Definition: 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.
Input: 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:
(D)