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]: private property in the Fifth Amendment presupposes that it is wanted for public use, but provides that it shall not be taken for such use without compensation .... The general rule at least is that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it .will be recognized as a taking. 260 U.S. at 415, 43 S.Ct. at 160. The seminal case regarding the constitutionality of zoning ordinances is Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926). The Supreme Court first noted that zoning ordinances were, at that time, of recent vintage predating the case by approximately twenty-five years. 272 U.S. at 386, 47 S.Ct. at 117. See Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U.S. 394, 36 S.Ct. 143, 60 L.Ed. 348 (1915). The Euclid 60 (E.D.N.Y.1992) (<HOLDING>); Kasdon v. G.W. Zierden Landscaping, Inc., 541
Holding statements: (A) holding that cases claiming that government action requires just compensation must be determined on an ad hoc basis (B) holding that whether an exchange is substantially contemporaneous must be determined on a casebycase basis (C) holding state of the law must be determined at time of challenged action (D) holding that detailed exhaustion scheme of the civil rights of institutionalized persons act cripa is inconsistent with discretion to impose on an ad hoc basis a judicially developed exhaustion rule in other cases (E) holding that to constitute an enterprise under rico the enterprises structure must provide some mechanism for controlling and directing the affairs of the group on an ongoing rather than an ad hoc basis
[EX A]: holding that whether an exchange is substantially contemporaneous must be determined on a casebycase basis

[EX Q]: with the court, that Mr. Peralta has been granted a labor certification pursuant to a subsequent application filed by his employer. He has been awarded all of the relief that he sought, and there is consequently no live controversy concerning the original denial of his application for the same position with the same employer. As to the appellants whose employers have re-filed new certification applications that are currently pending, we do not think their claims are mooted. In contrast to Mr. Peralta, these parties have not yet received the relief originally sought and thus their original claim that the denial of their first certification application was arbitrary remains a live controversy. See County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631, 99 S.Ct. 1379, 59 L.Ed.2d 642 (1979) (<HOLDING>). 3 . Actually, even after a certification is
Holding statements: (A) holding that a case under the declaratory judgments act remains a live controversy even if all requests for substantive declaratory relief become moot during the actions pendency as long as a claim for attorneys fees under the act remains pending (B) holding that issues as to whether declaratory relief should be granted had become moot and would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction but that under hallman the entire appeal was not moot because there still was a live controversy as to whether appellee was entitled to recover attorneys fees under the declaratory judgments act and therefore issues regarding attorneys fees were not moot and would be decided (C) holding that appeals are moot when appellate courts can provide no effective relief (D) holding that a case is not moot so long as the court can fashion some form of meaningful relief for the injured party (E) holding that a previously live case can become moot only if interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation
[EX A]: holding that a case under the declaratory judgments act remains a live controversy even if all requests for substantive declaratory relief become moot during the actions pendency as long as a claim for attorneys fees under the act remains pending

[EX Q]: Because these hardship determinations are made in the same manner under practically identical standards and because De La Vega holds that the cancellation-of-removal hardship determination is discretionary, we join the Fourth Circuit in holding that the 1182(i)(l) hardship determination is discretionary as well. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review this judgment. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)®️. Finally, we hold that 106(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the REAL ID Act, 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(D), does not affect our conclusion because the instant petition, in challenging the BIA's discretionary extreme-hardship determination, does not raise any "constitutional claims or questions of law" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(D). See Xiao Ji Chen v. DOJ, 434 F.3d 144, 153-54 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, we lack
Holding statements: (A) holding that the real id act gave us jurisdiction to review a criminal aliens petition for review of an order of removal raising a question of law (B) holding that adverse credibility determinations under the real id act must take into consideration the individual circumstances of the applicant (C) holding that the real id act does not restore jurisdiction over discretionary determinations (D) holding that the real id act leaves this court deprived of jurisdiction to review discretionary and factual determinations (E) holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the bias discretionary determinations concerning whether to grant cancellation of removal and that sjection 106 of the real id act does not override the jurisdictiondenying provision of 8 usc 1252a2b unless the petitioner raises a constitutional claim or question of law within the meaning of 8 usc 1252a2d
[EX A]:
holding that the real id act gave us jurisdiction to review a criminal aliens petition for review of an order of removal raising a question of law