Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): procedure. Our role is not to search for evidence to defeat the district court’s judgment, but rather, to broadly construe the court’s findings and view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the judgment. Johnson, 637 N.W.2d at 177. However, what we do know from the evidence is that the procedure has been used “hundreds” of times by Chrysler in the past without knowledge that it adversely affected the venue rights of litigants. This evidence would support a finding that the chance of invading the protected interest and the number of people likely to be adversely affected is minimal. The final factor in considering reasonableness is the extent of the potential harm. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 293, at 58; Vaughn v. Ag Processing, Inc., 459 N.W.2d 627, 634 (Iowa 1990) (<HOLDING>). In considering this factor, it is important 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the source of the federal funds was not a relevant factor in determining the number of violations (B) holding that while the nonprevailing partys financial condition is not appropriate to consider in determining whether to award attorneys fees it is appropriate to consider when determining the amount of the attorneys fees (C) holding factor to consider in determining whether employer took reasonable steps to remedy discrimination in the workplace was the gravity of the harm (D) holding that previous sworn statements made by a plaintiff in his request for disability benefits is a material factor for the court to consider in determining whether he is entitled to ada relief (E) holding that in determining whether a state officer is entitled to qualified immunity for  1983 purposes courts may not consider whether the constitutional right was clearly established before determining first that a constitutional right was violated
Output (English): holding that the source of the federal funds was not a relevant factor in determining the number of violations