Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): owed to each. Because of like evidentiary voids we do not know whether reliance by the purchasers is provable, as some purchasers may have known, as a result of their knowledge and experience, that the representations were false or misleading. Even more fundamentally, no purchaser or representative of a class was joined as a party to the proceeding, and for this reason alone restitution was not an available remedy. More precisely, the court was without the power to enter a judgment ordering an offer of restitution or, correspondingly, reconveyances. Compare, United states v. Parkinson, 240 F.2d 918 (9th Cir. 1956); see also, Kugler, supra(by reason of a price unconscionability common to all transactions, all of the sales contracts were held invalid and unenforceable); Jayhill, supra (<HOLDING>). Although Nevada is a “notice pleading” state, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a court may award injunctive relief against a state officer (B) holding that the request for restitution in a consumer protection action is only ancillary to the primary remedies sought for the benefit of the public (C) holding that even if indirect purchasers are barred from seeking damages relief they may still obtain injunctive relief (D) holding that as a form of ancillary relief to the attorney general suit a court may award restitution to all purchasers shown to have been defrauded (E) holding that the district court had jurisdiction to order restitution of award overturned on appeal even in the absence of a remand from the appellate court
Output (English): holding that a court may award injunctive relief against a state officer