Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): tools,” some of which are traditionally employed to decide causation questions and some of which are employed to decide standing questions. Holmes, 503 U.S. at 268, 112 S.Ct. 1311 (“Here we use ‘proximate cause’ to label generically the judicial tools used to limit a person’s responsibility for the consequences of that person’s own acts. At bottom, the notion of proximate cause reflects ideas of what justice demands, or of what is administratively possible and convenient.”) (quotation omitted); see Associated Gen. Contractors, Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 532-33, 103 S.Ct. 897, 74 L.Ed.2d 723 (1983) (“Congress simply assumed' that antitrust damages litigation would be subject to constraints comparable to well-accepted common-law rules applied in co Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Sanders Confectionery Prods., Inc. v. Heller 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a rico plaintiff alleging destruction of the value of his stock lacks standing because his injury is derivative of the corporations injury (B) holding that beneficiaries of an estate lacked standing under rico to sue for an injury derivative of the estates injury (C) holding that health care trust funds that paid medical claims could not sue tobacco companies under rico because their injury was derivative of smokers injury and stating a direct relationship between the injury and the alleged wrongdoing although not the sole requirement of rico  proximate causation has been one of its central elements citations omitted (D) holding that under rico plaintiff must prove an injury because of violation of statute (E) holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue
Output (English): holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue