Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): OGA for breach of contract and conversion. The jury found for Hardi 4, 907 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (permitting mother of deceased son to recover mental-anguish damages on her breach-of-contract claim against entity that improperly prepared son’s body for burial); Wornick Co. v. Casas, 856 S.W.2d 732, 734-35 (Tex. 1993) (setting forth elements of IIED claim and holding that defendant’s conduct was not outrageous as matter of law because defendant may assert its legal rights in permissible way, even if assertion causes mental anguish). The second is that mental anguish stemming from the birth and rearing of a health^ child is not a compensable injury. See Pressil v. Gibson, 477 S.W.3d 402, 410-11 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>); cf. Delgado v. Methodist Hosp., 936 S.W.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiff could recover both doubled damages under the state regulation of manufacturers distributors and dealers act and punitive damages in connection with the common law claim because the act expressly allows both types of damages (B) holding that a plaintiff could recover actual damages under the tcpa for loss of credit if the plaintiff submitted sufficient proof of the amount damages requested (C) holding that a plaintiff could not recover mentalanguish damages because he had failed to rebut the defendants prima facie showing that the alleged trespass was not attended by words or acts of insult or contumely (D) holding that plaintiff could not recover mentalanguish damages in connection with the birth of healthy children (E) holding that in order to recover damages under the lanham act plaintiff must prove that there was a violation that plaintiff has been damaged and that there is a causal connection between the violation and those damages
Output (English): holding that plaintiff could recover both doubled damages under the state regulation of manufacturers distributors and dealers act and punitive damages in connection with the common law claim because the act expressly allows both types of damages