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.
--------
Question: 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

Answer: (B)

Question: interest of safety and security at the institution. Accordingly, the order of the district court denying Hyde's petition for writ of habeas corpus is affirmed in part and reversed in part. Chief Judge LANSING and Judge PERRY concur. 1 . Roles was addressed in the context of FERPA. However, as we discuss below, there is no distinction between FERPA's compelling govern mental interest standard and that embodied in RLUIPA. 2 .Some states along with the Federal Bureau of Prisons allow sweat lodges and other Native American religious practices at maximum security prisons. See Pounders v. Kempker, 79 Fed. Appx. 941, 943 n. 2 (8th Cir.2003) (noting that Missouri eventually built a sweat lodge at its maximum security Potosi Correctional Center); Allen v. Toombs, 827 F.2d 563 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Morrison v. Cook, 1999 WL 717218, *4 (D.Or.
Holding statements: (A) holding that removal from house arrest and return to general prison population was a matter of inmate classification (B) holding that africanamerican plaintiffs claims that defendants should have known that placing him in a jail with a large population of white inmates put him at risk of being attacked were without merit because the plaintiff had not alleged any specific facts which would show that he was in danger of being assaulted by the other inmates (C) holding that prison conditions are those aspects of prison life affecting the entire prison population (D) recognizing general rule (E) recognizing that general population inmates at oregon maximum security prison were allowed to participate in weekly sweat lodge ceremonies

Answer: (E)

Question: to property" and thereby be eligible for revival under the Revival Act, such a claim must not be an action for either personal injury or breach of a contract. Because the warranty claim asserted by Chase is not an action for personal injuries, the crucial question is whether it is a breach of contract action within the meaning of 25-b. New York courts have interpreted claims for breach of warranty as breach of contract actions within the meaning of GCL 25-b. Therefore, New York courts would find that a breach of warranty action is not an action for injury to property and would not be revived by the Toxic Tort Revival Act. In Blessington v. McCrory Stores Corp., 305 N.Y. 140, 111 N.E.2d 421 (1953), the New York Court of A . 182, 183, 22 N.Y.S.2d 238, 239 (N.Y.City Ct.Kings Co. 1940) (<HOLDING>); see also Great American Indemnity Co. v. Lapp
Holding statements: (A) holding that this courts sixyear statute of limitations is jurisdictional (B) holding that violation of accountants duties mandated by statute did not create a cause of action based on breach of implied contract for employee (C) holding that sixyear contract statute of limitations did not apply reasoning that an action to recover damages for personal injuries based on breach of warranty is only nominally based on contract (D) holding that the sixyear statute of limitations on a written contract is applicable to a cause of action based on a um policy (E) recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract

Answer:
(C)