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.

Ex Input:
393 N.W.2d 286, 290-91 (S.D.1986). GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, (dissenting).. [ 26.] I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the lower court on Issue 2. I would hold the trial court erred when it granted partial summary judgment to 01-esens, holding City's operation of food service at the municipal bar was an ultra vires act. [27.] An express grant of authority from the legislature "includes those incidental or implied powers that are necessary to enable a municipality to perform the function authorized." City of Rapid City v. Rensch, 77 S.D. 242, 246, 90 N.W.2d 380, 383 (1958) (citation omitted). A municipality is vested with discretion as to how it exercises specific powers conferred upon it by the legislature, as long as the methods employed are n , 59 N.W.2d 732, 734 (1953) (<HOLDING>). Actions taken under a municipality's implied
Holding statements: (A) holding municipality had implied authority to enter into a long term contract to establish a golf course although state statute did not specifically grant authority to establish golf courses as public parks (B) holding grant of authority to an agency to adopt rules necessary to carry out this chapter clearly vested in the agency authority to interpret a statute (C) holding that the governments attorney had the implicit authority to bind the government although the contracting officer had the express authority (D) holding that plaintiff had no authority or statutory right for actions proper course was to report actions to proper legal authority (E) holding the court has the inherent authority to enter an order of confidentiality

Ex Output:
holding grant of authority to an agency to adopt rules necessary to carry out this chapter clearly vested in the agency authority to interpret a statute

Ex Input:
718. Under Texas law, a person may engage in the practice of engineering, architecture, or landscape architecture if he is licensed in those professions. See Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. art. 3271a, 1.2 (Vernon Supp.1999) (engineering); Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. art.249a, 1 (Vernon Supp.1999) (architecture); Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat. art. 249c, 5(a) (Vernon Supp.1999) (landscape architecture). The State complains Henry was allowed to testified as to matters requiring expertise in surveying, engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture even though he is not licensed in any of those professions. Therefore, because Henry is not licensed, he was not qualified to testify as an expert. See Prellwitz v. Cromwell, Truemper, Levy, Parker & Woodsmale, 802 S.W.2d 316, 318 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1990, no writ) (<HOLDING>); but see Southland Lloyd's Ins. Co. v.
Holding statements: (A) holding that because the tendered expert witness was a licensed psychologist and not a medical doctor he was not qualified to state an expert medical opinion regarding the cause of johns injury (B) holding that a witness who will be giving opinion evidence about a propertys fair market value must be disclosed and designated as an expert pursuant to discovery and other applicable rules (C) recognizing that a licensed chiropractor is a health care provider competent to testify as a medical expert (D) holding that where a treating doctor is called to give an expert opinion on the standard of care that doctor is properly labeled an expert witness and must be disclosed to the other party along with other experts (E) holding that witness giving expert opinion regarding stan dard of care for particular licensed profession must hold license for same profession

Ex Output:
holding that because the tendered expert witness was a licensed psychologist and not a medical doctor he was not qualified to state an expert medical opinion regarding the cause of johns injury

Ex Input:
Smith to provide a bare legal conclusion without explaining the criteria he used to reach that conclusion. Because we agree with the defendants that the district court erred by admitting this portion of Mr. Smith's testimony, we must determine whether this error requires reversal of the defendants' convictions. "In order for an error of this nature to be reversible, the error must affect substantial rights and must result in actual prejudice. Error which does not rise to the magnitude is harmless." Evans ex rel. A.E. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 25, 936 F.2d 472, 476 (10th Cir.1991). "The question is not whether, omitting the inadmissible statements, the r r admission of evidence was prejudicial where the erroneously admitted evidence was "extremely compelling"); Specht, 853 F.2d at 808-09 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Sanders, 928 F.2d 940, 942
Holding statements: (A) holding that defense counsels failure to object to testimony did not warrant a new trial because there was no prejudice from admission of the testimony (B) holding that improper admission of expert testimony was harmless in light of otherwise overwhelming evidence and fact that testimony covering substantially the same area was introduced without challenge (C) holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive (D) holding that erroneous admission of improper and prejudicial evidence did not require reversal because the jury would have returned a verdict of guilty against the defendant even without the prejudicial testimony (E) holding that admission of hearsay testimony was harmless where the jury heard admissible testimony from three other sources to the same effect

Ex Output:
holding that defense counsels failure to object to testimony did not warrant a new trial because there was no prejudice from admission of the testimony