Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Legal Texts § 4 (2012) (“A textually permissible interpretation that furthers rather than obstructs the document’s purpose should be favored.”). This result also makes sense in the context of bankruptcy litigation. The lion’s share of damages from violations of automatic stays are typically attorneys’ fees. Most debtors are not in the financial position to afford an action to prosecute damages and, even if they could, limiting fees to those incurred in ending the stay violation would be too small to justify the expensive litigation that may follow. See Schwartz-Tallard, 803 F.3d at 1100. Rather than draining the limited funds in the bankruptcy estate and jeopardizing creditors’ recoveries, the party wrongfully violating the automatic stay and causing the resulting damage 1th Cir. 1989) (<HOLDING>); see also Comm’r, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that under the wpcl an employee who has prevailed on a claim for past wages due is entitled to attorneys fees as a matter of entitlement (B) holding that a plaintiff who prevailed on a 42 usc  1983 claim was entitled to an award of attorneys fees incurred on appeal (C) holding that the plaintiff who prevailed in an ipra enforcement action was entitled to an award of damages fees and costs (D) holding that a district court may award attorneys fees while the merits are on appeal (E) holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983
Output (English): holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983