Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): that “a prevailing party can be awarded fees before the conclusion of protracted litigation.” NAACP v. Wilmington Med. Ctr., Inc., 689 F.2d 1161, 1165 (3d Cir.1982). “A prevailing party must be one who has succeeded on any significant claim affording it some of the relief sought, either pendent lite or at the conclusion of the litigation.” Garland, 489 U.S. at 791, 109 S.Ct. 1486. However, an interim award is available “only when a party has prevailed on the merits of at least some of his claims.” Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754, 757-58, 100 S.Ct. 1987, 64 L.Ed.2d 670 (1980). Several courts of appeals have held that a party cannot be a prevailing party if the interim relief received is not merit-based. See Bd. of Educ. of Oak Park v. Nathan R., 199 F.3d 377, 382 (7th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Christopher P. by Norma P. v. Marcus, 915 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that a school district must be a prevailing party in order to be entitled to attorneys fees under the idea (B) holding that the invocation of the stayput provision of the idea does not entitle the party to attorneys fees (C) holding that buckhannon applies to the attorneys fees provision of the idea (D) holding that the legislative history of the idea indicates that this attorneys fees provision should be interpreted in accordance with hensley v eckerhart (E) holding that no reason existed to create a uniform national rule in admiralty where the case concerned attorneys fees and whether the contractual provision which provided for attorneys fees should allow a party to recover attorneys fees where it succeeded on all but one minor issue
Output (English): holding that the legislative history of the idea indicates that this attorneys fees provision should be interpreted in accordance with hensley v eckerhart