Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): See Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682, 66 S.Ct. 773, 776, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946); Growth Horizons, Inc. v. Delaware County, 983 F.2d 1277, 1280-81 (3d Cir.1993); Kehr Packages, Inc. v. Fidelcor, Inc., 926 F.2d 1406, 1408-10 (3d Cir.) (contrasting the standards governing 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) motions), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1222, 111 S.Ct. 2839, 115 L.Ed.2d 1007 (1991); Davis v. Romney, 490 F.2d 1360, 1366 (3d Cir.1974). As the Third Circuit has instructed, “[a] district court has federal question jurisdiction in any case where a plaintiff with standing makes a non-frivolous allegation that he or she is entitled to relief because the defendant’s conduct violated a federal statute.” Growth Horizons, 983 F.2d at 1281; cf. Stibitz v. General Pub. Utils. Corp., 746 F.2d 993, 997 (3d Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1214, 105 S.Ct. 1187, 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that a claim is an assertion of a right and if there is no assertion of a right there is no claim to deduct (B) holding that a claim is not moot where there is a viable damages claim (C) holding that a postconviction claim that is refuted by the record is without merit (D) holding that there is no federal question jurisdiction where a claim is so insubstantial as to be completely devoid of merit (E) holding that even where primary claim is a federal question pendent party jurisdiction is not a recognized basis of jurisdiction in the seventh circuit
Output (English): holding that a claim is not moot where there is a viable damages claim