Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): v. Masonite Corp., 109 Ill.2d 1, 92 Ill.Dec. 501, 485 N.E.2d 312 (1985); Veazey v. LaSalle Telecomm. 2d at 517-18 (affirming Illinois trial court’s dismissal based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction over claims brought under U.S. Const. amend. XIV and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986 (1988) because the claims are covered by the IHRA), cited in Cooper, 265 Ill.Dec. 358, 772 N.E.2d at 399-100; Brewer v. Bd. of Trustees, 339 Ill.App.3d 1074, 274 Ill.Dec. 565, 791 N.E.2d 657 (2003) (expressly holding that Illinois circuit courts do not have original jurisdiction due to the IHRA exclusivity provision to hear claims of discrimination arising under federal statutes) (cert, petition pending); Cahoon v. Alton Packaging Corp., 148 Ill.App.3d 480, 101 Ill.Dec. 934, 499 N.E.2d 522, 524 (1986) (<HOLDING>). Garcia argues that since the greater weight 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the dismissal of a civil action in state court does not preclude a restitution order on the same claim (B) holding that the burden is upon the state under the applicable federal rules of evidence (C) holding a pleading will not be sufficient to state a claim under the civil rights act if the allegations are mere conclusions (D) holding the federal and state tests to be the same (E) holding that a federal civil rights claim must be prosecuted under the same procedure applicable to a state civilrights claim
Output (English): holding a pleading will not be sufficient to state a claim under the civil rights act if the allegations are mere conclusions