Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Foods, 440 U.S. at 728-29, 99 S.Ct. at 1458-59. Louisiana-Pacific addresses the first two Kimbell Foods concerns in a footnote about “the need for national uniformity in the successor liability area” and “the possibility that CERCLA’s purposes could be frustrated by state law” if a state law unduly limited successor liability, thus cutting off the EPA’s ability to seek compensation. 909 F.2d at 1263 n. 2. O’Melveny and Atherton indicate more is required. Although Louisiana-Pacific refers to the “need for national uniformity” as a reason for developing federal rules for successor liability, 909 F.2d at 1263 n. 2, Atherton notes that “[t]o invoke the concept of ‘uniformity’ ... is not to prove its need.” — U.S. at-, 117 S.Ct. at 671; see also O’Melveny, 512 U.S. at 87, 114 S.Ct. at 2055 (<HOLDING>). Although often invoked in this context, there 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing the need for judicial economy in family issues as well as  the need to avoid fundamental unfairness (B) holding that a database is a generic computer element (C) holding that liquid controls is generic (D) holding that light beer is generic (E) recognizing how generic and lightly invoked is the need for uniformity
Output (English): holding that light beer is generic