Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): In essence, Landowners argue that Star Enterprise’s negligence has interfered with their ability to contract with third parties for the sale of their homes, the same type of damages, for which the Virginia Supreme Court imposed a physical impact requirement in Philip Morris. Landowners rely upon Pruitt v. Allied Chemical Corp., 523 F.Supp. 975 (E.D.Va.1981), in arguing that Virginia law permits recovery for pure economic loss in the absence of direct physical impact. In Pruitt, the plaintiffs were individuals who derived their livelihoods from marine life in the Chesapeake Bay which had been polluted by chemicals allegedly discharged into the Bay by the defendant. The federal district court, construing Virginia la L.Ed.2d 562 (1986); Union Oil Co. v. Oppen, 501 F.2d 558 (9th Cir.1974) (<HOLDING>); Burgess v. M/V Tamano, 370 F.Supp. 247 
 Holding statements: (A) holding no right to recover for economic loss resulting from defendants injury to a third party with whom plaintiff has contractual business relationship (B) holding commercial fishermen may recover for pollution resulting from defendants oil spill (C) holding that evidence resulting from an unconstitutional search or seizure must be suppressed (D) holding that impact in the district resulting from the defendants conduct that occurred outside the district must be deliberate not incidental (E) holding plaintiff could not recover on nuisance action to recover for alleged damage to property he does not own or rent
Output (English): holding that evidence resulting from an unconstitutional search or seizure must be suppressed