Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): test for determining whether a hearing examiner exceeded his jurisdiction as “[a]n abuse of authority occurs when a decision is so arbitrary and unreasonable that it amounts to a clear and prejudicial error of law”). In his brief, Salvaggio provides a survey of cases in which courts have held that a hearing examiner exceeded his jurisdiction under the City of Pasadena test. In City of Pasadena, the Supreme Court held the hearing examiner exceeded his jurisdiction by summarily reversing the police officer’s suspension without accepting and hearing any evidence. Id. at 20-21 (noting the Act requires the hearing examiner to base his decision on evidence submitted during a hearing). In Kelley, the Supreme Court held the hearing examiner e 86 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). In City of Athens v. MacAvoy, the court held 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the good behavior requirement of a suspended sentence defined the period of suspension (B) holding that temporary order amounted to order modifying custody of children because language changed custody for an indefinite period (C) holding that a temporary order granting emergency relief and temporary child custody under the domestic violence act is not immediately appealable (D) holding hearing examiner exceeded his jurisdiction by reforming indefinite suspension to temporary suspension of 92 days in excess of 15day statutory period for temporary suspensions (E) holding that police chiefs suspension letter omitting statutorily required information about process for appeal of suspension did not deprive hearing examiner of jurisdiction over suspended officers appeal and require reinstatement of officer
Output (English): holding that police chiefs suspension letter omitting statutorily required information about process for appeal of suspension did not deprive hearing examiner of jurisdiction over suspended officers appeal and require reinstatement of officer