the turnover action is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 usc 157b2a

Ex Output:
(C)