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.

[Q]: 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
[A]: (A)

[Q]: who are undeniably state actors, colluded with her in her actions. When all intendments are taken in the Plaintiffs' favor, therefore, their allegations indicate both that Malac infringed their substantive due process rights and that she can be considered a state actor. Accordingly, Malac's motion to dismiss is denied. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Barbara Malac's motion to dismiss [Docket No. 47] is DENIED. The motion of Defendant Agent Cynthia Preston and Defendant Agent Nancy Gingras [Docket No. 50] to dismiss is DENIED with respect to Agent Preston, but GRANTED with respect to Agent Gingras. SO ORDERED. 1 . For the propriety of citing this unpublished Second Circuit opinion, see Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898, 899-905 (8th Cir.2000) (Arnold, J.) (<HOLDING>), vacated as moot, 235 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir.2000)
Holding statements: (A) holding that unpublished opinions are of persuasive value at best and not precedential (B) holding that opinions accompanying the denial of certiorari cannot have the same effect as decisions on the merits (C) holding that even district court cases decided by panels of three have no precedential value (D) holding that unpublished opinions have precedential effect (E) recognizing that we ordinarily do not accord precedential value to our unpublished decisions and that such decisions are entitled only to the weight they generate by the persuasiveness of their reasoning citation omitted
[A]: (D)

[Q]: factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought." Tenry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.2003) (internal quotations omitted). Moncriefs argument concerning the timeliness of her failure to promote claim is unavailing. To state a timely Title VII claim, a plaintiff must file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 300 days of the allegedly discriminatory employment practice. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(e)(l). The most recent date upon which Moncrief was denied a promotion was April 2002, and she filed her EEOC charge in May 2004, more than two years later. Therefore, this claim was time-barred, and the district court correctly dismissed it. See Alleyne v. American Airlines, Inc., 548 F.3d 219, 220 (2d Cir.2008)(per curiam) (<HOLDING>). As to Moncriefs wrongful termination claim,
Holding statements: (A) holding that a party must file an eeoc charge within 180 days from the date the unlawful act occurred or lose the ability to recover for it (B) holding that the timely filing of an eeoc charge pursuant to 706 of title vii 42 usc 2000e5 did not toll the statute of limitations for an action brought on the same facts under 42 usc 1981 (C) holding that the conduct complained of must be an unlawful employment practice under title vii (D) recognizing that under 42 usc 2000e5el a title vii claim is timely where the eeoc charge was filed within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice (E) holding that statute of limitations barred title vii claim where the plaintiff would have been aware of discrimination more than 300 days before eeoc charge filed
[A]:
(D)