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. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

Input: Consider Input: rise to the level of the allegations in Harke-ma. While physical abuse obviously endangers a child, Ma Donna’s account of her January 1997 fight with F.G. is not inconsistent with F.G.’s charge (except for the allegation of hair-pulling). An alleged single incident of borderline abuse or neglect has been held not to constitute sufficient endangerment to warrant a custody modification. See Smith, 508 N.W.2d at 227 (insufficient endangerment where child was injured by fallen cuckoo clock and mother allegedly examined clock before child). Under the circumstances, the court did not abuse its discretion in giving this incident little weight. This court has been inconsistent in categorizing a custodial parent’s efforts to isolate the child from relatives. Compare Westphal, 457 N.W.2d at 229 (<HOLDING>) with Smith, 508 N.W.2d at 227 (stating that a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that postadoption visitation of child who was adopted by grandparents on basis of biological parents unconditional consent was required to promote childs best interests (B) holding that paramount consideration in terminationofparentalrights proceeding is best interests of the child (C) holding mothers cutting off contact with grandparents to be best interests consideration but not evidence of endangerment (D) holding that best interests of the child analysis requires consideration of all section 5328a factors (E) holding unconstitutional a statute authorizing courts to recognize grandparents as having the same standing as parents for evaluating what custody arrangements are in the best interest of the child where the child actually resided with the grandparents in a stable relationship

Output: holding that postadoption visitation of child who was adopted by grandparents on basis of biological parents unconditional consent was required to promote childs best interests


Input: Consider Input: this petition for prohibition. Petitioner is mistaken in an essential respect. Although he characterizes his challenge as involving subject matter jurisdiction, he is mistaken. There can be no dispute that the circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction over cases involving dissolution of marriage. See § 26.012(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2006) (circuit courts have original jurisdiction in all actions at law not cognizable in the county courts). The fact that petitioner wishes to dispute in the pending dissolution action is whether there was any marriage at all to dissolve. An attack on the validity of an alleged marriage has nothing to do with subject matter jurisdiction but is simply an issue to be determined in the dissolution action. See Marden v. Marden, 276 So.2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973) (<HOLDING>). It is true that a petition for a writ of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment (B) holding that standing existed (C) holding that in an action brought by alleged wife for permanent alimony suit money attorneys fees and restraining order an issue of fact existed concerning whether a commonlaw marriage existed thus precluding summary judgment (D) holding that material issue of fact existed concerning whether employer orally promised to discharge employee only for cause (E) holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny an award of attorneys fees to the wife

Output: holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment


Input: Consider Input: that the newspapers and magazines will use the U.S. Mail to send such matter to them subscribers, and therefore, that such Defendant “caused” the use of the mails within the meaning of the mail fraud statute. See, e.g., Carpenter, 484 U.S. at 28, 108 S.Ct. 316 (“[U]sing the wires and the mail to print and send the [Wall Street] Journal to its customers” containing the column at issue “was not only anticipated but an essential part of the scheme.”); Atlas Pile Driving Co. v. DiCon Financial Co., 886 F.2d 986, 992 (8 Cir.1989) (“[I]t was almost certain that notice of [foreclosure sales] would be mailed to other claimants or that notice would be published in newspapers and copies of the notice distributed through the mails.”); United States v. Bowers, 644 F.2d 320 (4th Cir. 1981) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Shepherd, 587 F.2d 943, 944 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an increased sentence may be imposed for harms that were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendants conduct even where the defendant did not directly cause the specific harm (B) holding that in order for a claim to be reasonably ascertainable the debtor must have in his possession at the very least some specific information that reasonably suggests both the claim for which the debtor may be liable and the entity to whom he would be liable (C) holding that it was reasonably foreseeable that newspapers would be mailed to some subscribers containing the advertisements the defendant placed in the newspaper (D) holding that it was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant that the letter he handdelivered to a newspaper in response to an advertisement would be sent by the newspaper to its customer via the us mails (E) holding that an alien may be held in confinement until it has been determined that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future


Output: holding that an increased sentence may be imposed for harms that were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendants conduct even where the defendant did not directly cause the specific harm


