instruction:
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.
question:
purpose, we would have some authority to solve taxpayer's problem. See Rhodes, 166 Vt. at 157, 688 A.2d at 1311 (noting that, to invoke impossibility rule, party "must dem onstrate why this Court should not construe the statute in its ordinary sense or why the consequences of such construction will cause hardship or constitute impossibility"). But our standard under this prudential rule is very limited and does not ordinarily extend to making choices, among many available, to solve the problem. There is simply no way to construe the statute to allow a transfer that occurred 319 days after an LLC's articles of organization were filed without reading the words "at the time of formation" out of the statute. See Colwell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2003 VT 5, 15, 175 Vt. 61, 819 A.2d 727 (<HOLDING>). 23. It is true that the Department's
Holding statements: (A) holding that because the plaintiff was not disabled for the purposes of the ada this court need not to address the other elements of the prima facie case (B) recognizing that though statute at hand does not fully address the problem legislature intended to address in view of the number of choices available to solve the problem this is an inappropriate case for the court to fashion the particular remedy appellants seek because to do so would place court in the position of making policy choices best left to legislature (C) holding that in order for there to be state debt in the constitutional sense one legislature in effect must obligate a future legislature to appropriate funds to discharge the debt created by the first legislature (D) holding that considering an amendment is not the time to address the merits of a case (E) holding that the court assumes the legislature acquiesced in our interpretation of the language because the legislature had not amended the language
answer:
holding that because the plaintiff was not disabled for the purposes of the ada this court need not to address the other elements of the prima facie case

question:
9006(b)(3). There is no excusable neglect basis for enlarging the claims bar date included in Rule 3002(c). Accordingly, the excusable neglect standard found in Rule 9006(b)(1) does not authorize extensions of the claims deadline imposed in chapter 13 cases. In re Oscar, 2005 WL 6522763 (Bankr.E.D.Pa. Apr. 14, 2005). "[S]ince 1994, the courts have almost uniformly ruled that proofs of claim that are untimely filed in a Chapter 13 case may not be deemed timely filed, and that the claimants thereunder should not take from, or be permitted to recover from, the debtor's estate under the Chapter 13 plan." Daniels, 466 B.R. at 217 (listing examples). This Court has consistently held that late claims are not permitted in chapter 13 cases. In re Dumain, 492 B.R. 140, 148 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2013) (<HOLDING>). As such, the Court will not allow Ocwen's
Holding statements: (A) holding impairment of secured creditors foreclosure remedy permissible (B) holding that failure to comply with bankruptcy rule 4004 may be waived (C) holding that the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over counterclaims asserted by the bankruptcy estate against a creditor where the claim is a state law action independent of the federal bankruptcy law and not necessarily resolvable by a ruling on the creditors proof of claim in the bankruptcy emphasis added (D) holding that secured creditors must comply with the bar date imposed by bankruptcy rule 3002c (E) holding that a creditors security was preserved notwithstanding the bankruptcy of the debtor
answer:
holding impairment of secured creditors foreclosure remedy permissible

question:
in nature, but contains guidelines to ensure that the substantive right to counsel is protected." State v. T.G., 800 So.2d 204, 211 (Fla.2001). The detailed inquiry and waiver verified by counsel are required by rule 8.165 to determine whether k waiver of counsel was made "knowingly and intelligently in consideration of [the juvenile's] age, education,- experience, mental condition, and the nature and complexity of the case." Id. at 212 (quoting P.L.S. v. State, 745 So.2d 555, 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)). The supreme court explained that if it appears from the face of the record that the trial court did not comply with the specific procedures of rule 8.165, including conducting a 'thorough inquiry into the child's comprehension of that offer [of the assistance of counsel] and th 2007) (<HOLDING>). The trial court's failure to comply with rule
Holding statements: (A) holding fundamental error occurred because merely informing a juvenile of the role of counsel and asking the juvenile if he understands that he is giving up his right to counsel does not constitutethe thorough inquiry concerning the juveniles comprehension of the offer of counsel that is mandated by rule 8165b2 (B) holding that juveniles may waive right to counsel only upon advice of counsel (C) holding that juvenile and his parents must be advised of the right to counsel in juvenile proceedings and the mothers knowledge that she could employ counsel was not an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a fully known right (D) recognizing juveniles right to counsel in certain juvenile proceedings (E) holding that the court without violating due process of the law may conduct a hearing to determine whether to waive juvenile jurisdiction even if the juvenile fails to appear if counsel is present and allowed to participate on the juveniles behalf
answer:
holding that juveniles may waive right to counsel only upon advice of counsel