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.
Q: to the government, i.e., the king. That concept, through escheat statutes and conditions of early grants, persisted in colonial days. The Takings Clause was thus considered to be a liberalization of property rights adverse to the conservative interests of the preconstitutional colonial governments. The right to private property was then perceived to be one of the incidents, privileges and immunities constituting individual rights that should be free from governmental interference. Maryland was one of only three states that had a Takings Clause in its first constitution. Id. at 698, n. 15 (citing 3 F. Thorpe, The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the States, Territories, and Colonies, N Rock, 237 U.S. 171, 35 S.Ct. 511, 59 L.Ed. 900 (1915) (<HOLDING>); Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U.S. 394, 36
Holding statements: (A) holding that an ordinance passed for the health and comfort of the community that prohibited brickmaking in a designated area was a valid exercise of police power (B) holding general statutes 1466 a requiring licensing to engage in operating wrecker for purpose of towing valid exercise of police power (C) holding that limiting to two the number of dogs kept per residential unit was not an unreasonable exercise of police power (D) holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation (E) holding that the exercise of police power was valid where an owner was prohibited from operating a liveiy stable business that was not a nuisance per se
A:
holding that an ordinance passed for the health and comfort of the community that prohibited brickmaking in a designated area was a valid exercise of police power