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: rights by initiating criminal proceedings against Mr. Pitt without probable cause. After trial, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law to the defendants on these claims. The court held that it is not “clearly established” that malicious prosecution is a violation of constitutional rights, and. thus the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. We affirm. Section 1983 creates a cause of action to remedy certain deprivations of federal rights, but it is not a source of substantive rights. See Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n. 3, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979) (noting that “[section 1983] is not itself a source of substantive rights, but a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred by those parts of the United State 16 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Gallo v. City of Philadelphia, 161 F.3d 217, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that there is no substantive due process right under the fourteenth amendment to be free from malicious prosecution (B) holding that the fourth amendment right implicated in a malicious prosecution action is the right to be free of unreasonable seizure of the person (C) holding sbm is not a violation of the defendants fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures (D) holding that there is no fourteenth amendment substantive due process right to be free from malicious prosecution and suggesting that such a cause of action might lie under the fourth amendment (E) recognizing that an alleged deprivation of the right to be free from prosecution without probable cause might be judged under the fourth amendment

Output: holding that there is no substantive due process right under the fourteenth amendment to be free from malicious prosecution


Input: Consider Input: intermediate Court of Appeals opinions. Over 30 years ago, in Crouch v. Crouch, 53 Tenn.App. 594, 385 S.W.2d 288 (1964), our intermediate Court of Appeals considered the question and determined that such provisions promote divorce and are violative of public policy. The Court of Appeals predicted that such provisions “could induce a mercenary husband to inflict on his wife any wrong he might desire with the knowledge his pecuniary liability would be limited.” Id. 385 S.W.2d at 293. See also Duncan v. Duncan, 652 S.W.2d 913 (Tenn.App.1983) (“We are of the opinion ... that a provision in an antenuptial agreement which purports to limit a spouse’s liability for alimony is conducive to divorce and therefore, void.”). But see Gross v. Gross, No. 0257, 1989 WL 51535 (Tenn.App. May 17, 1989) (<HOLDING>). At the time of its adoption in Crouch, the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that such provisions are valid (B) holding such a provision waiving alimony valid (C) holding that provision in 1983 constitution waiving sovereign immunity to the extent of insurance applies to municipalities (D) holding that because miranda warnings make defendant aware of right to counsel and of consequences of waiving sixth amendment rights defendants waiver of right to counsel after receiving such warnings is valid (E) holding invalid a premarital agreement waiving temporary alimony if marriage did not last seven years

Output: holding that such provisions are valid


Input: Consider Input: A.2d 22, 25 (1984). Accordingly, “the privilege extends not only to communications made in open court, but also encompasses pleadings and even less formal communications such as preliminary conferences and correspondence between counsel in furtherance of a client’s interest.” Pawlowski v. Smorto, 403 Pa.Super. 71, 588 A.2d 36, 41 (1991) (citations omitted). In fact, the absolute privilege has been extended to statements made by private parties to law enforcement officials for the purpose of initiating the prosecution of criminal charges, see id. at 42, as well as to statements made to mental health officials for the purpose of initiating involuntary commitment proceedings, Marino v. Fava, 915 A.2d 121, 124 (Pa. Super. 2006). Cf. Schanne v. Addis, 632 Pa. 545, 121 A.3d 942, 952 (2015) (<HOLDING>) (footnote omitted; emphasis added). Our 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a notice of appeal filed in an adversary proceeding could not appeal the main proceeding (B) holding that the special relationship exception does not apply to the relationship between a student and a school (C) holding that the judicial privilege does not apply to an allegation concerning a school teacher made by an adult former student before commencement of any quasijudicial proceeding and without an intent that it lead to a quasijudicial proceeding (D) holding that a statutory basis is necessary for an administrative body to initiate reconsideration of its prior final quasijudicial decisions (E) holding that a workers compensation proceeding is a legal proceeding


Output: holding that a notice of appeal filed in an adversary proceeding could not appeal the main proceeding