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.

[Q]: child abuse or neglect or who testifies or otherwise participates in a judicial proceeding arising from a report, petition, or investigation of alleged child abuse or neglect is immune from civil or criminal liability that might otherwise be incurred or imposed. Id. § 261.106(a) (emphasis added). The dissent also correctly points out that “Immunity from liability and immunity from suit are two distinct principles.” Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636, 638 (Tex.1999). Finally, the dissent even recognizes that “[ijmmunity from liability is an affirmative defense, while immunity from suit deprives a court of subject matter jurisdiction.” Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 224 (Tex.2004); see also City of Hous. v. Williams, 353 S.W.3d 128, 134 (Tex.2011) (<HOLDING>); Harris County Hosp. Dist. v. Tomball Reg’l 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the oneyear bar contained in  2255 acts as an affirmative defense and not a jurisdictional bar (B) holding bjecause immunity from liability constitutes an affirmative defense not a jurisdictional bar only immunity from suit is properly before us today (C) recognizing that under texas law governmental immunity embraces two principles immunity from liability and immunity from suit (D) holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit (E) holding immunity from liability is not jurisdictional
[A]: (B)


[Q]: judgment of the district court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the fac appealability on ineffective assistance of counsel, the “cause” Hernandez assigns for his procedural default, suggests that it intended to allow review of the procedural bar. However, even assuming that the district court wished this court to review its procedural bar finding or that we would grant a certificate of appealability on this issue, the correctness of the district court’s central holding — that there was no error, constitutional or otherwise — in the state trial court’s charge on intent is dispositive. The test for finding charge-based constitutional error is a strict one. See Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 146, 94 S.Ct. 396, 38 L.Ed.2d 368 (1973) (<HOLDING>). We see no basis for finding a Fourteenth 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that error in method by which interest from damages award was calculated was an error in substantive law not a clerical or mathematical error (B) holding that a trial court does not commit plain error unless the error is clear under current law (C) holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error (D) holding that constitutional error cannot be premised on error in a charge unless the error violated some right which was guaranteed to the defendant by the fourteenth amendment (E) holding that when defendant properly objects to charge error reversal required unless error was harmless
[A]: (D)


[Q]: with these statutory time limits in the filing of such administrative appeals is a jurisdictional requirement in such proceedings before the BAA. See Colorado Rocky Mountain School, Inc. v. Shriver, 689 P.2d 651 (Colo.App.1984). However, apart from the timely filing requirement, there are no other statutory jurisdictional requirements for the taking of such administrative appeals by taxpayers before the BAA. See §§ 39-2-125(l)(c) & 39-8-108(1); see also B.C., Ltd. v. Krinhop, 815 P.2d 1016 (Colo.App.1991) (noting that § 39-8-108(1) is silent as to the joinder of indispensable parties and holding that failure to join BOE as indispensable party within statutory time period was not a jurisdictional defect); BOP Industries, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization, 694 P.2d 337 (Colo.App.1984) (<HOLDING>). The requirement that the underlying BOE 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that completion and filing of baa petition forms by nonattorney officers of corporate taxpayers was not a jurisdictional defect (B) holding that time limit for filing petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional (C) holding jurisdictional defect voids judgment when defect exposes such personal jurisdictional deficiencies as to violate due process (D) holding that a violation of the forum defendant rule is a jurisdictional defect (E) holding that the failure to join all the defendants in a removal petition is not a jurisdictional defect
[A]:
(A)