Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): an effort by the legislature to “set the metes and bounds of recovery rights in tort suits based on the sale or furnishing of intoxicants.” Fuhrman v. Total Petroleum, Inc., 398 N.W.2d 807, 808 (Iowa 1987) (emphasis added). In its current form, the statute is phrased in language particularly indicative of tort theory in that liability is based on service to a person when “the licensee ... knew or should have known the person was intoxicated” or “would become intoxicated.” See 57 Am.Jur.2d Negligence § 54 at 402 (1971) (“Fundamentally, the duty of a person to use care and his liability for negligence depend on the tendency of his acts under the circumstances as they are known or should be known to him.”). Historically, dram shop statutes were created to fill a void left empty at commo (<HOLDING>); see also Rinden, Judicial Prohibition? 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defendants affirmative acts of driving minor to robbery helping minor enter the building and serving as a lookout for the minor warranted sentencing enhancement (B) holding a common law cause of action exists against a nonlicensee who furnishes alcohol to a minor in violation of iowa code section 12347 where the minor subsequently causes the plaintiffs injuries (C) holding that reasonable attorneys fees for the benefit of a minor in defending the minor against a criminal charge were necessaries (D) holding that an enhancement for distribution of child pornography to a minor was improper because the pornographic materials at issue were transmitted to an undercover law enforcement officer who was not a minor (E) holding in a case in which negligence was based on the illegal sale of alcohol to a minor in violation of iowa code section 12343 now section 12347 that proximate cause was an issue to be resolved by the finder of fact
Output (English): holding that reasonable attorneys fees for the benefit of a minor in defending the minor against a criminal charge were necessaries