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: position and whether the party would receive "an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party if not estopped." Id. at 751, 121 S.Ct. 1808. The doctrine is designed to prevent "intentional self-contradiction" and is improperly applied "when the former position was the result of inadvertence or mistake." Lampi Corp. v. Am. Power Prod., 228 F.3d 1365, 1377 (Fed.Cir.2000). Thus, the court does no disservice to the important purposes underlying holding parties to judicial admissions by acknowledging that a response to an injunctive action is an evolving position, and the facts and legal positions should be taken in view of the emerging facts as they become known to the litigating parties. See SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Prod., Inc., 415 F.3d 1278, 1291 (Fed.Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). It is also necessary to note that the
Holding statements: (A) holding that courts should avoid constructions that would render statutory text superfluous (B) holding that a transferee federal court should apply its interpretations of federal law not the constructions of federal law of the transferor circuit (C) holding that courts should not use doctrine of judicial estoppel to prevent evolution of arguments but should permit preliminary constructions made without full development of the record or issues to remain open to revision (D) holding that the issue of defendants actual knowledge should not be resolved on summary judgment but should be left to the trier of fact (E) holding courts should apply statutory constructions that make practical sense and do not frustrate legislative intent

Answer: (C)

Question: if the terms of the health care plan specifically exclude from coverage the cost of an appendectomy, then any injuries caused by the refusal to cover the appendectomy are properly attributed to the terms of the plan itself, not the managed care entity that applied those terms. 4 Respondents also argue that ERISA 502(a) completely pre-empts a state cause of action only if the cause of action would be pre-empted under ERISA 514(a); respondents then argue that their causes of action do not fall under the terms of 514(a). But a state cause of action that provides an alternative remedy to those provided by the ERISA civil enforcement mechanism conflicts with Congress' clear intent to make the ERISA mechanism exclusive. See Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U. S.133, 142 (1990) (<HOLDING>). 5 ERISA 514(b)(2)(A), 29 U. S. C.
Holding statements: (A) holding that the plaintiffs causes of action were preempted because their claims were premised on the existence of an erisa plan (B) recognizing cause of action (C) holding that ejven if there were no express preemption under erisa 514a of the cause of action in that case it would be preempted because it conflicted directly with an erisa cause of action (D) recognizing cause of action for equitable estoppel under erisa (E) recognizing the cause of action

Answer: (C)

Question: The $14 million stolen from JPMorgan is a proper measure of restitution for which Dobruna may be jointly and severally liable. See United States v. Nucci, 364 F.3d 419, 422 (2d Cir.2004). But a forfeiture order would defy the purpose and spirit of forfeiture law. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Government's request is DENIED. SO ORDERED. 1 , Although 18 U.S.C. 981(a)(1)(C) is a civil forfeiture statute, it has been integrated into criminal proceedings via 28 U.S.C. '2461(c), which authorizes a court to order forfeiture of property as part of a criminal sentence. 2 . The presence of a criminal conspiracy adds nuance to these forfeiture rules, and it is true that Dobruna's crime touched on a conspiracy. See United States v. Fruchter, 411 F.3d 377, 384 (2d Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). However, Do-bruna was convicted only of the
Holding statements: (A) holding that an individual conspirator may be ordered to forfeit all of the proceeds derived from the criminal enterprise he participated in (B) holding municipal police department to be an enterprise within meaning of hobbs act (C) holding jurisdiction over an individual may not usually be predicated on jurisdiction over a corporation unless the corporation is the alter ego of the individual or when the individual perpetrates a fraud (D) holding intent may be inferred from all facts and circumstances (E) holding that in interpreting a contract the actual purpose and intent of the parties must be derived

Answer:
(A)