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: Jones v. Wilson (In re Wilson), 72 B.R. 956 (Bankr. M.D.Fla.1987); McCullough v. Suter (In re Suter), 59 B.R. 944 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1986). Palmer argues that the BAP erred in distinguishing among the various subsections of section 523 on the issue of the discharge of punitive damages. He notes that courts have found that punitive damages are nondischargeable under section 523(a)(4), which bars discharge of debts "for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, embezzlement or larceny," 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(4), and under section 523(a)(6), which bars discharge of debts "for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity," 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6). See, e.g., Klemens v. Wallace (In re Wallace), 840 F.2d 762 (10th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Moraes v. Adams (In re Adams), 761 F.2d 1422,
Holding statements: (A) holding without discussion of the punitive damages issue that judgment for embezzlement which included actual and punitive damages was nondischargeable (B) holding that punitive damages are not fines (C) holding punitive damages nondischargeable under 523a6 when such damages are based on the same conduct as the underlying nondischargeable judgment (D) holding without discussion of the punitive damages issue that both actual and punitive portions of judgment for defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity were nondischargeable (E) holding a court may not award punitive damages

Output: (A)

Input: Consider Input: of priorities for economic development" were the centers of power in many areas of importance. Harry Scheiber, Federalism and the American Economic Order, 1789-1910, Law and Soc'y (Fall 1975) 57, 97. See generally id. at 86-100 (discussing diffusion of power and rnment's contentions here ... would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States."); id. at 578, 115 S.Ct. 1624 ("[T]he federal balance is too essential a part qf our constitutional structure and plays too vital a role in securing freedom for us to admit inability to intervene when one or the other level of Government has tipped the scales too far."); New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992) (<HOLDING>); id. at 178, 112 S.Ct. 2408 ("No matter how
Holding statements: (A) holding that despite 1985 amendments minimum jurisdictional amount remains 50000 (B) holding that the protect act amendments to the standard of review apply retroactively (C) holding that an unconstitutional policy may be inferred from an officials single decision or act (D) holding that an unconstitutional act of congress has no legal effect (E) holding unconstitutional taketitle provision of the lowlevel radioactive waste policy amendments act of 1985

Output: (E)

Input: Consider Input: could not accurately enforce this portion of the property settlement agreement, despite testimony from both Mr. and Mrs. Prine that they knew exactly which tools Mr. Prine was to receive under the term "small hand tools" as such term was used in the property settlement agreement. Additionally, the chancellor made no finding as to Mr. Prine's rights with respect to a "Yamaha 250 four wheel ATV" that Mr. Prine was to receive under the terms of the property settlement agreement, an article of personal property which Mrs. Prine gave away for no consideration after Mr. Prine fled the marital home. 16. Under these facts I must conclude that the chancellor committed manifest error in attempting to modify the terms of an enforceable property settlement agreement. See Mount, 624 So.2d at 1005 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, I would reverse the chancellor's
Holding statements: (A) holding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that an oral agreement existed and that it was not modified (B) holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt (C) holding that chancellor committed manifest error when he modified property settlement agreement (D) holding that it was error for the court to enter a modified agreement which materially altered the agreement reached by the parties (E) holding that the plaintiffs lawsuit which was filed despite a general release in the parties settlement agreement constituted a material breach of the settlement agreement
Output: (C)