Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): cases such as this. In analogous situations where clearer statements of law or references to the record are necessary to facilitate meaningful appellate review, this Court has announced supervisory rules regulating important procedural matters. For example, in Vadino v. A. Valey Engineers, 903 F.2d 253 (3d Cir.1990), we reviewed a grant of summary judgment whose reasoning was not apparent from the reco Quality Prefabrication, Inc. v. Daniel J. Keating Co., 675 F.2d 77, 81 (3d Cir.1982) (ruling that “a dismissal of a complaint with prejudice as a Rule 37 sanction must be accompanied by some articulation on the record of the court’s resolution of the factual, legal, and discretionary issues presented”); and Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 521 F.2d 360, 364 (3d Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>). “It is essential ... that a reviewing court 
 Holding statements: (A) holding rule 54b certification invalid because unaccompanied by any statement of reasons and factors underlying trial courts decision to grant certification (B) holding that it had jurisdiction to review denial of motions under rules 59 and 60 that were filed and denied after the entry of judgment under rule 54b (C) holding that rule 54b certification order should contain specific findings setting forth reasons for certification (D) holding that dismissal of some but not all claims or parties not immediately appealable absent rule 54b certification (E) holding that entry of final judgment on a claim in a multiparty action pursuant to rule 54b should clearly articulate the reasons and factors underlying the decision to grant 54b certification
Output (English): holding that it had jurisdiction to review denial of motions under rules 59 and 60 that were filed and denied after the entry of judgment under rule 54b