Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): award plaintiff more than $18,513 and that it was to subtract from that amount any income actually earned by plaintiff after he left defendant. Defendant’s position at trial was that it fired plaintiff for just cause, i.e., his continual inability to get along with his coworkers. The jury was presented with a jury verdict form that permitted it to award the verdict to defendant and, instead, it rendered a verdict for plaintiff and awarded damages. Our examination of the evidence and the parties’ positions at trial in light of the jury’s verdict persuades us that it is more likely than not that the court’s instruction created an erroneous impression of the law in the minds of the jury that affected its award. ORS 19.125(2). See also Baker v. English, 324 Or 585, 590, 932 P2d 57 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Reversed and remanded. 1 Three of those 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing under plain error review that the burden to show that substantial rights have been prejudiced is on the party that failed to raise the issue below and for an error to have affected substantial rights the error must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings (B) holding that the affecting substantial rights language of rule 52b means that the error must have been prejudicial it must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings (C) holding that the outcome of the case could have been different if the trial court had imposed the appropriate burden (D) holding that a petitioner must show  that the outcome of his appeal would have been different had counsel raised the issue (E) holding that the rights of an aggrieved party are substantially affected if the outcome either would have or may have been different had the error not occurred
Output (English): holding that the affecting substantial rights language of rule 52b means that the error must have been prejudicial it must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings