Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): stepped into a “sticky,” “slimy” substance on the floor behind her seat. She also saw other drippings and debris on the floor and that upon being helped up her hands, knees and dress were dirty. The court noted that “an inference arises that a dangerous condition existed.” Bozza, supra 42 N.J. at 358, 200 A.2d 777. Accordingly, the Court found that even without an inference of constructive notice, and “[alb-sent an explanation by defendants, a jury could find from the condition of the premises and the nature of the business that defendants did not exercise due care in operating the cafeteria ...” Bozza, supra 42 N.J. at 359, 200 A.2d 777, See Torda v. Grand Union Co., 59 N.J.Super. 41, 157 A.2d 133 (App.Div.1959); Wollerman v. Grand Union Stores, Inc., 47 N.J. 426, 221 A.2d 513 (1966)(<HOLDING>); Craggan v. IKEA USA, 332 N.J.Super. 53, 752 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that in order to establish standing a plaintiff must show 1 it has suffered an injury in fact  2 the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and 3 it is likely as opposed to merely speculative that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision (B) holding that movant must demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction (C) holding that a plaintiff must demonstrate that in the absence of an injunction irreparable injury is likely and not merely a possibility (D) holding that an antitrust injury is a necessary element of a  2 claim (E) holding that an operator must do what is reasonably necessary to protect the customer from the risk of injury a particular mode of operation is likely to generate
Output (English): holding that movant must demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction