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: not reached a final decision on the merits, entitling a litigant to relitigate the issue. International Nutronics, 28 F.3d at 970-71 (antitrust claim against joint venture bidders could have been brought in pri- or bankruptcy proceeding, thus, claim was precluded in subsequent suit to avoid the sale); International Union of Operating Eng'r.-Employers Constr. Indus. Pension, Welfare & Training Trust v. Karr, 994 F.2d 1426, 1430 (9th Cir.1993) (in employee action to recover benefits from employer, employee's audit claim barred by res judicata because it could have been brought in prior proceeding). If litigants could bring a new suit whenever an issue was not previously litigated, no judgment would ever be final. See Ellingson v. Burlington N., Inc., 653 F.2d 1327, 1331 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). The proper method to challenge the decision
Holding statements: (A) holding that the application of an extended statute of limitations to offenses occurring prior to the legislative extension where the prior and shorter statute of limitations has not run as of the date of such extension does not violate the ex post facto clause citing united states v powers 307 us 214 21718 59 sct 805 807 83 led 1245 rehg denied 308 us 631 60 sct 66 84 led 526 1939 (B) holding that an indemnitees settlement must be in an amount reasonable in view of the size of possible recovery and degree of probability of claimants success against the indemnitee quoting damanti v as inger 314 f2d 395 397 2d cir1963 cert denied 375 us 834 84 sct 46 11 led2d 64 1963 (C) holding that a change in law does not affect the res judicata effect of judgments citing chicot county drainage dist v baxter state bank 308 us 371 375 60 sct 317 319 84 led 329 rehg denied 309 us 695 60 sct 581 84 led 1035 1940 (D) recognizing nardone v united states 308 us 338 60 sct 266 84 led 307 1939 taint test as controlling authority (E) holding that due process forbids the use of a coerced confession irrespective of its truth as announced in jackson v denno 378 us 368 84 sct 1774 12 led2d 908 to be retroactive

Output: (C)

Input: Consider Input: Erickson-Puttmann concedes that her Title VII claim against Gill fails because Gill was not her employer. See e.g., Bonomolo-Hagen v. Clay Central-Everly Community Sch. Dist., 121 F.3d 446, 447 (8th Cir.1997) ("Our Court quite recently has squarely held that supervisors may not be held individually liable under Title VII." (citing Spencer v. Ripley County State Bank, 123 F.3d 690, 691-92 (8th Cir.1997) (per cu-riam))). Lenhardt v. Basic Inst, of Tech., Inc., 55 F.3d 377, 381 (8th Cir.1995) (noting that "[e]very circuit that has considered the issue ultimately has concluded that an employee, even one possessing supervisory authority, is not an employer upon whom liability can be imposed under Title VII."); Smith v. St. Bernards Reg'l Med. Ctr., 19 F.3d 1254, 1255 (8th Cir. 1994) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the court concludes that summary
Holding statements: (A) holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii (B) holding that individual defendants may not be held liable for violations under title vii (C) holding individual employees may be liable under title vii (D) holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii (E) holding that there is no individual liability under title vii

Output: (D)

Input: Consider Input: amicus brief filed in Lee, DOJ asserts, inter alia, that the lawsuits with similar allegations filed against other schools should not trigger the public disclosure bar." Relators did not explain how the arguments made in the amicus brief applied to the district court's order, how that brief showed an intervening change in the law, or how those arguments or legal authorities showed that the district court erred. Ill We recognize that by looking to the substance of the motion and the relief requested, we place the burden "upon the party seeking to appeal the obligation to determine for itself whether a motion denominated as a[n FRCP] 59(e) motion does in fact fall within the parameters for which that rule is designed." Fincher v. Keller Indus., Inc., 905 F.2d 691, 693 (3d Cir. 1990) (<HOLDING>). This result, however, is required by
Holding statements: (A) holding that argument was not preserved where defendant did not file a pretrial motion to suppress and did not object or make a motion to exclude the evidence until his motion to dismiss at the close of all of the evidence (B) holding that rule 59e applies to a motion to reconsider (C) holding that an argument raised for the first time in a rule 59e motion is waived on appeal (D) holding that a motion filed as a rule 59e was not a motion to alter or amend the judgment and did not toll the time to file an appeal because the motion for costs was wholly collateral to thejudgment on the merits (E) holding that the march of time began for the period in which to file a rule 59e motion on the date the court entered an order that was immediately appealable
Output: (D)