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.

Input: Consider Input: Corpus Christi 1977, no writ); Hagemeister v. Vanity Fair Properties, 508 S.W.2d 879, 881 (Tex.Civ.App.Tyler 1973, writ dism'd). Thus, collateral estoppel dictates that venue of any subsequent suit involving the same subject matter and the same parties as the initial suit be governed by the venue determination in the initial suit. See Orozco, 681 S.W.2d at 245-46; Pinney, 558 S.W.2d at 36. First, Miller II involves the same parties as the Windsor suit. Both State & County and Windsor were parties to the Windsor suit. Although Ledbetter and Curtiss were not named in the Windsor suit, as officers of State & County, they were in privity with a party; thus, collateral estoppel would apply to them as well. Cf. Getty Oil Co. v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 845 S.W.2d 794, 800 (Tex.1992) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied sub nom. Youell & Cos. v. Getty
Holding statements: (A) holding that defendant in second suit was in privity for res judicata purposes because his interests were aligned with those of defendant in first suit which concerned same facts (B) holding that res judicata applies when the question of jurisdiction is raised and determined (C) holding that res judicata applies in deportation proceedings (D) holding that the doctrine of res judicata applies to deportation proceedings (E) holding res judicata also applies to those in privity with parties

Output: (E)

Input: Consider Input: further hold that the district court did not commit any procedural error or abuse its discretion by imposing an unreasonable sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (assuming sentencing decision is procedurally sound, appellate court considers substantive reasonableness of sentence under abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir.2009) (sentence was not unreasonable where record reflected that district court made individualized assessment based on facts presented and specifically addressed defendant's proffered information in its consideration of sentencing factors), cert. denied, U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 1309, L.Ed.2d - (2010); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). Having reviewed the record independently
Holding statements: (A) holding district court committed no significant procedural error despite departing downward from the guideline range for multiple reasons without explaining the weight it was attributing to each reason (B) recognizing that a party has not preserved a claim of procedural error if the party did not raise it in a manner sufficient to alert the district court to the specific error (C) holding that reviewing court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence describing factors demonstrating procedural error (D) holding that a reviewing court must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error (E) holding that the district court committed procedural error by failing to provide an indication of what facts it relied on to make a significant variance from the advisory guidelines range

Output: (C)

Input: Consider Input: Court in the intervening years. See Fairfield, 246 S.W.3d at 668 & n. 22 (citing with approval Milligan, Shaffer, Vanderlinden, and Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Lichte, 792 S.W.2d 546, 549 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1990), writ denied per curiam, 825 S.W.2d 431 (Tex.1991)); see also id. at 683 (Hecht, J., concurring) (identifying Manriques v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 779 S.W.2d 482 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1989, writ denied), a case relied on by Laine, as one of only two courts that "have concluded that punitive damages are damages for bodily injury covered by automobile policies," a position that "has been uniformly rejected in the context of uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage"); Home Indem. Co. v. Tyler, 522 S.W.2d 594, 597 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>), overruled by Milligan, 940 S.W.2d 228 (citing
Holding statements: (A) holding business automobile policy issued to a corporation did not provide uninsured motorist coverage for owners son (B) holding that while the owner of several vehicles by paying a single premium for um coverage applicable to only one of them secures um coverage for himself and his family while occupying the uninsured vehicles as well as the insured vehicle the number of uninsured motorist coverages available to be stacked should be based upon the number of coverages for which uninsured motorist premiums were paid (C) holding that language requiring insurer to pay all sums which the insured shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured automobile includes recovery of exemplary damages under uninsured motorist provision of policy (D) holding that an insurer may assert as defenses the nonnegligence of the uninsured the contributory negligence of the insured and the lack of resulting damage all being matters of substantive law and legal defenses of the uninsured but it does not succeed to the rights of the uninsured motorist to interpose the latters procedural defense of statute of limitations (E) holding that a hit and run or unknown driver is deemed to be uninsured for purposes of the uninsured motorist statute
Output: (C)