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: 616.8. Like our general venue statute, section 616.8, known as our common carrier statute, has also remained virtually unchanged for over a century. Compare Iowa Code 2582 (1873), with Iowa Code 616.8 (2001). It provides: An action may be brought against any railway corporation, the owner of stages, or other line of coaches or cars, express, canal, steamboat and other river crafts, telegraph and telephone companies ... in any county through which such road or line passes or is operated. Iowa Code 616.8. Although not expressly mentioned, we have held that semi-trucks carrying freight on a fixed schedule over a regular route with fixed termini constitute a "line of ... cars" for purposes of the statute. Bruce Transfer Co. v. Johnston, 227 Iowa 50, 52-55, 287 N.W. 278, 278-81 (1939) (<HOLDING>). The Richards contend section 616.8, like
Holding statements: (A) holding that the court assumes the legislature acquiesced in our interpretation of the language because the legislature had not amended the language (B) holding that when the legislature enacts a statute it is presumed that the legislature is aware of existing statutes (C) holding the fact legislature could not have foreseen rise of semitrucks when it enacted common carrier statute in the nineteenth century did not foreclose an interpretation that would effectuate its intent (D) holding an administrative interpretation cannot change the meaning of a statute or control the courts interpretation of it (E) holding that shipper negligence does not absolve a carrier of liability if damage would not have occurred but for the concurrent fault of the carrier

A: (C)
****
Q: positions, the defendants did not, and have not, filed a motion to withdraw the reference. Accordingly, this court finds that any right to a jury trial is waived. Stainer v. Latimer (In re Latimer), 918 F.2d 136 (10th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 863, 112 S.Ct. 186, 116 L.Ed.2d 147 (1991) (court finding a defendant's request for a jury trial was properly denied where defendants never requested withdrawal of the reference); See In re Chemetco, Inc., 308 B.R. 339 (Bankr.S.D.Ill.2004) (distinguishing Latimer because in Latimer no motion was ever filed, but in Chemetco, the court had discretion on timeliness issue when motion to withdraw reference was filed only seven days after the jury demand); Consolidated Industries Corp. v. Welbilt Holding Co., 254 B.R. 237, 241 (N.D.Ind.2000) (<HOLDING>). 28 U.S.C. 157 requires that a party file a
Holding statements: (A) recognizing the right to waive a jury trial (B) holding that the trial court abused its discretion in not allowing defendant to withdraw his waiver of jury trial where a lengthy continuance already had been granted (C) holding that a trial courts refusal to withdraw a jury waiver ordinarily does not implicate the federal constitutional right to a jury trial (D) holding that a failure to file an appeal is within the scope of the waiver because the failure does not undermine the validity of the plea or waiver (E) holding with or without a local rule so requiring failure to file motion to withdraw the reference when jury demanded was a waiver of right to jury trial

A: (E)
****
Q: if the defendant did not intend to return the vehicle, then a loss calculation based on the market value of the vehicle is warranted. The sentencing court may properly infer such intent if the defendant is indifferent or reckless with respect to the owner's recovery of the vehicle. "[I]t has long been the case that 'if one takes another's property intending to use it recklessly and then abandon it, the obstacles to its safe return are such that the taker possesses the required intent to steal.' " United States v. Cruz-Santiago, 12 F.Sd 1, 2 (1st Cir.1993) cert. denied, U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1853, 128 L.Ed.2d 477 (1994) (deciding robbery case and quoting LaFave & Scott, supra, 8.5, at 360-61); see also State v. Piscattano, 32 Conn.Supp. 649, 352 A.2d 783, 785 (Ct.App.Sess.1976) (<HOLDING>); Brown v. State, 804 S.W.2d 566, 570
Holding statements: (A) holding that an arrest to retrieve car keys where ownership of the car was in dispute was not supported by probable cause (B) holding that the factfinder may conclude that recovery is not likely when the car is left on street with keys in the car (C) holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search (D) holding that it was objectively reasonable for the police to conclude that the general consent to search the respondents car included consent to search a bag within that car (E) holding car lessee specifically contracted with car lessor for liability for any and all loss or damage to rental car thus barring recovery from insurer under exclusion for liability assumed by contract

A:
(B)
****