Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): commerce claim nor the request for declaratory and injunctive relief requires individualized proof and both are thus properly resolved in a group context. Hunt, 432 U.S. at 343-44, 97 S.Ct. 2434 (emphasis added). Thus, the varying extent of the burdens incurred by individual members of the Commission to comply with the North Carolina statute at issue did not preclude the granting of associational standing. Id. Authorities cited by Defendants do not suggest a different result, because takings claims, medical injuries, and damages to real property are prototypical examples of claims requiring individualized proof that do not speak to the vagueness claims or compelled speech claims of the Associations. Cf. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, 547 U.S. at 52 n. 2, 126 S.Ct. 1297 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, in cases involving a facial 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing associational standing when members would have standing in own right (B) recognizing fiduciary exception in the erisa context (C) holding that plaintiffs did not have standing to bring a declaratory judgment action in either a thirdparty beneficiary individual or associational capacity because there was nothing in the contract between a conservation district and a city concerning rates charged to the city that conferred donee  or creditorbeneficiary standing upon the plaintiffs to challenge the contracts terms (D) recognizing that ij should look at an individuals claim in the context of country condition reports (E) recognizing associational standing in the context of a compelled speech claim
Output (English): recognizing fiduciary exception in the erisa context