Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 147, 158 (2d Cir.2003); Stamelman v. Fleishman-Hillard, Inc., No. 02 Civ. 8318, 2003 WL 21782645, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2003). 14 . Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 513, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) (quoting Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984)). 15 . Phillips v. Girdich, 408 F.3d 124, 130 (2d Cir.2005) (citations omitted). 16 . In re Initial Public Offering Sec. Litig., 241 F.Supp.2d 281, 323 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (citations omitted). 17 . Higgs v. Carver, 286 F.3d 437, 439 (7th Cir.2002). 18 . Wynder v. McMahon, 360 F.3d 73, 79 (2d Cir.2004) (quoting Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir.1995)). 19 . Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 514, 122 S.Ct. 992. Accord Conley, 355 U.S. at 48, 78 S.Ct. 99 ("The Fed 632-37 (2d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). 25 . Baur, 352 F.3d at 632, 637 (finding a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a party who had demonstrated an injury sufficient to confer standing to appeal from an agency decision could raise  any relevant question of law in respect of the order of the agency (B) holding that in the context of food and drug safety suits enhanced risk qualifies as sufficient injury to confer standing (C) holding that allegation of cipa violation is sufficient to confer standing (D) holding that the statute qualifies as an exemption 3 statute (E) holding that if an injury is unexpected from the workers point of view it qualifies as an injury by accident
Output (English): holding that the statute qualifies as an exemption 3 statute