Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 196, 122 S.Ct. 681, 151 L.Ed.2d 615 (2002). 36 . Lusk v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, 238 F.3d 1237, 1240 (10th Cir.2001) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.20(2)). 37 . Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 119 S.Ct. 2139, 144 L.Ed.2d 450 (1999). 38 . See id. at 482, 119 S.Ct. 2139. 39 . Bolton v. Scrivner, Inc., 36 F.3d 939, 942 (10th Cir.1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1152, 115 S.Ct. 1104, 130 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1995) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) (emphasis added)). 40 . Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893, 904 (10th Cir.1997), aff'd 527 U.S. 471, 119 S.Ct. 2139, 144 L.Ed.2d 450 (1999) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i)). 41 . See Eckholt v. American Business Information, Inc., 873 F.Supp. 526, 534 (D.Kan.1994) (<HOLDING>). 42 . Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that if there is any issue of fact which remains upon a motion for summary judgment the motion must be denied (B) holding that where parties did not respond to an issue in summary judgment motion parties relinquished any claim on the issue and conceded that summary judgment should be entered against them (C) holding that plaintiff conceded the merits of an issue when he did not respond in any way to defendants argument on that issue in his opposition before the district court (D) holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed (E) holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed
Output (English): holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed