Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): way to reconcile the results of the prongs). Given these variations in the methods by which courts determine when corporations shall be liable for the acts of their affiliates, we decline to interpret the Department of Labor’s statement that it does not intend to create “new” law for WARN Act liability as a direction to courts to employ multiple tests within a single case. Rather, we conclude that the most prudent course is to employ the factors listed in the Department of Labor regulations themselves. This approach not only has the virtue of simplicity (if anything in this area of law can be described as “simple”), but also allows for the creation of a uniform standard of liability for the enforcement of a federal statute. Cf. United States v. Pisani, 646 F.2d 83, 87-88 (3d Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). Finally, and most importantly, the DOL 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that resolution of tribal law disputes are not within federal court jurisdiction (B) holding that when state educational benefits exceed minimum federal standards the state standards are enforceable through the idea (C) holding that 15 usc  11142dv requires the federal court to approach the issues raised in an action brought under that provision de novo rather than to apply the deferential review appropriate to actions governed by the federal arbitration act (D) holding that federal prisoners need not exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court (E) holding that federal veilpiercing standards are appropriate in medicare disputes due to the need for a uniform federal approach
Output (English): holding that 15 usc  11142dv requires the federal court to approach the issues raised in an action brought under that provision de novo rather than to apply the deferential review appropriate to actions governed by the federal arbitration act