Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): credibility. The court also found that any error was harmless and any prejudice was de minimus. Trial Ct. Op. at 50. Respecting these claims, we are guided predominantly by our standard of review and our understanding that a proper purpose of cross-examination includes attempts to impeach a witness’s credibility. Chmiel, 889 A.2d at 527. It is well-settled that “[w]hatever tends to show the interest or feeling of a witness in a cause is competent by way of cross examination.” Grutski v. Kline, 352 Pa. 401, 43 A.2d 142, 144 (1945) (quoting Commonwealth v. Farrell, 187 Pa. 408, 41 A. 382 (1898)). Of course, the relevant dispute here involves the question of which kinds of facts “show the interest” of a witness. See generally Cooper v. Schoffstall, 588 Pa. 505, 905 A.2d 482, 494 (2006) (<HOLDING>). With regard to an expert witness’s testimony 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing general proposition that pattern of compensation in past cases raises inference that witness may slant testimony to ensure he is hired in future cases (B) holding that in title vii cases the mixedmotive theory of discrimination is available in cases with circumstantial evidence of discrimination (C) holding abuse of discretion is the proper standard for reviewing award of attorney fees in patent cases although questions of law may in some cases be relevant (D) holding and citing cases standing for the proposition that rehabilitation plans may not be based on liquidation (E) recognizing that in exceptional cases the inference may be so strong as to require a directed verdict for plaintiff
Output (English): holding and citing cases standing for the proposition that rehabilitation plans may not be based on liquidation