Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): S.C. 177, 184, 554 S.E.2d 421, 424 (Ct.App.2001). When awarding alimony, the family court considers the following factors: (1) duration of the marriage; (2) physical and emotional health of the parties; (3) educational background of the parties; (4) employment history and earning potential of the parties; (5) standard of living established during the marriage; (6) current and reasonably anticipated earnings of the parties; (7) current and reasonably anticipated expenses of the parties; (8) marital and nonmarital properties of the parties; (9) custody of children; (10) marital misconduct or fault; (11) tax consequences; (12) prior support obligations; and (13) other factors the court considers relevant. S.C.Code Ann. § 20-3-130(0 (Supp.2009); Patel, 347 S.C. at 290, 555 S.E.2d at 391 (<HOLDING>). The family court awarded Wife $1,000 per 
 Holding statements: (A) holding it is error for an alj to fail to consider factors relevant to the pain analysis which are supported by the record (B) holding that the family court is required to consider all relevant factors in determining alimony (C) holding that only relevant factors must be considered (D) holding that the argument that the immigration judge did not consider all of the relevant factors in determining that his children would not suffer the requisite hardship was not a question of law under  1252a2d (E) holding that the domesticrelations exception prevented the plaintiff from challenging in federal court the constitutionality of the statecourt judges decision to consider certain assets and property when calculating the plaintiffs husbands income for the purposes of determining alimony payments because the plaintiff ultimately wanted this court to enjoin the state court from using property  to determine the amount of alimony owed
Output (English): holding that the argument that the immigration judge did not consider all of the relevant factors in determining that his children would not suffer the requisite hardship was not a question of law under  1252a2d