prompt
stringlengths 223
2.33k
| completion
stringlengths 1
529
| task
stringclasses 4
values | metadata
dict | split
stringclasses 1
value | source_line
int64 1
5.16M
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: Minn. 532, 16 N. W. (2d) 758; 4 Dunnell, Dig. & Supp. § 7006.
See, 4 Dunnell, Dig. & Supp. §§ 7006 and 7007.
Antel v. St. Paul City Ry. Co. 133 Minn. 156, 157 N. W. 1073; Boos v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co. 127 Minn. 381, 149 N. W. 660; 1 Wigmore, Evidence (3
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "minn_242/html/0060-01.html__3914357107676657775",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,231,730 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: plaintiff to sue in the general jurisdiction, he shall only have summary process costs. Cambridge Association v. Nichols, Const. Rep. by Tread. 121. And so in the case of Lynch v. Crocker & Mitchell, 2 Bailey, 313, where it was held that a sum. pro. would lie on a bond, the sum expressed in the condition of which was within that jurisdi
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "scl_20/html/0629-01.html__235338992678795664",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,257,958 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
Raymond BROOKS, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee.
No. 8284.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Argued Oct. 15, 1975.
Decided Dec. 1, 1976.
Linda Huber, Washington, D. C., appointed by the court, for appellant.
Timothy J. Reardon, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., with whom Earl J. Sil-bert, U. S. Atty., John A. Terry and James F. McMuIlin, Asst. U. S. Attys., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before GALLAGHER, NEBEKER, and HARRIS, Associate Judges.
HARRIS, Associate Judge.
This appeal involves a warrantless forced entry into appellant’s apartment which resulted in his arrest and the seizure of certain physical evidence. Appellant was charged with single counts of rape, sodomy, simple assault, and threats to do bodily harm. D.C.Code 1973, §§ 22-2801, -3502, -504, and -507. In a jury trial he was acquitted of the rape and sodomy charges and found guilty on the assault and threats counts. He appeals the convictions on the ground that they rest upon evidence seized in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, and contends the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress. We conclude that the war-rantless entry for the purpose of arrest was proper. However, on the record before us, we are unable to determine whether the post-arrest seizure of evidence fell within the proper limits of the “plain view” doctrine relied upon by the government. We therefore remand the case for further consideration of this issue. See D.C.Code 1973, § 17-306.
I
The events giving rise to this appeal took place over a three-hour period on the night of August 8 and the early morning hours of August 9, 1973. At approximately 10:30 p. m., the complainant was found in the seventh floor hall of an apartment building by a resident who had heard her cries for assistance. She was naked, distraught, and apparently had been beaten about the face. She said she had been forced to go to an apartment somewhere on the tenth floor, where she had been raped. Spec
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Raymond BROOKS, UNITED STATES
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "a2d_367/html/1297-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 548,881 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
MARINE POLYMER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HEMCON, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 2010-1548.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Sept. 26, 2011.
Brian M. Poissant, Jones Day, of New York, New York, argued for the plaintiffappellee. With him on the brief were Ognian V. Shentov, Lynda Q. Nguyen and Julie M. Baher.
Raymond A. Kurz, Hogan Lovells US, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for the defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Celine Jimenez Crowson and Keith B. O’Doherty.
Before LOURIE, GAJARSA, and DYK, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge DYK. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge LOURIE.
DYK, Circuit Judge.
Defendanb-Appellant HemCon, Inc. (“HemCon”) appeals a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire that HemCon infringed Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc.’s (“Marine Polymer”) U.S. Patent No. 6,864,245 (the “'245 Patent”). We conclude that HemCon has absolute intervening rights with respect to products manufactured before the date of reissue. We remand for a determination of whether HemCon has equitable intervening rights with respect to products manufactured after the date of reissue. As a result, we vacate the injunction and damages award. We find that HemCon’s contention that the '245 Patent as originally issued was invalid is moot.
BaCkground
Marine Polymer owns the '245 Patent, which originally issued in March of 2005 and claims p-GlcNAc, a polymer extracted from another polymer called chitin. The polymer p-GlcNAc accelerates hemostasis (the process which causes bleeding to stop) and is useful in trauma units for treating serious wounds. Claims 6, 7,10,11,12,17, and 20 are asserted. Independent claim 6 is representative and discloses:
A biocompatible [p-GlcNAc] comprising up to about 150,000 N-acetylglucosamine monosaccharides covalently attached in a 6-1->4 conformation and having a molecular weight of up to about 30 million daltons in which at least one N-acetylg
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: MARINE POLYMER TECHNOLOGIES, HEMCON
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "f3d_659/html/1084-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,182,155 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: Johnson v. Pierce et al.
A covenant for the payment of money to a person “or his heirs or legal representatives” goes to the executor or administrator, upon his dea
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "ark_12/html/0599-01.html__1287843789266958768",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 872,516 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
(48 Misc. Rep. 527)
HIRSCH v. UNION RY. CO. OF NEW YORK CITY.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
November 24, 1905.)
1. Carriers—Street Railways—Injuries to Passenger—Negligence—Sufficiency of Evidence.
In an action against a street railway for injuries to a passenger resulting from the negligent starting of defendant’s car, testimony of plaintiff that the car was started with “a very strong jerk,” and of another witness that “the car jerked,” was insufficient to show negligence on defendant’s part.
2 Same—Notice of Accident—Evidence—jErkor.
In an action against a street railway for injuries to a passenger, it was error to exclude testimony of defendant’s accident clerk as to whether or not defendant had received notice of the accident, as the failure to call- any witnesses tended to prejudice the jury against defendant, and it should have-been permitted to explain why it offered no defense.
Appeal from City Court of New York.
Action by Louis Hirsch against the Union Railway Company of New York City. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Argued'before SCOTT, P. J., and GILD ERSLEEVE and Mac-LEAN, JJ.
Bayard. H. Ames and E. Merriam Bagg, for appellant.
Leonard Bronner and Jacob M. Schoenfeld, for respondent.
SCOTT, P. J.
The allegation of the complaint is “that plaintiff had got aboard said car,'and on the platform thereof, and was about to enter the car for the purpose of taking a seat therein, and that in the act of doing so the car was carelessly, recklessly, and negligently, and without notice or warning to the plaintiff, set in motion- with a violent jerk, causing the plaintiff to be violently thrown backward against the rear dashboard.” Hence it will be seen that it is not complained that plaintiff was not given time to board the car, but, on the contrary, it is distinctly alleged that he had boarded the car and reached the'platform (ordinarily a place of safety), and that the injury resulted from the manner in which t
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: HIRSCH, UNION RY
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "nys_96/html/0333-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,682,417 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: Alexander R. Grossman, Respondent, v. Consolidated Gas Company of New York, Appellant.
Grossman v. Consolidated Gas Co., 114 App. Div. 242, affirmed.
(Argued October 5, 1906;
decided October 16, 1906.)
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
AFFIRMS
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "ny_186/html/0541-01.html__8146673508531226799",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 273,032 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: being injured by the arrangement that was made, he is actually benefited to the amount of about five hundred dollars and has no cause for complaint. In some of its features the case of Bothfield v. Gordon, 190 Mass. 567, 571, resembles the present one under consideration. In the course of his opinion, Hammond, J., makes the following pertinent remarks:
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "ri_32/html/0406-01.html__4280382430986880391",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,985,806 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dennis H. Lawlor, Appellant.
[852 NYS2d 894]
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking the sentence of probation imposed upon his conviction of driving while intoxicated as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]; § 1193 [1] [c] [former (i)]) and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of incarceration. Defendant’s contentions with respect to the plea proceeding underlying the original judgment are not properly before us (see People v Van Every, 26 AD3d 777 [2006]; see also People v Hall, 5 AD3d 1011 [2004]). The sentence imposed upon the violation of probation is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Smith, Green and Gorski, JJ.
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: The People State, Dennis H
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "ad3d_49/html/1270-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,925,730 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
Moustapha NDOUR and Lise Dieynab Solly, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-3557.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Oct. 4, 2010.
BEFORE: MERRITT, ROGERS, and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.
ROGERS, Circuit Judge.
Moustapha Ndour seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen based on changed country circumstances. The BIA denied the motion as untimely, determining that Ndour had not demonstrated that he qualified for the statutory exception to the filing deadline for a motion to reopen. Although Ndour’s petition to this court asks for review of the denial of the motion to reopen, his brief seeks relief only from the much earlier decision of the immigration judge (“IJ”), as affirmed by the BIA. Because review of the earlier BIA decision is untimely and that decision is not the subject of Ndour’s petition, and because Ndour has forfeited any claim that the BIA erred in denying the motion to reopen, there is no basis for granting the instant petition for review.
Moustápha Ndour is a native and citizen of Senegal. During the 1990s, Ndour lived in Bounkiling in Senegal’s Casamance region, which was the site of violent rebel activity in the 1990s. According to his testimony before the immigration judge, Ndour began to provide financial support to a rebel group in 1993, under threats to his life and the lives of his wife and members of their extended families. (Ndour’s application for asylum identifies the group only as rebels. The immigration judge concluded that Ndour was likely referring to the rebel group known as MFDC, which was active in the Casamance region during the period at issue.) In 1997, Ndour stopped providing contributions. In his application for asylum and withholding of removal, Ndour alleges he was persecuted by the rebels for failing to contribute and fears further persecution and torture if returned to Senegal.
On or about January 30, 2001, Ndour entered the United States on a non-immigra
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Moustapha NDOUR Lise, Eric H
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "f-appx_398/html/0139-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,222,643 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: ing the Board’s position or affirmative proof that contradicted that position — i.e., proof that the sale was an arm’s length, bona fide transaction. See Warner v. Hobby Lobby Stores, 321 Ga. App. 121 (741 SE2d 270) (2013). CPF came forward with affirmative evidence, in the form of French’s affidavit, that the purchase of the prop
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
AFFIRMS
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "ga-app_330/html/0744-01.html__8835258533849840569",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 830,840 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
Sean WOFFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Christopher BRACKS, Peace Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-56840
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 18, 2017
Filed December 21, 2017
Sean Wofford, Pro Se
Andrew Charles Pongracz, Attorney, Kari C. Kadomatsu, Esquire, Gilbert M. Nishimura, Esquire, Attorney, Seki, Nishi-mura & Watase, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
MEMORANDUM
Sean Wofford appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of his detention and arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Wofford’s Fourth Amendment claims because Wofford failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants lacked reasonable suspicion for his detention or probable cause for his arrest. See Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 339, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009) (a search of an arrestee’s person is lawful incident to arrest); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 30-31, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (an initial detention is reasonable when officers have reasonable suspicion that a person has committed a crime); Barry v. Fowler, 902 F.2d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 1990) (probable cause requirement for a war-rantless arrest); see also United States v. Cook, 808 F.3d 1195, 1200 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that a search of a defendant’s backpack was reasonable and valid incident to arrest); United States v. Brooks, 367 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th Cir. 2004) (“We look at the total circumstances known to the officer to determine whether probable cause existed.”).
The district court did not abuse
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Sean WOFFORD, Christopher BRACKS
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "f-appx_707/html/0489-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,198,989 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
Glenn L. CARPENTER, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
No. 49S02-1104-CR-198.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
July 21, 2011.
Kurt A. Young, Nashville, IN, Ruth A. Johnson, Marion County Public Defender, Appellate Division, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, James E. Porter, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
SHEPARD, Chief Justice.
Appellant Glenn Carpenter was discovered asleep in the waiting room of a dental office, apparently drunk or overdosed. This led to a forty-year sentence for possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and being an habitual offender. We conclude that twenty years was an adequate response to the situation.
Facts and Procedural History
On October 2, 2009, staff in the dentist’s office found Carpenter “passed out.” They determined he had a pulse and was breathing but were unsuccessful in trying to wake him, so they decided to call the police. Police officers found Carpenter slouched over in a chair and unresponsive. They thought Carpenter smelled like he had been drinking but were not sure if the smell was from his clothing or his breath. After the officers were able to rouse Carpenter they stood him up and handcuffed him. Carpenter did not resist, mumbling to the officers that he did not know where he was or how he got there. When searching Carpenter the officers found a handgun with an empty magazine, marijuana, cocaine, and a crack pipe.
The State charged Carpenter with unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon as a class B felony , possession of cocaine and a firearm as a class C felony, and possession of cocaine as a class D felony. On February 24, 2010, the State filed an habitual offender count. Before trial, the State dismissed both charges involving possession of cocaine.
A jury found Carpenter guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. Carpenter then stipulated to the pri
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Glenn L, STATE Indiana
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "ne2d_950/html/0719-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 866,776 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
Jorge A. AVILES, Petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent.
No. 14-60645.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 24, 2015.
Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq. (argued), Acting Assistant Attorney General, Monica Nunez-Garza, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
Katrina Marie Lederer, Attorney Advis- or (argued), Bryan Polisuk, Washington, DC, Michael L. Salyards, Dallas, TX, for Respondent.
Emma E. Bond, Trial Atty (argued), Allison Kidd-Miller, Washington, DC, for Intervenor.
Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
EDWARD C. PRADO, Circuit Judge:
Former IRS agent Jorge Aviles asserts that he was fired in retaliation for protected whistleblowing. Aviles alleges that he uncovered that ExxonMobil Corporation (“Exxon”) had perpetrated a $500 million tax fraud and that IRS officials covered it up. Aviles claims he disclosed this information to his supervisors and that he was ultimately fired in retaliation for this protected disclosure in violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act. An administrative law judge (ALJ) dismissed Aviles’s appeal. The ALJ found that — aside from Aviles’s “vague and conclusory” allegations of a cover-up — Aviles failed to allege that the government was involved in Exxon’s alleged wrongdoing. Over a dissent, the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB” or “the Board”) affirmed. Because we agree with the Board’s finding that Aviles failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation of government involvement in Exxon’s alleged wrongdoing, we conclude that Aviles’s disclosure was not protected and deny his petition.
I. BACKGROUND
This is the first direct appeal to the Fifth Circuit from a Merit Systems Protection Board adjudication in the wake of the 2012 amendments to the Whistleblower Protection Act. Aviles grounds his petition for review in the drafting history of the Whistleblower Protection Act; he argues that Congress has repeatedly expanded the definition of protected whistleblowing activities. Accordingly, before reviewing
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Jorge A, MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "f3d_799/html/0457-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,198,894 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: is the right of the cross-examiner to learn about his antecedents and character, so that the jury may know how much credit to give to his testimony. Ritchie v. Stenius, 73 Mich. 563.
Testimony was given of the bad reputation of the plaintiff for honesty and uprightness in Bengal, where he used to live. It is now sa
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "mich_114/html/0196-01.html__-9040622015689645562",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 478,035 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: g upon the proposal of frantic investors vainly seeking to recover their lost investment, Chief Justice Hughes, in the recent decision in the case of Tennessee Publishing Company v. American National Bank et al., 57 S.Ct. 85, 87, 81 L.Ed. —, decided November 8, 1936, said:
“However honest in its efforts the debt- or may be, and however sincere its motives,
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
CITES_POSITIVELY
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "f2d_86/html/0588-01.html__4078490417905659286",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,483,201 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
(86 Misc. Rep. 372)
In re DUNLAP’S WILL.
(Surrogate’s Court, New York County.
June 26, 1914.)
Wills (§ 13)—Devise to Charitable Corporation—Decedent Estate Law.
Decedent Estate Law (Consol. Laws, c. 13) § 17 (formerly Laws 1860, c. 360), prohibiting devises or bequests to charitable corporations of more than one-half an estate, did not apply where testatrix, an unmarried female, bequeathed and devised all her estate in trust for her sister during life, with power to trustee to consume the corpus, etc., and remainder over to charitable corporations; the beneficial interest' of the cestui que trust covering the entire estate, and it being likely that all, or at least more than half, would be consumed by the cestui que trust.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Wills, Cent. Dig. §§ 32-34, 38, 39; Dec. Dig. § 13.*]
Proceeding for the probate of the will of Edith C. Dunlap. Will construed.
Olin, Clark & Phelps, of New York City (Robert J. Holmes, of New York City, of counsel), for proponent.
Henry Staton, of New York City, for New York Polyclinic Medical School and Hospital.
George W. Elkins, of New York City, for West End Presbyterian Church.
John J. Hynes, of New York City, special guardian.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
FOWLER, S.
The script propounded as and for the last will of Edith C. Dunlap, deceased, has been duly proved according to the statute of wills and is entitled to our decree of probate in the regular course of business.
A question of construction on the probate is put at issue. By the will the testatrix, an unmarried female, bequeaths and devises all her estate, real and personal, to her executor on trusts in substance to pay or apply the net income thereof to her sister, Ethel E. Dunlap, an incompetent, during the life of cestui que trust, with power to such trustee to consume the corpus by application of the principal of the entire estate to the cestui que trust, bu
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**:
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "nys_148/html/0431-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,119,104 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
AURA L. MEREDITH et al., Appellants, v. MINNTE E. MEREDITH.
Division Two,
April 7, 1921.
1. CONVEYANCE: Deposit of Deed With Bank: Agent or Trustee. The physical delivery of a deed to a bank, accompanied by written instructions that it was to be delivered to the grantee upon the grantor’s death, and the grantor’s contemporaneous and subsequent declarations to the effect that he had deeded everything he had to the grantee and wanted her to have it at his death, created no relation of agency between the bank and the grantor, but the deposit being unconditional the bank, in accepting it, became a trustee of an express trust and as such charged with the performance of the duties défined for the grantor and the grantee.
2. -: -: Delivery. Upon Grantor’s Death. A delivery of a deed by the grantor to a third party to be held by him and delivered to the grantee upon the grantor’s death will operate as a valid delivery, where no reservation is made in the deed nor any right of control over the instrument is retained by the grantor.
3. -: -: -: Retaining Possession of Land. A deed, unconditional in its terms and beyond the control of the grantor after its delivery to a depositary with specific directions to deliver it to the grantee upon his death, although not conferring an immediate right of present possession, constitutes such an investiture of title as to give the grantee a present fixed right of future enjoyment, although the use of the land is retained by the grantor during his life.
4. -: -:--: Acceptance. Acceptance of ,a deed after the grantor’s death dates back to the time of its delivery to the depositary, and renders it a transfer of the title as of that daté.
5. -: -: Evidence of Agency. The cashier having defined his relation to the grantor, showing that it was in no wise different from that sustained by him to other patrons of the bank, it was not error to exclude testimony tending to show that the cashier was the agent of the grantor throughout the transaction by which the g
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: AURA L, MINNTE E
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "mo_287/html/0250-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 303,212 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: apportionment; and it has been affirmed in the cases of Treat v. Strickland, 23 Maine, 234, and of Kennebec Ferry Co. v. Bradstreet, 28 Maine, 374.
The rule adopted in Massachusetts in the case of Rust v. The Boston Mill Corporation, 6 Pick. 158, appears to have been recognized in the cases Sparhawk v. Bullard, 1 Metv. 95; Ashby v. Eastern R. R. Co. 5 Metc. 368, and Piper v. Rich
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
AFFIRMS
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "me_35/html/0034-01.html__7235861365090369930",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,159,761 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
ADVANCE TANK & CONSTRUCTION CO., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF DeSOTO, Defendant.
Civ. A. No. 3-89-1542-H.
United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division.
May 23, 1990.
Thomas C. McGraw and Stephen M. Fitzgerald, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff.
Paul Higgins, City Atty., City of DeSoto, DeSoto, Tex., Jerry C. Gilmore, Kent S. Hofmeister, Robert F. Brown, Vial, Hamilton, Coch & Knox, Dallas, Tex., for defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
SANDERS, Chief Judge.
Before the Court are Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed April 20, 1990, and Defendant’s response, filed May 10, 1990. Plaintiff moves for a judgment that the liquidated damages provision in the contract between the parties providing for $500 per day of delay is an unenforceable penalty clause.
Under Texas law, a liquidated damages provision will be enforced when the court finds that (1) the harm caused by the breach is incapable or difficult of estimation, and (2) the amount of liquidated damages is a reasonable forecast of just compensation. Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers, Inc. v. Campesi, 592 S.W.2d 340, 342 n. 2 (Tex.1979). The burden is upon the party seeking to invalidate the clause. Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. La Villa Indep. School Dist., 779 S.W.2d 102, 106 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1989, no writ).
Plaintiff argues that the liquidated damages clause did not constitute a reasonable forecast of just compensation for three reasons. They are:
(1) Defendant made no attempt to estimate the actual damages that would occur upon a delay in completion of the project.
(2) Defendant accepted the liquidated damages number given by its engineering firm which took the figure from a chart prepared by the North Texas Council of Governments. The chart’s numbers were allegedly based solely on the cost of the project.
(3) No damages could have been expected because the reservoir did not receive water or electricity, and thus did not become operational, until long after the contracted-
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: ADVANCE TANK CONSTRUCTION, CITY OF DeSOTO
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "f-supp_737/html/0383-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,582,969 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: rovides in part: “On his being arraigned and after an opportunity to he heard the court may revoke, continue or modify his probation” (italics ours). We said in People v. Reynolds (25 A D 2d 487) that since the language of the statute clearly indicates that one accused of probation violation is entitled to a hearing, he had a ri
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "ad2d_26/html/0134-01.html__-5963256742576677918",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,113,843 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: accuracy of the court records introduced, or to require the court to find that he was not represented by counsel at the time of the prior conviction. See also Landrum v. State, 456 S.W.2d 914 (Tex.Cr.App.1970).
The Mullenix case and those following it are not authority for the proposition that where a fact issue is ra
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
CITES_POSITIVELY
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "sw2d_490/html/0842-01.html__-1509745565464231522",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 466,573 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: 70], the rule is stated thus: ‘The rule has been held very strictly that the opinion of experts as to the value of other lands is not to be received. In Wyman v. Railroad Co., 13 Metc. (Mass.) 327, Mr. Justice Dewey uses language as follows: “Evidence of mere opinion as to the value of property is to be confined exclusive
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "cal-app-2d_172/html/0219-01.html__6455877173019380244",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,207,189 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: ck on the Measure of Damages [1st ed.], 107, 108; id. [6th ed.] 122; Wilcox v. Exrs. of Plummer, 4 Peters, 172; Wood on Master and Servant, 249, 250; Fowler v. Armor, 24 Ala. 194; Page v. Parihan, 8 Ga. 190 ; Hochster v. De La Tour, 2 E. & B. 678 ; Roper v. Johnson, L. R., 18 C. B. 767; 31 L. J. Ex. 84; Frost v. K
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "ny_89/html/0527-01.html__-8693410789510190621",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,812,729 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: the appellees.” Citing Harshman v. Armstrong (1873), 43 Ind. 126; Johnson v. Stephenson (1885), 104 Ind. 368; Wright v. Manns (1887), 111 Ind. 422.
This case distinguishes the case of Holloran v. Midland, R. Co. (1891), 129 Ind. 274, on the ground that the notice in the Holloran case was to a coparty and not to an appellee.
In Bank of Westfield v. In
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
DISTINGUISHES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "ind-app_38/html/0509-01.html__266045131750461058",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,228,434 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
DUPLIN COUNTY DSS on behalf of DEBBIE L. PULLEY, Plaintiff v. WELDON E. FRAZIER, JR., Defendant
No. COA13-619
Filed 19 November 2013
Child Custody and Support — child support arrearages — periodic payments — no valid basis to set aside provision
The trial court erred in a child support case by granting defendant’s motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and setting aside a provision in a prior judgment for child support requiring defendant to make periodic payments towards his child support. There was no valid basis under Rule 60(b) that would permit the trial court’s modification of the prior judgment.
Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 4 March 2013 by Judge James Lloyd Moore, Jr. in Duplin County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 23 October 2013.
Warrick and, Bradshaw, P.A., by Frank L. Bradshaw, for plaintiff-appellant.
No brief filed on behalf of defendant-appellee.
DAVIS, Judge.
Duplin County Department of Social Services, on behalf of Debbie L. Pulley (“Plaintiff’), appeals from the trial court’s order setting aside a portion of a prior judgment for child support arrearages pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. The primary issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in setting aside the provision in the prior judgment requiring Weldon E. Frazier, Jr. (“Defendant”) to make periodic payments towards his child support arrearages. After careful review, we vacate the trial court’s order and reinstate the prior judgment.
Factual Background
On 24 September 1991, Plaintiff filed a complaint to establish paternity and compel child support, alleging that Defendant was the natural father of the minor child, Jonathan. The trial court entered an order 12 November 1991 adjudicating Defendant to be the natural and biological father of Jonathan and requiring Defendant to pay $400 a month in child support and $20 a month in arrearages for past public assistance disbursed t
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: DUPLIN COUNTY DSS, WELDON E
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "nc-app_230/html/0480-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,491,424 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
In the Matter of Robert G. Bauer et al., Petitioners, v New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal et al., Respondents.
[669 NYS2d 415]
Mikoll, J. P.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in this Court pursuant to Tax Law § 2016) to review a determination of respondent Tax Appeals Tribunal which sustained a deficiency of personal income tax imposed under Tax Law article 22.
The essence of this matter is the decision by respondents to include in petitioners’ 1985 income the fair market value of a cooperative apartment received by petitioners in exchange for legal work performed by petitioner Robert G. Bauer (hereinafter petitioner), an attorney. Petitioners argue, in two alternative scenarios, that the income was received prior to 1985, rendering any assessment in consequence thereof barred by the Statute of Limitations and that the apartment represented petitioners’ share of the profit of a “co-venture” involving petitioner and his client Kenneth Tedaldi.
Petitioner alleges that in 1981 he entered into an agreement with Tedaldi, a client of long standing, whereby he would perform legal work in conjunction with Tedaldi’s development of land and construction of townhouses in the Town of East Hampton, Suffolk County. An operating corporation, Napeague Dunes Development Corporation, was formed and title to the land was transferred from Tedaldi thereto. Petitioner’s compensation was to consist of one share of stock in Napeague Dunes and, if the project proved to be successful, petitioner would be entitled to exchange the stock for one of the apartment units. If unsuccessful, petitioner would be entitled only to recover his expenses, up to $20,000. Petitioner alleges that in 1982, he received one share of stock in Napeague Dunes, although no independent evidence of this event was produced, and that this share acquired value in 1983.
Napeague Dunes sponsored the conversion of the developed property to cooperative ownership and a new corporation, The Hermitage at Napeague, Ltd., was formed to serve a
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: In Matter Robert, New York State
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "ad2d_247/html/0774-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,371,238 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: . . vehicles of any kind, including the loading and unloading thereof, while away from the premises . .
We quote from the opinion insured refers to, Associated Indemnity Corporation v. National Surety Corporation, Tex.Civ.App., 287 S.W.2d 714, 716, as follows:
“The term premises was defined in the policy as follows:
“ ‘The unqualified word “premises” wherever
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "ala_276/html/0518-01.html__2578638536352493263",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,528,530 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: ND ITS SPECIFICATIONS FAIL TO STATE AN OFFENSE BECAUSE THE SPECIFICATIONS DO NOT ALLEGE, EXPRESSLY OR BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION THE ‘TERMINAL ELEMENT' AS REQUIRED BY UNITED STATES v. FOS-LER, 70 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F. 2011).
No briefs "will be filed under Rule 25.
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "mj_71/html/0317-02.html__3529650076176382416",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,678,073 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: Darwin C. Givens v. Clara Pugh Givens.
163 So. 574.
Opinion Filed October 19, 1935.
Morris M. Givens, Anthony A. Fernandez and John H. Bledsoe, for Appellant;
No ap
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "fla_121/html/0270-01.html__7988385253325992698",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,546,372 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: al in Nondis-chargeability Claims for Relief
A legion of courts summarily conclude that a party is not entitled to a jury trial in core proceedings. These cases essentially rely on Katchen v. Landy, 382 U.S. 323, 86 S.Ct. 467, 15 L.Ed.2d 391 (1966), for the proposition that all core proceedings are analogous to the summary jurisdiction of the Ba
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "br_111/html/0861-01.html__690322931833186435",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 5,115,531 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Michael Neal VANCE, Appellant.
No. A05-459.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
July 12, 2007.
John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Theodore David Sampsell-Jones, Assistant State Public Defender, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellant.
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, James Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, Kevin J. Golden, Assistant Dakota County Attorney, Hastings, MN, for Respondent.
OPINION
ANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice.
A Dakota County jury found Michael Neal Vance guilty of third-degree assault and making terroristic threats. The district court entered convictions for both offenses, and after finding that they were part of the same course of conduct, sentenced Vance to 24 months in prison for the third-degree assault conviction. Vance appealed his convictions claiming, among other things, that the court erred when it failed to instruct the jury on the definition of assault, thereby omitting the element of intent from the instructions. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed Vance’s convictions. Vance petitioned our court for review, citing both the alleged jury instruction error and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We granted review on the jury instruction issue. We reverse.
Appellant Michael Neal Vance appeals his third-degree assault conviction for an assault on C.S. Vance was living at C.S.’s home when the assault occurred. Vance testified that C.S. was his girlfriend at the time, but C.S. testified that they were no longer romantically involved and she was only allowing Vance to stay at her home because she was afraid of him. C.S. said that in the past, she had called the police to have Vance removed from her home, but he returned numerous times, sometimes breaking down the door to get into the home. C.S. testified that Vance had threatened her on several occasions before the alleged assault and had told her that he would kill her if she called the police.
C.S. testified that on the morning of June 19, 2004, she and Vance beg
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: STATE Minnesota, Michael Neal VANCE
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "nw2d_734/html/0650-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,127,946 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: Catherine JACKSON, on behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation.
Civ. No. 71-453.
United States District Court, M. D. Pennsylvania.
June 30, 1972.
Alan N. Linder,
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "f-supp_348/html/0954-01.html__4483480846386612128",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,742,710 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
Larry Louis GILBERT, Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
No. F-85-158.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.
Dec. 8, 1988.
T. Hurley Jordan, Public Defender Oklahoma County, Oklahoma City, for appellant.
Michael C. Turpén, Atty. Gen., Tomilou Gentry Liddell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.
OPINION
BRETT, Presiding Judge:
The appellant, Larry Louis Gilbert, was tried by jury in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CRF-84-977, and found guilty of Attempted Grand Larceny in violation of 21 O.S.1981, §§ 42, 1704 on Count I and Shooting With Intent to Kill in violation of 21 O.S.1981, § 652 on Count II. The trial court sentenced appellant to six (6) years’ imprisonment on Count I and fifty (50) years’ imprisonment on Count II in accordance with the jury’s verdict. From this judgment and sentence, appellant has perfected his appeal to this Court.
On the evening of February 23, 1984, a silent alarm in the C.R. Anthony’s store at 4215 South Western was tripped. Store manager Richard Wortham was notified by the Protection Alarm Company and went to investigate. After checking the doors to the store, he contacted Officer Ralph Courteney and requested his assistance. While walking through the store the two men encountered appellant, who shot Officer Courteney and then fled through a back exit. Appellant was later arrested in Tallahassee, Florida, and was extradited to Oklahoma.
In his first assignment of error, appellant alleges that the trial court erred in not sustaining defense’s motion for a judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict. Title 22 O.S.1981, § 850, mandates that
[i]f, at any time after the evidence on either side is closed, the court deem it insufficient to warrant a conviction, it may advise the jury to acquit the defendant. But the jury are not bound by the advice, nor can the court, for any cause, prevent the jury from giving a verdict.
Because this is, intrinsically, a sufficiency of the evidence question, we must look to the stand
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Larry Louis GILBERT, STATE Oklahoma
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "p2d_766/html/0361-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,628,786 |
You are a legal citation expert. Complete the following legal citation according to proper Bluebook format.
Citation to complete: Fill in the citation: ___ F.2d ___ (9th Cir. ___)
Provide the complete, properly formatted citation:
|
435 F.2d 754 (9th Cir. 1970)
|
bluebook
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": null,
"volume": "435",
"page": "754",
"court": "9th Cir.",
"year": "1970",
"reporter": "F.2d",
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 128,730 |
You are a legal citation expert. Complete the following legal citation according to proper Bluebook format.
Citation to complete: Fill in the citation: ___ U.S. ___ (___)
Provide the complete, properly formatted citation:
|
541 U.S. 36 (2004)
|
bluebook
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": null,
"volume": "541",
"page": "36",
"court": null,
"year": "2004",
"reporter": "U.S.",
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 151,952 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: UNITED STATES, Appellee v. HAMILTON B. KING, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant
2 USCMA 397, 9 CMR 27
No. 948
Decided April 15, 1953
Lt Col James C. Hamilto
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "cma_2/html/0397-01.html__-8159344471935647131",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,424,958 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: n of the testator, when it is clearly expressed in the will; but the court WjlJ not, upon doubtful expressions, depart from the rule.
The case of Cox v. Hogg, 2 Dev. Eq. 121, cited and approved.
Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Chatham county, by consent of the parties.
The bill is filed t
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "nc_38/html/0627-01.html__-6085796568515671240",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,020,031 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
68451.
STEGALL v. GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA.
Banke, Presiding Judge.
The appellant, Willie C. Stegall, sued the appellee, Guardian Life Insurance Company of America (Guardian), to recover damages, a bad-faith penalty, and attorney fees for its failure to pay him certain disability benefits allegedly due under the terms of a group insurance policy. He appeals the grant of the appellee’s motion for summary judgment.
The policy in question covered employees of Stephenson Chemical Company, which employed Stegall as a production foreman. The disability benefits in question were payable only if Stegall was totally disabled on and for a certain period after the termination of his employment. The policy defined total disability as a complete inability, due to injury or sickness, to perform any and every duty pertaining to the employee’s occupation.
In support of its motion for summary judgment, Guardian presented evidence that after being hospitalized for one week and convalescing another week in July of 1980, Stegall had returned to work on a full-time basis, with the only limitation on his duties being to avoid heavy lifting, and that his employment had continued until September 28, 1980, when he was discharged. The extent to which Stegall was required to lift heavy objects and perform other strenuous activities prior to his hospitalization is not clear, although an official of Stephenson stated that it was not a “substantial part of his duties.” Stegall submitted an affidavit from a cardiologist who had examined him on July 10, 1980, and had determined that he suffered from possible hardening of the arteries leading to insufficient blood supply to the heart. It was this same physician who had directed his hospitalization for those ailments. The doctor stated that, based on his understanding that Stegall’s employment required the lifting of heavy weights and the performance of other strenuous physical activity, he was of the opinion that Stegall was totally disabled and unable to perform
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: STEGALL, GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "ga-app_171/html/0576-02.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 429,910 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: r as it recites the correct principle of law which should govern. In Gadman, the Second Circuit said:
“... the DOTD (highway department), relying on Burge v. City of Hammond ... urges that it has no duty to protect negligent motorists. We disagree and respectfully decline to follow Burge ... Contributory negligence as a co
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
CITES_POSITIVELY
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "so2d_572/html/1058-01.html__-5025109570580195072",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,009,163 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: lief will be granted. (New York Auction Co. v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 260 N. Y. 186; Bible v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 256 id. 458; Graham v. Home Ins. Co., 204 App. Div. 103.)
A dwelling house on the farm owned by plaintiff was insured with defendant, when that house burned on May 23, 1932. On the
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "misc_151/html/0243-01.html__-3036951059289135061",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,932,390 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: nt does presently exist and will be shown to the defendant as soon as possible on arrival at the place of intended confinement: . . .
RCW 10.31.030. Relying on State v. Trenidad, 23 Wn. App. 418, 595 P.2d 957 (1979), the defendant argues that the statute presupposes that the warrant will actually be shown and, because it was
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
CITES_POSITIVELY
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "wash-app_35/html/0421-01.html__-6172167980548058874",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,127,854 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
764 A.2d 863
Jose E. ARGUETA v. STATE of Maryland.
No. 831,
Sept. Term, 2000.
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.
Jan. 3, 2001.
Stephen B. Mercer (Sandler & Mercer, P.C. on the brief), Rockville, for appellant.
Diane E. Keller, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., Baltimore, and Douglas Gansler, State’s Atty. for Montgomery County, Rockville, on the brief), for appellee.
Argued before HOLLANDER, THIEME and KRAUSER, JJ.
Thieme, J., participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court; he participated in the adoption of this opinion as a retired, specially assigned member of this Court.
THIEME, Judge.
The Circuit Court for Montgomery County convicted appellant Jose E. Argueta for carrying a concealed dangerous or deadly weapon. The court subsequently imposed an eleven-month sentence, which was suspended in favor of eleven months of supervised probation. Appellant appeals his conviction and raises the following issues for our review:
1. Whether the trial court erred in failing to suppress the Defendant’s statement.
2. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction of the Defendant for violating Article 27, § 36.
We answer “yes” to question 1 and therefore reverse appellant’s conviction; we find it unnecessary to consider question 2.
Facts
Officer Edwardo Lagos of the Montgomery County Police Department spotted appellant, along with a group of four other people, on the sidewalk in the area of Sage and Cinnamon Drive in Montgomery County. Three of the subjects had their hands in their pockets; the officer interpreted this behavior as a gang sign. As he approached the group, the officer noticed a bulge in appellant’s front waistband. He asked appellant whether he possessed any drugs or weapons. After appellant answered that he did not, Officer Lagos received consent from appellant to search his person. At that time, a second police officer arrived.
Officer Lagos st
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Jose E, STATE Maryland
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "md-app_136/html/0273-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 352,031 |
You are a legal citation expert. Complete the following legal citation according to proper Bluebook format.
Citation to complete: Fill in the citation: ___ F.2d ___ (7th Cir. ___)
Provide the complete, properly formatted citation:
|
586 F.2d 33 (7th Cir. 1978)
|
bluebook
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": null,
"volume": "586",
"page": "33",
"court": "7th Cir.",
"year": "1978",
"reporter": "F.2d",
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 244,763 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
Farmers’ Friend Manuf’g Co. v. Challenge Corn-Planter Co.
(Circuit Court, W. D. Michigan, S. D.
January 16, 1885.)
Patents for inventions—Reissue No. 10,155—Corn-Planter.
Reissued letters patent No. 10,155, issued to the Farmers’ Friend Manufacturing Company as assignee of Michael Runstetler, on July 11, 1882, is not for the same invention covered by the original letters, and is invalid.
In Equity.
Wood & Boyd and E. W. Withey, for complainant.
Stem & Peck and Edward Taggart, for defendant.
Baxter, J.
This is a bill to enjoin an alleged infringement of reissued letters patent No. 10,155, issued to the complainant, as assignee of Michael Bunstetler, on July 11, 1882. We have not the time to enter upon a full discussion of the facts of the ease, and hence will content ourselves with a simple announcement of the conclusion to which we have arrived on one question made and relied on by the defendant.
In a former suit, prosecuted by the complainant in this court against the Waite Manufacturing Company, for an alleged infringement of the same reissued letters patent, we rendered a decree in complainant’s favor, affirming their validity, and ordered an account of the damages. This, of course, would be conclusive of this case on that point if the facts of the two cases were the same; but the defendant did not introduce in the former case any testimony in support of its defenses. The decree made therein was predicated upon-the prima facie case made by the production of complainant’s said reissued letters patent and proof of the alleged infringement; but here the defendant comes with full proof. Among other testimony, it has put in evidence a copy of the original letters patent, and insists that upon comparison thereof with the reissued letters patent it will appear that the latter is not for the same invention covered by the former.
The first claim of the original patent is in these words:
(1) In a corn-planter having the rear main frame mounted on supporti
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Farmers’ Friend Manuf’g, Challenge Corn-Planter Co
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "f_23/html/0042-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,112,477 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
Ronald Collier GASKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 81-701.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
June 16, 1982.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, Michael S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, and Leonard R. Ross, Certified Legal Intern, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Mark C. Menser, Asst. Atty., Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
COBB, Judge.
The appellant, Ronald Collier Gas-kins, appeals from a judgment of conviction and life sentence for robbery with a deadly weapon. He first contends that he should have been discharged because of speedy trial violations, which contention is predicated on the proposition that placing a detainer upon a defendant already in custody for one offense precipitates the running of the speedy trial period for the second offense giving rise to the detainer. This is clearly contrary to Florida law. State v. Bassham, 352 So.2d 55 (Fla.1977); Cameron v. State, 376 So.2d 248 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979).
The main thrust of the appeal is the argument that a trial judge cannot retain jurisdiction over “the first third of the maximum sentence imposed” under section 947.-16(3), Florida Statutes (1979), when that sentence is life, because the period of retention cannot be calculated. However interesting this point may be, it was not preserved below for this appeal. The only objection to the sentence was that the trial court, at the time of imposition, was not aware of the defendant’s prior record, a point not raised by this appeal.
The question of the validity of retaining jurisdiction of the first third of a sentence was never presented to the trial court, either by way of objection at the time of sentence or by way of an appropriate post-trial motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. Objections to trial court sentences, as we previously have held, first should be raised before the trial court. Barlow v. State, 388 So.2d 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Jones v. State, 384 So.2d 956 (Fla. 5th
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Ronald Collier GASKINS, STATE Florida
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "so2d_415/html/0132-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 640,544 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: ay “exercise a wide discretion in the sources and types of evidence” he considers in determining punishment. Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 246, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 1082, 93 L.Ed. 1337, 1341 (1949); United States v. Ashley, 555 F.2d 462 (5th Cir. 1977). “At a sentencing, a Court can consider many matters that mi
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "f2d_584/html/0749-01.html__-6549108073214313771",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 59,523 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: f the defendant was uncontradicted. The defendant’s reliance on Dwyer is ill placed since the case is clearly distinguishable from the instant case.
The defendant also relies on the holding in People v. Arroyo (1969), 112 Ill. App. 2d 480, 251 N.E.2d 409, as requiring a reversal of the trial court’s order revoking the defendant’s probation. We do not so read
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
DISTINGUISHES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "ill-app-3d_75/html/1023-01.html__5165536299236078523",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,363,281 |
You are a legal citation expert. Complete the following legal citation according to proper Bluebook format.
Citation to complete: Fill in the citation: ___ F.2d ___ (5th Cir. ___)
Provide the complete, properly formatted citation:
|
485 F.2d 1169 (5th Cir. 1973)
|
bluebook
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": null,
"volume": "485",
"page": "1169",
"court": "5th Cir.",
"year": "1973",
"reporter": "F.2d",
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 243,870 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: (121 So. 925)
Eddie SAWYER v. STATE.
(1 Div. 837.)
Court of Appeals of Alabama.
April 9, 1929.
RICE, J.
Appeal dismissed.
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "ala-app_23/html/0673-03.html__2417904798472593773",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,602,033 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: is insolvent, no preference can be given to complainant as a creditor over its other creditors whether the subscription was induced by fraud or not. Turner v. Grangers’ Life & Health Ins. Co., 65 Ga. 649. The obvious aim of the bil.1 is to tie up such account and certificate so complainant can realize upon them in t
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "ill-app_177/html/0294-01.html__-3217198049970525070",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 301,142 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
Manuel DeJESUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Henry RIDDER, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16978.
United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
June 5, 1969.
Dom J. Rizzi, Chicago, 111., for plaintiff-appellant.
John J. O’Malley, Chicago, 111., for defendant-appellee.
Before KNOCH, Senior Circuit Judge and KILEY and KERNER, Circuit Judges.
KNOCH, Senior Circuit Judge.
The plaintiff-appellant, Manuel De-Jesus, brought suit in the United States District Court to recover damages for personal injuries suffered in an accident with a beet topping machine while plaintiff was employed on'the farm of defendant-appellee, Henry Ridder, allegedly through the negligence of the defendant.
The sole question on appeal concerns the use of pre-trial depositions. It is plaintiff’s position that after he had successfully impeached witnesses on the important issues of whether instructions in the use of the machine were given to plaintiff and which of two available sticks he was using at the time of the accident, by showing prior inconsistent statements in depositions, the defense was improperly allowed to show prior consistent statements which did not predate a motive to falsify where there was no doubt that the allegedly impeaching statements had been made. Plaintiff relies on United States v. Lewis, 7 Cir., 1969, 406 F.2d 486, 492, which we find inapplicable on the facts here.
The defense does not concede that impeaching statements were shown. It is the view of the defendant, with which the District Court evidently agreed — as we do — that the statements quoted from pre-trial depositions only appeared to be impeaching because a part only of those depositions was offered in evidence. The defense introduced other parts of the same depositions pursuant to Rule 26(d) (4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in order to clarify and explain and not to show that the witnesses had made prior statements consistent with their testimony at the trial.
As the Court held in Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Wray Equipme
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Manuel DeJESUS, Henry RIDDER
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "f2d_411/html/0560-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,872,841 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: and judgment on the merits can be achieved by focusing on the content of the pleadings and any facts of which the court will take judicial notice."" Fischer v. City of Colorado Springs, 260 P.3d 331, 334 (Colo.App.2010) (quoting City & County of Denver v. Qwest Corp., 18 P.3d 748, 754 (Colo.2001)).
In considering a motion for judgm
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
CITES_POSITIVELY
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "p3d_266/html/0428-01.html__4683165913469807239",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,062,478 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
L. R. C., ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. ANN KLEIN, COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INSTITUTIONS AND AGENCIES, AND HER AGENTS AND SUCCESSORS IN OFFICE; ANCORA PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL; BAL KAUSHAL, M. D., IN HIS CAPACITY AS MEDICAL DIRECTOR OF ANCORA PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, AND HIS AGENTS AND SUCCESSORS IN OFFICE; RICHARD WILSON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ACTING HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF ANCORA PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL AND HIS AGENTS AND SUCCESSORS IN OFFICE, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued January 17, 1979 —
Decided March 21, 1979.
Before Judges Matthews, Kole and Milmed.
Ms. Linda Rosenzweig, Assistant Deputy Public Advocate argued the cause for appellant (Mr. Stanley C. Van Ness, Public Advocate, attorney; Ms. Bosenzweig on the brief).
Mr. Joseph T. Maloney, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondents (Mr. John J. Degnan, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Ms. Nrminie Conley, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mr. Maloney on the brief).
Per Curiam.
The order under review is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Douglas in his opinion of January 10, 1978 reported at 156 N. J. Super. 239 (Law Div. 1978).
Additionally, although we do not regard it as constitutionally required, it would certainly be appropriate and feasible for the Department of Human Services to provide by regulation, see N. J. S. A. 30 :1-12, 30:1A-1, that upon a person's admission to an institution for observation pursuant to N. J. S. A. 30:4-46.1, the chief executive or other officer in charge of the institution shall forthwith notify the Public Advocate of such admission. The Department of the Public Advocate would then be in a position to proceed, where the situation so warrants, to provide, or cause to be provided, to the person admitted to the institution (1) information regarding the availability of habeas corpus as a remedy for ill
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: L, ANN KLEIN
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "nj-super_167/html/0023-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 544,404 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: FLYNN v. FRANK PRESBREY CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
April 9, 1914.)
Action by William J. Flynn against the Frank Presbrey Company.
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "nys_147/html/1111-10.html__5957978707429917647",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,832,587 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
MICHAEL SORIERO v. JULIANN SORIERO
The Supreme Court docket number is SC 17259.
Decided September 15, 2004
Robert A. Ziegler and Jeffrey M. Knickerbocker, in support of the petition.
Raynald B. Cantin, in opposition.
The appeal was withdrawn April 21, 2005.
The petition of Tobias Soriero, Belle Camperland, Inc., Belle Auto Repair and Sales and New York on Location for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 25420) is granted, limited to the following issue:
“Did the Appellate Court properly dismiss the writ of error filed by the plaintiffs in error?”
SULLIVAN, C. J., and KATZ, J.,
did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: MICHAEL SORIERO, JULIANN SORIERO
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "conn_271/html/0919-02.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,496,431 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
Hancock Survey Associates, Inc. vs. Said Abuzahra
Northern District
November 19, 2012.
Present: Greco, P.J., Coven & Pierce, JJ.
G. Michael Wise for the plaintiff.
Thomas A. Mullen for the defendant.
Also known as Said Salim Abuzahra.
Pierce, J.
This case arises out of a dispute between an engineering firm and a real estate developer over work relating to the proposed development of a parcel of land in Topsfield, Massachusetts. On August 12, 2008, the engineering firm, Hancock Survey Associates, Inc. (“Hancock”), submitted a proposal to the developer, Said Abuzahra, doing business as Spring T. Realty Trust, LLC (“Abuzahra”), describing eight phases of engineering work relating to the project. Each phase included an estimated cost and a reimbursable expense budget. It is agreed by the parties that on August 22, 2008, Abuzahra authorized Hancock to proceed with the first three phases described in the proposal: (1) “Wetland Delineation,” (2) “Land Planning and Development Concepts,” and (3) “Conceptual Site Plan for Filing with Mass Housing.” Upon authorizing the work, Abuzahra made an initial payment of $5,000.00 to be applied toward actual fees incurred.
The work proceeded and on October 29,2008, Hancock submitted a bill for services relating to the first and second phases. The total amount of the bill was $7,546.86. This amount included $1,805.25 over the estimated budget for the second phase with the following explanation: “Additional cost due to preparation of additional concepts consisting of two family and multifamily dwellings as discussed with Said Abuzahra.” The bill also included $1,207.50 for work relating to preparation of an Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation (“ANRAD”), with the notation: “As Approved by Said Abuzahra.” Hancock applied $3,000.00 from the initial payment to the bill. With a check dated November 3,2008, Abuzahra paid $2,696.61, which is the amount of the October 29 bill, less $3,000.00, minus the additional phase two
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**:
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "mass-app-div-annual_2012/html/0205-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,701,320 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
Neftali Rosado, Petitioner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent.
Argued April 5, 1979,
before Judges Mencer, Bogers and Craig, sitting as a panel of three.
Luis Dias, for appellant.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Gerald Gornish, Attorney General, for appellee.
May 25, 1979:
Opinion by
Judge Rogers,
Neftali Rosado has appealed from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review declaring him to be ineligible for benefits because he was discharged from his employment for his willful misconduct. Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802 (e).
Mr. Rosado was employed as a rat control worker by the City of Philadelphia. On December 8, 1977, he submitted a written request for a 30-day personal leave of absence, effective December 16, 1978, so that he could visit his family in Puerto Rico. No family emergency or other special cause for the visit at this time was asserted. His employer denied the request for a 30-day leave, but granted a 15-day leave without pay, specifically directing him to report back to work on January 10,,1978. At the referee’s hearing, Mr. Rosado acknowledged that he was aware of the employer’s direction that he return to work on January 10, 1978. He nevertheless went to Puerto Rico and did not report hack to work until the morning of January 17,1978, to learn that he had been discharged as of January 10, 1978.
Mr. Rosado argues that his action did not rise to the level of willful misconduct because he told his employer before he left on the trip that he could not get a plane reservation for the return trip before January 16, 1978 and that although he would do his best to be back on time, he probably wouldn’t return until January 17, 1978. He contends that he was not guilty of misconduct because he tried to return by January 10, 1978 and that it wasn’t his fault tha
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Neftali Rosado, Commonwealth Pennsylvania
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "pa-commw_43/html/0073-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 217,864 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: Case No. 2,218.
BURTON v. SALTER.
[Brunner, Col. Cas. 623; 21 Law Rep. 148.]
Circuit Court, D. New Hampshire.
1857.
DESERTION — FORFEITURE OF SEAMEN’S WAGES FOR —Mast
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "f-cas_4/html/0874-01.html__8787328282356375882",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,939,207 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
In the Matter of Beechwood Restorative Care Center et al., Appellants, v John Signor, as Records Access Appeals Officer of New York State Department of Health, et al., Respondents.
[784 NYS2d 750]
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Evelyn Frazee, J.), entered March 17, 2003. The order denied petitioners’ application for attorneys’ fees in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioners appeal from an order denying their application seeking attorneys’ fees in this CPLR article 78 proceeding to compel respondents to respond to requests under the Freedom of Information Law ([FOIL] Public Officers Law art 6). Petitioner Beechwood Restorative Care Center (Beechwood) is a general partnership that operated a skilled nursing facility in Rochester until respondent New York State Department of Health (DOH) revoked its license. Petitioners made 17 FOIL requests to DOH, each seeking more than one item, and some requesting as many as 20 items, primarily relating to the license revocation hearing.
A party may obtain reasonable attorney’s fees in a FOIL proceeding if the party establishes that (1) it has “substantially prevailed,” (2) the record sought was “of clearly significant interest to the general public,” and (3) “the agency lacked a reasonable basis in law for withholding the record” (Public Officers Law § 89 [4] [c] [i], [ii]; see Matter of Todd v Craig, 266 AD2d 626, 626-627 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 760 [2000]; Matter of Corvetti v Town of Lake Pleasant, 239 AD2d 841, 843 [1997]; Matter of Powhida v City of Albany, 147 AD2d 236, 238 [1989]). Even if the party meets those requirements, the award of attorney’s fees remains discretionary with Supreme Court (see Todd, 266 AD2d at 626-627; Matter of Grace v Chenango County, 256 AD2d 890, 891-892 [1998]; Powhida, 147 AD2d at 238-239).
Assuming, arguendo, that petitioners established that they substantial
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: In Matter Beechwood, John Signor
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "ad3d_11/html/0987-02.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,861,715 |
You are a legal citation expert. Complete the following legal citation according to proper Bluebook format.
Citation to complete: Fill in the citation: ___ F.3d ___ (7th Cir. ___)
Provide the complete, properly formatted citation:
|
59 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 1995)
|
bluebook
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": null,
"volume": "59",
"page": "647",
"court": "7th Cir.",
"year": "1995",
"reporter": "F.3d",
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 158,120 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: n.
SUMMARY ORDER
Plaintiff-Appellant Mark B. Weinraub (“plaintiff’) appeals from an order entered on October 12, 2005 by the District Court, Weinraub v. Glen Rauch Securities, Inc., 399 F.Supp.2d 454 (S.D.N.Y.2005), granting defendants-appellees’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs federal claims, declining to exercise supplemen
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "f-appx_180/html/0233-01.html__8013089099297373195",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,740,123 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: ransaction, or, second, the vendee may stand on the contract and recover damages for the tort committed by the vendor in inducing the sale by fraud. [Harms v. Wolf, 114 Mo. App. l. c. 394.] The cause of action pleaded in the petition is at law for the results or consequences of a rescission and necessarily is ba
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "mo-app_152/html/0192-01.html__1759575525181364569",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,684,916 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: f the Laws of 1951 are unconstitutional, which might well involve a holding that all parts of chapter 156 not heretofore declared unconstitutional in Manus v. Snohomish County Justice Court Dist. Committee, 44 Wn. (2d) 893, 271 P. (2d) 707 (1954), are likewise unconstitutional. Such an action should not be taken by less than a majority of the
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "wash-2d_45/html/0891-01.html__8009391374776359899",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,111,284 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: (PSI), which purchased all of one engineering firm’s assets. The trial court granted summary judgment against MBII, finding it could not recover from PSI because the asset purchase did not fall within the exceptions to nonliability enumerated in Ray v. Alad Corp. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 22 [136 Cal.Rptr. 574, 560 P.2d 3]. We affirm.
Background
In the 1980’s, a 450-unit luxury apartment complex was developed on the
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
AFFIRMS
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "cal-app-4th_75/html/1213-01.html__-3421411853977620757",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,556,880 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: evas condiciones im-puestas por el demandado. Y esa aceptación no ba sido pro-bada. Véanse: 13 C.J. 281; Greenwich Bank v. Oppenheim, 118 N.Y.S. 297; Rushing v. Manhattan Life Ins. Co., 224 Fed. 74; Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway v. Columbus Rolling Mill, 119 U.S. 149.
El hecho de no haber contestado la Kansas Milling Company
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "pr-dec_52/html/0101-01.html__8594931128952724216",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,314,131 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: government did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 2518(8)(a)’s requirement that it immediately make recordings available to the judge issuing the wiretap order. See United States v. Pedroni, 958 F.2d 262 (9th Cir.1992).
Nor do we agree that the district court should have suppressed evidence discovered in the search of the two mobile hom
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
CITES_POSITIVELY
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "f-appx_23/html/0861-02.html__493013003209341440",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,911,519 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
8418
LESTER v. CAROLINA, CLINCHFIELD AND OHIO RAILWAY OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
Master and Servant — Presumption—Appliances—Negligence—Issues.— The law imputes to the master knowledge of latent danger in. his instrumentalities and casts upon him the burden of showing he could not have discovered the danger by the exercise of due diligence. So where the servant shows he has been injured by some manner of defect in an appliance he makes out a prima facie case of negligence and in the absence of any explanatory proof on the part of the master the issue of negligence should be sent to the jury.
Before Gaige, J., Spartanburg,
April, 1912.
Affirmed.
Action by Sylvester L. Lester against Carolina, Clinch-field and Ohio Ry. of South Carolina. Defendant appeals.
Messrs. Carson & Boyd and /. Norment Powell, for appellant,
cite: Does mere proof of breakage establish a defective condition: 66 S. C. 256; 69 S. C. 359; 72 S. C. 398, 101.
Messrs. Nicholls & Nicholls, C. P. Sims and T. T. McCarley, contra,
cite: Failure to inspect and repair is prima facie negligence: 34 S. C. 211. Want of knowledge of defects is an affirmative defense: 35 S. C. 405; 81 S. C. 203; 63 S. C. 559; 86 S. C. 435; 90 S. C. 312; 86 S. C. 137, 410; 82 S. C. 528.
January 18, 1913.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
This was an action for damages by plaintiff, against the defendant for injuries received by plaintiff, while in the employ of defendant, by reason of the alleged negligence of defendant.
The negligence as alleged in the complaint was:
1. The handhold or step at the top of the box car was loose and insecurely fastened.
2. The defendant did not warn the plaintiff of the defective and insecure condition of the step or handhold.
3. The defendant carelessly and negligently failed to inspect the box car.
4. The defendant failed h> stop the car before allowing the plaintiff to clim'b upon it.
After issue joined, the case came on for trial before his Honor, Ju
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: LESTER, CAROLINA
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "sc_93/html/0395-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,549,262 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: erty for sale, not only as to whether it was advisable to offer it in lots or parcels, but also as to the proper location and outline of each parcel. And in Thomas v. Fewster, 95 Md. 450, it was distinctly said that the property should be divided into lots or parcels, when such division and sale would produce more advantag
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "md_100/html/0227-01.html__-3599030274503186242",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,624,479 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
[No. 5233.
Decided April 29, 1905.]
J. M. Weatherwax Lumber Company et al., Respondents, v. J. B. Ray et al., Appellants.
Quieting Title—Plaintiff Out of Possession—Demurrer— Waiver by Proceeding With Trial. An objection by demurrer that an action to quiet title cannot be brought by a party out of possession, against defendants who are in possession, is waived by answering on the merits and trying' out the issues, especially where defendants asked and obtained a trial by jury upon the issues involved.
Judgment—Res Ad judicata. A judgment in a- former action is not res adjudicata where the parties and issues were not the same; and the question of former adjudication is one of law for the court.
Adverse Possession—Timber Excepted Prom Deed. Adverse possession of land does not necessarily include possession of the timber, where the same was expressly excepted from the deed under which the parties claim.
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Chehalis county, Irwin, J., entered November 12, 1903, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, in an action to quiet title to timber.
Affirmed.
W. H. Abel, for appellants.
J. C. Cross, for respondents.
Reported in 80 Pac. 775.
Dunbar, J.
This appeal is taken by the defendants from a decree quieting title in the plaintiffs to certain timber in Cbebalis county, Washington, and perpetually enjoining the defendants from claiming any right, title, or interest therein. In substance, the plaintiffs alleged, that, as tenants in comm on, they were the owners and claimed title in fee simple to timber on certain described land; that the land claimed was wild, vacant, uninclosed, and uncultivated timber land; that the defendants claimed an interest in the said timber adverse to the: plaintiffs’, without any right whatever, which claim created a cloud on plaintiffs’ title; that the defendants, from time to' time, wrongfully entered upon said premises, and cut and converted
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: J, J
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "wash_38/html/0545-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,849,219 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
Joseph D. LUPO v. Mildred D. LUPO.
No. CW 85/0594.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
June 25, 1985.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 11, 1985.
Charles V. Genco, Amite, for relator Jack Guzzardo.
Joseph D. Lupo, pro se.
Martha Jumonville, Mandeville, for respondent Mildred Lupo.
Before WATKINS, CRAIN and ALFORD, JJ.
The timeliness of the second suspensive appeal bond is not before this court in this writ application.
PER CURIAM
Jack N. Guzzardo is 69 years old, blind in one eye, and has less than normal vision in the other eye. Since January of 1984 he has been in and out of hospitals, having surgery for an aortic aneurysm and for gall bladder removal. On March 15, 1984, he was hospitalized for heart failure.
On the evening of April 26, 1984, Mr. Guzzardo was visited by Joseph Lupo, his long-time friend and attorney for more than forty years. Mrs. Guzzardo was out of the state attending to business affairs of the couple’s son who had died several years ago. Mr. Lupo was familiar with Guzzar-do’s financial status, having prepared the couple’s income tax returns for many years.
Mr. Lupo had been engaged in lengthy domestic litigation with his wife, which made it necessary for him to post an appeal bond. He brought two bonds to Guzzar-do’s house that evening in the total amount of $121,300, to be signed by Guzzardo as surety.
According to Guzzardo, Lupo represented that signing the bonds would not affect or involve him (Guzzardo) in any way. He testified that when he asked Lupo about the effect of the bond, Lupo replied, “No, you don’t have anything to worry about”. Mrs. Guzzardo, being out of town, did not sign the bonds.
Later, when the Guzzardos tried to sell a piece of property, an attorney preparing an abstract discovered the bonds and refused to allow the sale to proceed. It was at this point the Guzzardos became alarmed at the implications of signing the bonds. They consulted Lupo and asked to be released from the bonds. He assur
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Joseph D, Mildred D
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "so2d_475/html/0402-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,240,873 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
479 S.E.2d 52
The STATE, Respondent, v. Shawn Paul HUMPHRIES, Appellant.
No. 24542.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard March 5, 1996.
Decided Dec. 9, 1996.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 10, 1997.
Deputy Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, of South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Charles Molony Condon, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Columbia, and Solicitor Joseph J. Watson, Greenville, for Respondent.
TOAL, Justice:
This is a death penalty case. Appellant Shawn Paul Humphries was tried and sentenced to death for the murder of Dickie Smith. Humphries admits his guilt but appeals his sentence, arguing there were several errors during the sentencing phase of his trial. We affirm.
Factual/Procedural Background
On January 1, 1994, Humphries shot Dickie Smith, the owner of the Max-Saver convenience store in Fountain Inn, South Carolina. The evidence at trial established that on the night before the killing, Humphries and his friend Eddie Blackwell drove around drinking beer. They also stole a gun that night. Shortly after 7:00 a.m. on January 1, they entered the Max-Saver convenience store. Smith, who was working in the store, asked Humphries whether he wanted something hot, and Humphries flashed the stolen gun and replied that he wanted money.
There was some evidence to suggest Smith then reached under a counter to pull out a gun. The video camera at the store recorded the shooting. When Smith reached under the counter, Humphries fired a shot in Smith’s direction and fled from the store. The bullet fired by Humphries struck Smith in the head, killing him. Meanwhile, Blackwell slumped to the ground in the store. The police arrested Blackwell at the scene and apprehended Humphries later that day.
During the sentencing phase of Humphries’s capital murder trial, the State introduced evidence by Smith’s family members about Smith’s work ethic, his generosity and his close relationship with his young daught
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: The STATE, Shawn Paul HUMPHRIES
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "sc_325/html/0028-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,955,400 |
You are a legal expert. Given a case scenario, select the correct legal holding from the multiple choices provided.
Case Context: Based on the legal case provided, choose the most accurate holding statement.
Multiple Choice Question:
A. that the use of higher admission standards for female than for male applicants to Lowell High School violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and this case is remanded for disposition consistent with this opinion.
B. that the statute is unconstitutional, we do not address the circuit court’s rulings on these issues.
Liner contended that he was overcharged 50 cents for each trip and that he incurred $265 in actual damages; Liner sought statutory damages of $177,000 under section 448.25(1).
C. on the respondent’s motion to ■dismiss petitioner’s post-conviction petition. The assistant public defender stated at the hearing that he did not supplement or amend the petitioner’s petition, even though it was not in regular form, because he did not discover any violations of the Supreme Court Rules and petitioner’s primary interest was in reducing his sentence.
D. that there was a breach of warranty that the shampoo was “suitable and fit.” See, also, Gardner v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
E. that a compromised total loss had occurred. Street is clearly distinguishable from the present case. Unlike the owner of the M/V Megara, the shipowner in Street pressed his claim for a constructive total loss to the point of instituting suit.
Select the letter corresponding to the correct holding:
|
A
|
holding
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "f2d_501/html/1264-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": 5
}
|
train
| 5,860 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
CITY OF DURANGO; Board of County Commissioners of the County of La Plata; and Durango Transit Advisory Board, Petitioners, v. DURANGO TRANSPORTATION, INC., Respondent.
No. 89SC487.
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.
March 25, 1991.
Smith & West, David P. Smith, Durango, for petitioners.
Law Office of Nancy P. Bigbee, Nancy P. Bigbee, Denver, for respondent.
Geoffrey Wilson, Denver, for amicus curiae Colorado Mun. League.
Marion A. Brewer, Denver, for amicus curiae Colorado Counties, Inc.
Gorsuch, Kirgis, Campbell, Walker and Grover, Gerald E. Dahl, Denver, for amicus curiae Roaring Fork Transit Agency.
John R. Kennedy, Rolf G. Asphaug, Denver, for amicus curiae Regional Transp. Dist.
Justice LOHR
delivered the Opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to review a judgment of the Colorado Court of Appeals holding that counties are not exempt from the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission when operating mass transportation systems within county boundaries. See Durango Transp., Inc. v. City of Durango, 786 P.2d 428 (Colo.App.1989). We reverse and remand with directions.
I.
This case arose out of the efforts of the City of Durango (City) to obtain the authority to operate a mass transit service between Durango and the La Plata County Airport, and between Durango and the Purgatory Ski Area. The City is located in La Plata County.
Durango Transportation, Inc. (DTI), a private corporation, holds a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The certificate allows DTI to provide mass transit service within La Plata County, including the routes sought by the City. In 1983 DTI agreed to sell a portion of its PUC certificate authority for operation of mass transportation in La Plata County to the City. Specifically, the City agreed to purchase certification for the routes between Durango and the La Plata County Airport, and between Durango and the Purgatory Ski Area. The contract, dated August 9, 1983, a
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: CITY OF DURANGO;, DURANGO TRANSPORTATION
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "p2d_807/html/1152-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,396,981 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: court, and that no testimony taken after that period shall be allowed to be read in evidence. He also cites Wooster v. Clark (C. C.) 9 Fed. 854, and Matthews v. Spangenburg (C. C.) 19 Fed. 823. These opinions were rendered very long ago. Whatever may be the condition elsewhere, it became apparent long since that in this d
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "f_186/html/0643-01.html__1301758240967608697",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,751,097 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: Agency, §§ 446, 470. As to divisibility of covenant to pay rent: Gilbert on Rents, 172; Rivis v. Watson, 5 M. & W. 255; Crosby v. Loop, 13 Ill. 625; DeCoursey v. Guarantee Trust Co., 81 Pa. 217; Reed v. Ward, 22 Pa. 144; Newell v. Gibbs, 1 W. & S. 496 ; Holt v. Martin, 51 Pa. 499.
Howard A. Davis, for appellee.
Th
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "pa_155/html/0204-01.html__1382469344695712481",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 528,205 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
[Civil No. 1093.
Filed March 20, 1909.]
[100 Pac. 816.]
A. SANDOVAL and P. SANDOVAL, Defendant and Appellants, v. THE UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, a Corporation, Plaintiffs and Appellee.
1. Appeal and Error — Appeal Bond — Actions by Surety — Pleading. In an action by a surety on an appeal bond to recover the amount of the judgment paid by it, an allegation that “said defendants, on the twenty-fourth day of June, 1908, had wholly failed to pay the said judgment, . . . and upon said date said sum was due and owing upon said judgment,” is a sufficient allegation that the defendants had not paid the judgment when it was paid by the surety, and a further allegation that “this plaintiff has demanded of the said defendants that they reimburse this plaintiff in the said several sums paid out as aforesaid, and that the defendants have refused to reimburse the plaintiff in said sum, or any part .thereof,” sufficiently alleges the nonpayment by defendants to the surety of the amounts paid out by it to withstand a general demurrer.
2. Same — Same—Time por Filing Bonds. — United States Revised Statutes, section 1007 (U. S. Comp. Stats. 1901, p. 714), provides that, to stay process on the judgment, appellant may give security required by law, within sixty days after the rendition of the judgment. Section 1012 (page 716) makes courts subject to the same rules prescribed by section 1007, and by section 1909 it is provided that appeals from final decisions of the supreme court of Arizona shall be allowed to the supreme court of the United States, in the same manner, and under the same regulations, as from circuit courts of the United States. Held, that appellants from a decision in the supreme court of Arizona have, sixty days after the judgment was rendered, exclusive of Sundays, to give security and suspend judgment upon an appeal to the supreme court of the United States.
3. Same — Liabilities on Bonds — Execution on Judgment. — It is not necessary, in order to charge the sureties
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: A, THE UNITED STATES
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "ariz_12/html/0348-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,252,971 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: Medlock v. Isaacs.
(Decided October 13, 1911.)
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.
1. Cross Examination — Extent—Discretion of Court. — The circuit court bi
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "ky_144/html/0787-01.html__92414006170613231",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,989,243 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: CIRCUIT COURT OF ROANOKE COUNTY
Herman Thomas Ferguson v. Alvis Staples Flinehum and Checker Cab Co. of Va., Inc.
March 31, 1959
By JUDGE F. L. HOBACK
The Plaintiff, on September 25, 1957, filed his Motion for Judgment against the Defendants
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "va-cir_7/html/0373-01.html__7422615643382635323",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,408,371 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: ed the Division’s denial of Medicaid benefits. On appeal, we review the decision of the administrative agency, not the judgment of the circuit court. Dambach v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., Family Support Div., 313 S.W.3d 188, 190 (Mo.App. E.D.2010). Our review is limited to determining whether the administrative agency
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "sw3d_386/html/0899-01.html__-7556008606229866849",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,776,559 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: vidence, Weller suggests that we utilize the two-step analysis used to examine sufficiency of the evidence for a motion for judgment on the evidence. Weller failed to find the sufficiency standard for the giving of an instruction stated in Antcliff v. Datzman (1982), Ind.App., 436 N.E.2d 114, 122, trans. denied. We reject Weller’s invitation to apply the sufficiency standard for a motion for judgment on the
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "ne2d_570/html/1341-01.html__-8143042353673593427",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,496,290 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Christopher THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10400
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 13, 2010.
Christopher Th
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "f-appx_464/html/0200-01.html__-1269337161347788947",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,714,208 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: for the reasons stated in Vice-Chancellor Stevens’ opinion, and the latter opinion expressly rests the decision there reached upon Stevenson v. Earl. In Stevenson v. Earl it is held that a deposit agreement between Earl and the depositary, by the terms of which the balance remaining to the credit of Earl at his death should be paid to his wife, was invalid to pass the ownership in such
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "nj-eq_92/html/0554-01.html__-4598575052810414191",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 923,126 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: e with a flatiron or mangle; to wash and iron; as to launder shirts.” Laundry is defined to be “An establishment or place where laundering is done.”
In the case of State v. Wah Lee, 49 R.I. 491, 144 A. 159, 161, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island had under consideration what is meant by “public, laundry.” The court said:
“Whatev
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "sw2d_183/html/0253-01.html__4259529151577506276",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,050,174 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
PEOPLE v. JEFFREY JORDAN
Trial — Criminal Law — Separate Trial — Denial—Discretion.
Denial of a criminal defendant’s motion for a separate trial does not constitute an abuse of judicial discretion in the absence of any argument or affidavits by defendant indicating how he could be prejudiced by that denial.
Reference for Points in Headnote
53 Am Jur, Trial § 56.
Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Joseph A. Gillis, J.
Submitted Division 1 October 7,1969, at Lansing.
(Docket No. 7,127.)
Decided October 28, 1969.
Jeffrey Jordan was convicted of statutory rape. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Samuel J. Torina, Chief Appellate Lawyer, and Arthur N. Bishop, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
William R. Stackpoole, for defendant on appeal.
Before: McGregor, P. J., and Quinn and Bronson, JJ.
Per Curiam.
This case, submitted on the people’s motion to affirm, is the companion case to People v. Philson (1969), 19 Mich App 574. As in the Philson Case, defendant contends he was prejudiced by having a joint trial with five other defendants for the crime of statutory rape. On appeal, defendant contends his trial counsel made an oral motion for separate trials which, he claims, was never ruled upon. Contrary to defendant’s claim, a reading of the transcript does not disclose a motion for separate trials, but rather, a request for a hearing to provide defendant with an opportunity to tender a plea to a lesser included offense which was denied. Counsel’s motion was as follows:
“Mr. Jameson: My name is James A. Jameson. I represent the defendant Jeffrey Jordan.
“I proposed to the prosecution, after consulting Mr. Lester, that he plead guilty — because he has admitted to me — to attempted rape.
“I want to facilitate matters here for the court, as well as for all parties concerned; and my motion is to the effect that — I can’t
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: PEOPLE, JEFFREY JORDAN
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "mich-app_19/html/0582-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 355,700 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
GEORGE NELSON v. CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
June 3, 1910.
Nos. 16,438—(12).
Release of claim voidable for fraud.
A release of a claim for personal injuries, executed in reliance on fraudulent and false representations of probability of recovery, made to the injured person by an attending- physician in the employ of persons sought to ■ be charged therewith, is voidable.
Same — mistake.
Such release may also be avoided when its execution was due to a mutual mistake of the injured person and of such a physician, who has assisted in procuring the settlement.
Validity of release.
Where, however, such an attending physician in the course of treatment expresses a mistaken, but honest, opinion as to the period within which the injured person, suffering from a known injury, would recover, and where that expression of opinion, when made, had no connection whatever with a settlement, or with negotiations for a settlement, a release executed in reliance on his statement under circumstances here shown was properly held valid. ■
Action in the district court for Waseca county to recover $1,990 for personal injuries received while employed by defendant as a sectionman. The answer alleged that plaintiff entered into an agreement to accept $250 in full payment of all claims against defendant; that on March 21, 1906, he received that amount. The amended reply alleged that immediately after the injuries complained of plaintiff was placed in the care of defendant’s physician, and he was the only physician consulted; that he advised plaintiff that the injuries were an ordinary fracture of the thigh bone, and the same would unite and heal and he would recover perfect action of his limb and be as well as ever and able to go to work in six months; that a few days after a claim agent of defendant called at plaintiff’s house and informed plaintiff he had consulted with the attending physician, and he was informed that plaintiff would be able to go to work in six months, and agreed
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: GEORGE NELSON, CHICAGO NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "minn_111/html/0193-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,235,897 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: covenant in prior lease for recovery of damages. Goar on Landlord and Ten., sec. 184, and authorities before cited. Woodburn v. Renshaw, 32 Mo. 197; Humphreys v. McKeisock, 140' U. S. 304, 314; R. R. v. Parker, 143 U. S. 55; Taylor-on Landlord and Ten. [8 Ed.], sec. 667. (3) Plaintiffs claimed and the trial court held t
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "mo-app_69/html/0197-01.html__2088308945175417876",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,477,805 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: RECONSIDERATION DOCKET
00-839.
Estate of Liposchak v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp.
Jefferson App. No. 98JE26. Reported at 90 Ohio St.3d 1248, 740 N.E.2d 287. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
Pfeif
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "ohio-st-3d_91/html/1465-01.html__2981697335394530789",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,763,836 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: ct: Davenport v. Hulme (11 Misc. Rep. 521); Goodell v. Hurlbut (5 App. Div. 77); Woodworth v. Bennett (43 N. Y. 273); Dutton v. Willner (52 id. 312); Knowlton v. Gongress & Empire Spring Co. (57 id. 518); Unckles v. Colgate (148 id. 529); Holcomb v. Weaver (136 Mass. 265); Forsyth v. Woods (11 Wall. 484); Higgins v. McC
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "ad_134/html/0647-01.html__6391739317737141702",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,623,386 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: In re Carl D. WARREN, Debtor. Clyde RIDLEY v. David and Mabel SANDERS.
Bankruptcy No. 3-80-01083.
Adv. No. 3-81-0209(D).
United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Kentucky.
Nov. 30, 1982.
Robert H. Jones,
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "br_24/html/0846-01.html__2140565654701351504",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,575,620 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: fibres, and, at the same time, present a firm, non-elastic surface to the action of the guard — qualities which Simpson’s card teeth did not possess. The case of Silsbee v. Foote, 14 How. [55 U. S.] 225, meets an objection as to the sufficiency of the specification and claim.
I am of opinion that the plaintiff’s patent is val
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "f-cas_29/html/0940-01.html__-5778080295194639391",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,937,293 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: “ street use,” within the principles of the change of grade cases and is not a taking ” of property under the elevated railway decisions, was held in Selden v. City of Jacksonville, 14 L. R. A. 370, in an opinion which contains an exhaustive review of the authorities and proceeds upon persuasive reasoning.
My conclusion is that
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
CITES_POSITIVELY
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "misc_40/html/0585-01.html__-4054864732993151375",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 175,620 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
Sage Realty Corporation et al., Appellants, v Proskauer Rose L. L. P., Respondent, et al., Defendant.
[732 NYS2d 162]
—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered on or about February 8, 2001, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted in part defendant law firm’s motion to reject the report of the Special Referee, directed judgment against plaintiffs and in favor of defendant law firm in the amount of $484,377.14, and entitled defendant law firm “to recover those fees incurred in the pursuit of obtaining fees awarded by [the motion] court,” unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the quoted provision authorizing the law firm’s recovery of a fee on a fee, and otherwise affirmed, with costs to defendant-respondent payable by plaintiffs.
The motion court was vested with broad power to accept or reject the Special Referee’s report, including the power to make its own findings (see, Interlink Metals & Chems. v Kazdan, 222 AD2d 55, 59), and we do not find that power to have been improvidently exercised. Even if we were to countenance an argument by plaintiffs-appellants that no attorney fee award should be made, after they expressly confined their brief to an argument that we should confirm the Referee’s award of $100,000, we would find that, because appellants have previously been found by this Court to have committed acts thoroughly warranting CPLR 3126 sanctions (see, Sage Realty Corp. v Proskauer Rose, 275 AD2d 11, 16), the motion court had discretion to award attorney fees as such a sanction, and did not award an arbitrary amount (cf, Fontanella v Fontanella, 167 AD2d 185). The motion court did not overly expand the scope of the original order of reference, which authorized consideration both of matters expressly stated and clearly implied therein (see, Julius Blumberg, Inc. v 52 Habitat Co., 200 AD2d 482). Since the motion court reviewed the appropriate factors (see, Matter of Karp, 145 AD2d 208, 215), there is no reason to disturb the amount
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Sage Realty Corporation, Proskauer Rose L
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "ad2d_288/html/0014-02.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,402,316 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: Briggs, 47 Mo. 356; Ben v. Morse, 7 Halst. 337; Gamble v. St. Louis, 12 Mo. 618; Harrington v. Utterback, 57 Mo. 519; Clark v. Ins. Co., 52 Mo. 272; Bank v. Hvans, 51 Mo. 335; Vogler v. Montgomery, 54 Mo. 577.
Shanklin, Low ‡ McBougal with Frank Sheetz for respondents.
The petition does not state
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "mo_81/html/0297-01.html__8243583737202470147",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,244,429 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: 186 So. 475
GLAZNER v. JENKINS, Judge.
6 Div. 427.
Supreme Court of Alabama.
Dec. 22, 1938.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 16, 1939.
’ Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Walter S. S
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "ala_237/html/0262-01.html__-2030004250114592531",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,518,663 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: of a cross-bill, the counsel cited Story’s Eq. PL, § 389; Welford’s Eq. Pl. 223, 228, 230; Adam’s Eq. 304 n. 2; Galatian v. Erwin, 1 Hopk. 48, S. C.; Draper v. Gordon, 4 Sandf. Ch. 210; Slason v. Wright, 14 Vermont, 208; Rutland v. Paige, 25 ib. 181; 3 Daniell’s Ch. Pr. 1742; 6 Dana, 186. The following authorities
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "ill_32/html/0045-01.html__-4547729723199710225",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,806,792 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: words or phrases in a statute serve only to modify words or phrases which are immediately preceding. They do not modify those which are more remote.” McMahan v. Industrial Comm’n, 183 Ill. 2d 499, 511-12, 702 N.E.2d 545, 551 (1998).
As a result, the modifying language only refers to the reasonable progress ground, not to th
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "ill-app-3d_305/html/0917-01.html__3401878606849852928",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,183,841 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: n 60 days of the filing of her action or at any other time.
Defective service fails to meet the requirements of the statute. Moore v. Dunham, supra; Myers v. Kansas O. & G. Ry. Co., 200 Okl. 676, 199 P.2d 600; Cowley-Lanter Lumber Co. v. Dow, 150 Okl. 150, 300 P. 781; Blakeney v. Francis, 105 Okl. 11, 231 P. 464.
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "p2d_475/html/0610-01.html__2700980667489311515",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 398,968 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: , Defendant-Appellant.
Karin B. Hoppmann, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before BLACK, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Counsel in this direct criminal appeal has moved to withdraw and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). The defendant has moved, pro se, for the appointment of substitute counsel. Our independent revi
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
FOLLOWS
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "f-appx_201/html/0727-01.html__502545761323063720",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,743,796 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: S.W.(2d) 601; Griffith v. Shofner (Tex. Civ. App.) 184 S. W. 340, and authorities therein cited; Duval v. Moody, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 627, 60 S. W. 269; Herndon v. Williams (Tex. Civ. App.) 233 S. W. 544.
We will now consider the claim for commissions made by the defendants Hill & Ricketts upon the sale of the New Mexico
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "sw2d_43/html/0605-01.html__-8672388626621072923",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 446,587 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.