Definition: 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.
Input: from taking a position that is "contrary to a position previously taken in the same or earlier proceeding." Ergo Science, Inc. v. Martin, 73 F.3d 595, 598 (5th Cir.1996). Because the S.E.C. representations were neither made by Surety Bank nor made in judicial proceedings, they cannot serve as the basis for estopping the Bank. III. The district court did not err in refusing to give full faith and credit to the Tennessee judgment. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED. 2 . See Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938)("Except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state."). 3 . See also In re Maddron, 1991 WL 135467, *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 25, 1991)(<HOLDING>). 4 . In his reply brief, the Receiver points
Holding statements: (A) holding that a judgment as to the title in a prior litigation was not subject to collateral attack (B) holding that a foreign judgment for alimony and child support arrearages was not subject to attack in wyoming except on grounds that would permit attack upon any other money judgment such as want of jurisdiction in the court entering the judgment or lack of service so as to vest jurisdiction over the defendant (C) recognizing that only void judgments are subject to collateral attack and that a judgment is void only when court had no jurisdiction of the parties or property no jurisdiction of the subject matter no jurisdiction to enter the particular judgment or no capacity to act (D) holding that a judgment is subject to collateral attack where the judgment is void for want of jurisdiction with respect to the power of the court to render the particular judgment or decree as where the court exceeds the powers conferred on it by constitutional or statutory provisions (E) holding that district court had subjectmatter jurisdiction and yet that judgment void for lack of jurisdiction to render the particular judgment
Output:
holding that a judgment as to the title in a prior litigation was not subject to collateral attack