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.

Ex Input:
yet a third time under the discussion of 'why.' 934 S.W.2d at 457 (emphasis added). Finally, the court of appeals properly applied the Kraus factors and explained why the evidence supported the punitive damages award. Accordingly, we conclude that the court of appeals' factual sufficiency review of the punitive damages award, despite the court's occasional misleading language, was proper. IY. PUNITIVE DAMAGES AWARD-RECALCULATION Mobil also argues that the court of appeals erred by including, sua sponte, the estate's actual damages in its punitive damages calculation, thereby adding $91,555.58 to the punitive damages award. We agree. A court of appeals cannot modify a judgment without a point of error asking it to do so. See Texas Nat'l Bank v. Karnes, 717 S.W.2d 901, 903 (Tex.1986)(<HOLDING>). Here, the jury charge asked the jury to
Holding statements: (A) holding trial court had no authority to award attorneys fees when arbitrator had stated he would not award attorneys fees (B) holding merely that the evidence was sufficient to support the award of attorneys fees (C) holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees (D) holding that oncors request for the trial judge rather than the jury to determine the reasonableness of its attorneys fees and the failure to submit the question of attorneys fees to the jury resulted in a waiver of oncors claim for the recovery of attorneys fees (E) holding that the court of appeals erred in modifying the judgment to include attorneys fees when the trial courts refusal to grant attorneys fees was not the subject of a point of error

Ex Output:
(E)

Ex Input:
analysis and did not provide any guidance as to its future implications.... "); Schafer, 598 N.E.2d at 553 ("Sturrup is out of the mainstream of caselaw on equal protection analysis_(citation omitted));. Robbins, 941 F.Supp. at 793 ("Federal equal protection 'rational basis' analysis does not contain an 'overbroad' component. Rather, high school transfer rules, like the rule in question, are valid and enforceable." (citations omitted)); Jordan, 813 F.Supp. at 1381 (refusing to apply Sturrup overbreadth scrutiny and writing "Indiana's practice of subjecting equal protection and procedural due process claims to 'over 75 (N.D.Ill.1978) (finding Illinois version of Transfer Rule did not violate equal protection); Simkins v. S.D. High Sch. Activities Ass'n, 434 N.W.2d 367 (S.D.1989) (<HOLDING>); Chabert v. La. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 323
Holding statements: (A) holding illinois high school associations version of the transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection (B) holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection (C) holding that the cap does not violate equal protection (D) holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection (E) holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection as rule was uniformly applied not arbitrary and rationally related to legitimate government interest

Ex Output:
(B)

Ex Input:
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

Ex Output:
(C)