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:THOMAS, MOORE, and DONALDSON, JJ., concur. 1 . The will contained two codicils, and for the purposes of this opinion, the will and the codicils are referred to collectively as "the will." 2 . As is explained in later analysis in this opinion, and in notes 3 and 5, infra, we have used the term "personal representative" for ease of reference, but JaNell and David, and, ultimately, Mary Elizabeth, technically sought to be the administrators with the will annexed. 3 .Mary Elizabeth is seeking to be appointed an administrator with the will annexed. An administrator is subject to the residency requirements of 43-2-22, Ala.Code 1975, but an executor named in a will is not subject to those residency restrictions. See 43-2-191, Ala.Code 1975, and Ex parte Adams, 168 So.3d 40, 44 (Ala.2014) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Mary Elizabeth did not testify regarding
Holding statements: (A) holding that oneyear limitations period set forth in 2255 is not a jurisdictional bar and is thus subject to equitable tolling (B) holding that the specific date restriction set forth in 541a5 controls and that 1306a1 does not eliminate that restriction (C) holding that an executor named in a will is not subject to the nonresident restriction set forth in 43222 (D) holding that it is generally sufficient that an indictment set forth the offense in the words of the statute itself (E) holding that plea in bar may be based only on grounds set forth in statute
Solution:
holding that oneyear limitations period set forth in 2255 is not a jurisdictional bar and is thus subject to equitable tolling