Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Again, the trial judge’s findings were supported by competent evidence and worked no injury to Needleman. Whistler Sportswear, supra. Needleman urges that the court erred in awarding damages in an assumpsit action in excess of the plaintiffs prayer for relief. In support of this proposition, Needleman cites House of Pasta v. Mayo, 303 Pa.Super. 298, 449 A.2d 697 (1982). Needleman’s rebanee on House of Pasta is misplaced. House of Pasta discusses the trial judge’s discretion to mold a jury verdict to conform to the jury’s intent. In the present case, Needle-man was put on notice that the claim could exceed the stated amount by Bernhardt’s prayer for “whatever other relief this court deems just and proper.” See, e.g., Donlin v. J.J. Newberry Co., 319 Pa.Super. 310, 466 A.2d 174 (1983) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Needleman’s argument on this 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a request for injunctive relief was merely incidental to a prayer for damages where it was designed to facilitate and ensure the satisfaction of any monetary relief the court might award (B) holding prayer for general relief does not support award of attorneys fees (C) holding that loss of earnings was sufficiently encompassed by general prayer for relief (D) holding that in determining capacity in which defendant was sued it is appropriate to consider course of proceedings and allegations in complaint including caption section identifying parties claim for relief and prayer for relief (E) holding prayer for general relief does not support award of commonlaw prejudgment interest as element of damages
Output (English): holding that a request for injunctive relief was merely incidental to a prayer for damages where it was designed to facilitate and ensure the satisfaction of any monetary relief the court might award