Detailed Instructions: 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.
Problem:consent to remove board, reduce size of board, and elect new directors); Kalageorgi v. Victor Kamkin, Inc., 750 A.2d 531, 536 (Del.Ch.1999) (describing effort by written consent to remove directors and then reduce size of board); AGR Halifax Fund, Inc. v. Fiscina, 743 A.2d 1188, 1191 (Del.Ch.1999) (describing effort by writte , 630 (Del.Ch.1970) ("I am of the opinion that plaintiff, having no vested right in her office, has been properly removed as a director. ..."). 4 . For more recent Delaware decisions articulating this principle, see Nevins v. Bryan, 885 A.2d 233, 252 n. 70 (Del.Ch.2005) ("Delaware law does not permit directors to remove other directors."), aff'd, 884 A.2d 512 (Del.2005); Solstice Capital II, Ltd. Partnership v. Ritz, 2004 WL 765939, at *1 (Del.Ch. Apr. 6, 2004) (<HOLDING>); Stroud, 585 A.2d at 1309 ("Generally,
Holding statements: (A) recognizing absolute immunity for board members and the director of the mississippi state board of nursing (B) holding that the attempt to remove a director by written consent of the board is invalid (C) holding that a search exceeded the scope of the initial oral consent and was not validated by a subsequent written consent an allegedly consensual seizure must stand or fall on the basis of the consent preexisting the seizure (D) holding that allegation that company paid a director 50000 in consulting fees was not enough to demonstrate that the director lacked independence as plaintiffs had failed to allege that 50000 was material to the director (E) holding that the consent of the driver was invalid when the officer knew that the passenger was the owner of the automobile
Solution:
recognizing absolute immunity for board members and the director of the mississippi state board of nursing