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. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

[EX Q]: in some respect. To me, such an approach invites municipal officials to substitute rank speculation and conjectural claptrap for genuine engineering expertise and constitutes an open invitation for local planners to engage in incompetent fear-mongering about perceived or imagined development risks, no matter how unfounded, unlikely, or controllable such risks may be. Such an open-textured standard for upholding the denial of subdivision applications will all too easily be converted into an impermeable cloak to cover confiscatory regulatory takings, official pandering to neighbors' antidevelopment biases, political shenanigans, and other such local governmental capriciousness of the sort that we recently condemned in L.A. Ray Realty v. Town Council of Cumberland, 698 A.2d 202 (R.I.1997) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the mere fact that the municipality
Holding statements: (A) holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc 1983 (B) holding that person in 42 usc 1983 does not include states (C) holding that 42 usc 1983 does not provide a remedy for flsa violations (D) holding that the petitioner property owners had established 42 usc 1983 substantive and procedural dueprocess violations against town officials who arbitrarily denied the plaintiffs request for subdivision approval (E) holding that plaintiffs had claim under 42 usc 1983 against state where state had created an intermediate care facility but placed plaintiffs on waiting list
[EX A]: holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc 1983

[EX Q]: unlawful harm under that public policy may include actions that violate recognized and accepted standards of conduct, such as applicable codes of ethics. The critical question in this case is whether under all of the surrounding circumstances MacDougall's termination by Weiehert violated that clear mandate of public policy and was in retaliation for either his vote on the municipal parking ban ordinance or his refusal to change the ordinance. At the outset, we recognize that conduct that is directed against constitutionally-protected activity may violate a clear mandate of public policy, even though it may not offend any other statutory or legal standard. Supra at 390, 393, 677 A.2d at 167, 168. Compare Shovelin v. Central New Mexico Elec. Coop., Inc., 115 N.M. 293, 850 P.2d 996 (1993) (<HOLDING>) with Novosel v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 721 F.2d
Holding statements: (A) holding that employees retaliatory discharge based on employees election to public office did not violate public policy (B) recognizing public policy limits on employer discretion in discharging employees (C) holding public employees conduct and expression in internal investigation of employees at county prosecutors office to expose potential wrongdoing constituted matter of public concern (D) recognizing retaliatory discharge claim where employer prevented employees exercise of workers compensation rights because of employees intention to file claim (E) holding that the discharge of an employee hospitalized for illness did not violate public policy
[EX A]: recognizing public policy limits on employer discretion in discharging employees

[EX Q]: 346 (1985). A pattern is shown through two or more related acts of racketeering activity that "amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity." Wisdom v. First Midwest Bank, 167 F.3d 402, (8th Cir.1999) (quoting United HealthCare Corp., v. Am. Trade Ins. Co., 88 F.3d 563, 571 (8th Cir.1996)). Appellants' RICO claim was dismissed without prejudice for failure to set forth the predicate acts of mail and wire fraud with the particularity required by Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 9(b) requires that a party alleging fraud or mistake "state with particularity the circumstances constituting a fraud or mistake." Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b); see Murr Plumbing, Inc. v. Scherer Bros. Fin. Srvcs. Co., 48 F.3d 1066, 1069 (8th Cir.1995) (citing 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1343) (<HOLDING>). Appellants' amended complaint alleges in very
Holding statements: (A) holding that heightened pleading standards of fed rcivp 9b apply to fraud elements of rico claim (B) holding that plaintiffs must provide more than conclusory allegations to satisfy rule 9bs requirement that circumstances of fraud be pleaded with particularity (C) holding that the federal false claims act is an antifraud statute to which rule 9bs heightened pleading requirements apply (D) holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid the securities fraud exception by pleading mail fraud or wire fraud if the conduct giving rise to those offenses also amounts to securities fraud (E) holding that rule 9bs heightened pleading requirement applies to allegations of mail and wire fraud used as predicate acts for a rico claim
[EX A]:
holding that heightened pleading standards of fed rcivp 9b apply to fraud elements of rico claim