Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): ¶84 Nonetheless, for reasons hereinafter discussed, I firmly believe that, independent of any federal jurisprudence, federal constitutional authority, the common law, or other authority, the foundation for private causes of action for damages for constitutional violations is found in the language of Montana’s 1972 Constitution and in the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention. I suggest that it is important to acknowledge this principle, because the greater guarantees of individual rights afforded by Montana’s Constitution may be neither bounded nor frustrated by federal court decisions which, with seeming increasing frequency, are weakening similar protections of the federal constitution. See Trankel v. Department of Military Affairs (1997), 282 Mont. 348, 362, 938 P.2d 614, 623 (<HOLDING>). ¶85 Moreover, Montana’s Constitution 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that in the event that parties are from different states and the subject matter is national in scope and where the contract states it shall be deemed to be made under the laws of the state of new york and for all purposes construed in accordance with laws of said state new york law applies as the parties choice of law (B) holding a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the constitution and laws of the united states to state a claim under  1983 (C) holding that the sentence in article ii section 16 constitution of montana that guarantees an employee the right of full legal redress against third parties is mandatory and self executing and leaves no room for erosion based on what federal courts or the courts of other states would do pursuant to federal laws or the laws of other states (D) holding that because the due process clause in the federal constitution is applicable to the states under the fourteenth amendment the right is also guaranteed to defendants pursuant to the identical provision in article i section 5 of the hawaii constitution (E) holding that our courts are bound by the united states supreme courts interpretation of the federal constitution
Output (English): holding a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the constitution and laws of the united states to state a claim under  1983