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: a housing development. Streckfus, 504 N.E.2d at 274. She was an at-will employee but had an employment agreement with the development's management company. Id. at 274-275. Her employment agreement referenced a management contract between the development and the management company, and the management contract provided procedures by which the management company could terminate a Resident Manager. Id. Our supreme court held that "as a matter of law, the Employment Agreement did not contain any job security provision which altered the employment at will relationship. ... Id. at 276. The Trails fail to demonstrate that Eddie states a claim upon which relief could be granted based upon the Club's Articles of Incorporation or the Club's standard practices. See also Orr, 689 N.E.2d at 719-720 (<HOLDING>). Even viewing the Trails' breach of contract
Holding statements: (A) holding that an arbitration agreement in an employee handbook was illusory where the employer expressly reserved a right to unilaterally rescind any provisions of the handbook (B) holding that employee handbook did not give rise to implied contract where it stated that it was not a contract and that employment was terminable at will (C) holding employee handbook or employers printed statement of policy are promises in implied offer of unilateral contract which an employee can accept by beginning or continuing to work for employer (D) holding that employee may claim contract created based on employer promise of severance pay to employee (E) holding that an employee handbook did not constitute a valid unilateral contract between the employee and employer in the absence of adequate independent consideration

A: (E)
****
Q: and reimbursement claim based on the plan. Looking to FEHBA's legislative history, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit concluded that the purpose of FEHBA was to establish health insurance for federal employees and that insurance carriers "help the government fulfill the basic task of establishing a health benefits program for federal employees." Id. at 1233. The Jacks court concluded that OPM "has direct and extensive control over these benefit contracts under the FEHBA." The court determined that even though the plan "allows the carrier the discretion to pursue subrogation," that "does not foreclose the application of the federal officer removal statute" because "the subrogation provision is necessarily a product of the benefit payment pro F.Supp.2d 848 (W.D.Mo.2011) (<HOLDING>); Van Horn v. Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue
Holding statements: (A) holding that health insurer contracted with fehba was not acting under a federal agency within the meaning of the federal officer removal statute (B) holding that the fact that the insurance carrier voluntarily entered into a mutually agreed upon contract with the opm to administer healthcare benefits to federally employed enrollees does not rise to the level of a relationship defined as acting under a federal officer (C) holding that a health plan insurer contracting with a government agency under a federal benefits program is considered a person acting under a federal officer (D) holding that the special relationship exception does not apply to the relationship between a student and a school (E) holding that plaintiff stated a claim for breach of contract when it alleged the government failed to purchase insurance for plaintiff as agreed by contract

A: (B)
****
Q: court denied the petition based on its conclusion that Boles had procedurally defaulted his claims by not raising them properly in the state court. Boles contends that appellate counsel's ineffectiveness in failing to preserve his claims for review is cause for his procedural default and resulted in prejudice. Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446, 451, 120 S.Ct. 1587, 146 L.Ed.2d 518 (2000). This contention was raised for the first time in Boles's response to the order to show cause issued by the magistrate judge and was never presented in his habeas petition or in any appeal to the Arizona state courts. Consequently, Boles has not exhausted this claim in state court and the petition should have been dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. 2254(c); Edwards, 429 U.S. at 451, 453 (<HOLDING>). VACATED and REMANDED with instructions to
Holding statements: (A) recognizing a constitutional claim for ineffective assistance of counsel (B) holding that the novelty of a petitioners claim can constitute cause for a procedural default (C) holding that ineffective assistance of counsel constitutes cause for procedural default only if counsels performance was constitutionally ineffective (D) holding that each subcategory of ineffective assistance of counsel is an independent claim that must be sufficiently plead (E) holding that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim alleged to be cause for the procedural default of other claims is itself an independent claim subject to the procedural requirements of exhaustion

A:
(E)
****