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.

complaint's allegations are sufficient if they put a reasonable person on notice as to why a plaintiff sues." Id. Here, a reasonable person would be put on notice that Weatherford's claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress is not solely based on the false arrest or false imprisonment claims. Weatherford's claim is premised on the officers' alleged intentional retaliation and abuse of power and process when they violated standard police procedure, disregarded Chief Leonard's instructions and conspired to intentionally and publicly humiliate Weatherford. Furthermore, we note that Indiana now recognizes a separate cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, without the need for an accompanying tort. See Cullison v. Medley, 570 N.E.2d 27, 30-31 (Ind.1991) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we find that Weatherford
Holding statements: (A) recognizing the tort of intentional infliction of emotion distress for the first time in indiana (B) recognizing that the indiana tort claims act grants broad immunity to governmental employees from suit for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress (C) holding that claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotion distress fail as matter of law where challenged arrest is supported by probable cause (D) recognizing the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (E) holding that intentional infliction of emotional distress is a personal injury tort
(A)

essential element of an elevated breath alcohol level. Consequently, he contends that the judge's ruling was essentially a determination that the exclusion of the BAT results left the State without sufficient proof to convict Defendant of the DWI charge, and that this constituted an adjudication of his innocence. Defendant also asserts that the judge's oral comments that he had "reasonable doubt" and that he found Defendant "not guilty" further indicate that the judge deliberated on the merits of the case and acquitted Defendant of the DWI charge. Defendant does not, however, argue that the judge expressly ruled that Defendant was acquitted of the charges, nor would the record support such an assertion. See County of Los Alamos v. Tapia, 109 N.M. 736, 741, 790 P.2d 1017, 1022 (1990) (<HOLDING>). {20} The State concedes that jeopardy
Holding statements: (A) recognizing that when a cause of action is reduced to a judgment the cause of action is merged into the judgment and thereafter only an action on the judgment exists (B) recognizing that an actual express judgment of acquittal precludes retrial regardless of any defects in the process leading to the judgment (C) holding that defects in service of process must be raised in preliminary objections (D) holding on summary judgment that an attorney who failed to timely file an answer leading to a default judgment was on notice that a malpractice claim might be filed against him (E) recognizing that an appeal from a final judgment permits an attack against any nonfinal order or ruling leading up to it
(B)

uses the term "judgment" is not dispositive. Our Supreme Court and the Superior Court have held that where a trial court issues a decision or verdict following a trial, at which evidence was presented, thereby requiring .the tyial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. based on that evidence, post-trial motions are required to be filed' in order to preserve issues for appellate review. Motorists Mutual Insurance Company v. Pinkerton, 574 Pa. 333, 830 A.2d 958, 962-63 (2003); Chalkey v. Roush, 569 Pa. 462, 805 A.2d 491, 495-96 (2002); Baughman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 441 Pa.Super. 83, 656 A.2d 931, 932-33 (1,995). See also Newman Development Group of Pottstown, LLC v. Genuardi's Family Markets, 617 Pa. 265, 52 A.3d 1233, 1248-49, 1251 (2012) (<HOLDING>). This is so even if a trial court's order
Holding statements: (A) holding that under rule 5903 posttrial motions brought before either party served notice of filing of the courts order were timely (B) holding that successive posttrial motions do not toll the time for appeal (C) holding that although the defendant filed a number of motions because the original trial date never changed as a result of those motions no delay could be attributed to the motions (D) holding that issues are not waived for failing to file posttrial motions from a remand proceeding where no evidence was presented because no posttrial motions were required under those circumstances (E) holding argument based on economic loss rule waived when raised for first time in posttrial motions
(D)