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 Q]: from representing plaintiffs “in either this or similar actions.” Id. at 1196. Likewise here, Yanny would be prohibited from representing the interests of any party against his former client, the Church of Scientology organization. However, I see no basis for precluding Berry or the Musick, Peeler firm from representing F.A.C.T.Net based on the fact that they formerly represented Yanny in defending him against charges made by the Church of Scientology. Moreover, in suing Yanny as it did, Plaintiffs waived any privilege with respect to any information relevant to the issues raised by their claims and released Yanny from his obligation of secrecy with respect to that information. See Carlson, Collins, Gordon & Bold v. Banducci, 257 Cal.App.2d 212, 228, 64 Cal-Rptr. 915 (Cal.App.1967) (<HOLDING>) That principle of California professional 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the inadvertent disclosure of a privileged document does not waive the attorneyclient privilege if attorney took all reasonable steps to avoid disclosure and asserted the privilege as soon as the disclosure became known (B) holding that authorization cards are privileged from disclosure to employer (C) holding an attorney is released from those obligations of secrecy which the law places upon him whenever the disclosure of a communication otherwise privileged becomes necessary to the protection of the attorneys own rights (D) holding that a document which is given to an attorney in the course of seeking legal advice is privileged in the hands of the attorney only if it was privileged in the hands of the client (E) holding that trial court properly refused to permit disclosure of privileged communications in part because use of the privileged information was not essential to the defense
[EX A]: (C)

[EX Q]: having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. 1 . We do not reach the question of whether it was proper for a Minnesota peace officer to go outside Minnesota's borders and attempt to compel a blood sample under Minnesota law. In this case, the sample was obtained using Wisconsin's procedure inside Wisconsin's borders and our holding is limited to these facts. 2 . Both parties make arguments regarding Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), and State v. Oevering, 268 N.W.2d 68 (Minn.1978). These cases, due to the natural exigency involved in obtaining blood-alcohol evidence, recognize the power of a peace officer to compel a blood sample from a dri Tex. 1995) (<HOLDING>); Consolidation Coal Co. v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a party waives the attorneyclient privilege when it voluntarily consents to the disclosure of any significant part of the communication in issue (B) holding that the michigan usury act mcla  43831 a statute setting forth the legal interest rate in michigan is preempted according to the explicit terms of hola (C) holding that the law of michigan rather than the forum applied to manufacturers claim of attorneyclient privilege in a products liability suit because the communication took place in michigan and therefore michigan had most significant relationship to communication (D) holding that litigating franchise dispute in michigan does not require that michigan law govern dispute as michigan franchise investment law does not expressly void choice of law provisions in franchise agreement (E) holding michigan friend of the court employees absolutely immune from suit under  1983
[EX A]: (C)

[EX Q]: owner of every container that conceals its contents from plain view.” United States v. Ross (1982), 456 U.S. 798, 822-823, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572, citing Robbins v. California (1981), 453 U.S. 420, 427, 101 S.Ct. 2841, 69 L.Ed.2d 744. The court went on to state that the degree of that protection varies depending on the circumstances, noting that a suitcase may be randomly searched by customs agents or that containers, including those found inside automobiles, may be searched incident to the arrest of the owner. Id. at. 823, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572. Other cases have recognized that one may not have Fourth Amendment protections from searches of “rare single purpose containers which by their very nature cannot support any reasonable expectatio pp. No. 99CR203, 2001 WL 62288 (<HOLDING>). In Texas v. Brown (1983), 460 U.S. 730, 103 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defendant had the right to refuse to answer questions put to him by police officer who had called him (B) holding that suspect was not in custody when officer handcuffed him for officer safety while transporting him to police station (C) holding that plaintiff conceded argument raised in dispositive motion by failing to address it (D) holding that a folded index card is not a singlepurpose container since officer conceded that contents were not immediately apparent to him (E) holding that appellant did not unequivocally consent to a search when deputy asked him if he would mind if the contents of his pockets were removed and appellant did not respond
[EX A]:
(D)

