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 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:
John KEMPER, Plaintiff, v. COACHMAN RECREATIONAL VEHICLE CO., LLC. Defendant.
No. 03 C 9392.
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.
Jan. 13, 2006.
Larry Paul Smith, Larry P. Smith & Associates, Marshall S. Meyers, Adam Jacob Krohn, Amy W. Schwab, Scott Michael Cohen, Krohn & Moss, Ltd., Chicago, IL, Jack C. Gunn, Shalev Amar, Krohn and Moss Ltd., Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff.
David R. Creagh, David J. Richards, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
KEYS, United States Magistrate Judge.
Currently before the Court is Defendant Coachman Recreation Vehicle Co., LLC.’s (“Coachman”) Motion for Summary Judgment. John Kemper brought suit again Coachman, alleging that Coachman sold him a defective motor home and failed to repair it properly. In its Motion, Coachman argues that Mr. Kemper’s suit cannot survive summary judgment, because his case rests upon insufficient expert testimony. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Motion is Denied.
BACKGROUND
John Kemper made the now regrettable decision to purchase a Coachman Cross Country Motorhome (the “Motorhome”) from Michiana RV, a subsidiary of Coachman, in June of 2003. Michiana presented the Motorhome as new, and sold it to Mr. Kemper for $111,995.00.
Mr. Kemper alleges that, shortly after purchasing the Motorhome, he became aware of its many defects, including a defective electrical system, awning door, exterior trim, interior trim, rust, closet door, day/night shade, air horn, slide out, entry door and step, washer/dryer vent, stove vent, roof, wall paneling, air bags, entertainment system, battery compartment, battery, sewer hose, and dinette table. Plaintiff submitted the Motorcoach to Defendant for numerous, lengthy repair attempts, which allegedly failed to remedy the defects.
At his deposition, Plaintiff testified to the numerous defects, stating that “I have not been able to be nowhere.[sic] without problems from the day I drove it on the street, the day I got i
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: John KEMPER, COACHMAN RECREATIONAL VEHICLE
**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-2d_408/html/0604-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 381,876 |
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: on the law applicable to the issues in the pleadings and the evidence. [Cit.] Slight evidence is sufficient to authorize a jury instruction. [Cits.]” Lloyd v. Stone Mtn. Memorial Assn., 165 Ga. App. 679, 680 (2) (302 SE2d 602). From the evidence presented at trial a jury could find that the defendant hired the plaint
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": "ga-app_171/html/0400-01.html__-6474100415159201150",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 769,773 |
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:
A98A1699.
FIRSTLINE CORPORATION v. VALDOSTA-LOWNDES COUNTY INDUSTRIAL AUTHORITY et al.
(511 SE2d 538)
Judge Harold R. Banke.
After Firstline Corporation (“Firstline”) unsuccessfully attempted to exercise a purported option agreement, it sued the Valdosta-Lowndes County Industrial Authority (“Authority”) for breach of contract and sought a writ of mandamus. Firstline also sued Standard Contractors, Inc. (“Standard Contractors”) alleging that it had wrongfully taken title to part of the land included in Firstline’s option.
It is undisputed that in February 1997, Firstline submitted a “Project Eligibility Questionnaire,” a formal request to purchase “approximately 20 acres” of undeveloped land from the Authority. According to the minutes of the March 18, 1997 meeting of the Authority, the members voted to give Firstline a 90-day purchase option for a 27.3 acre tract owned by the Authority priced at $10,000 per acre for 20 acres with no additional charge for 7.3 acres of wetland. Firstline did not provide any financial consideration to the Authority for this option. Nor did the Authority and Firstline execute a written agreement. The Authority ordered a survey and engaged an engineer to locate the wetlands.
Meanwhile, Standard Contractors applied to purchase ten acres from the same tract. Ken Garren, the director of the Authority, informed Standard Contractors that 10 acres were not available because Firstline had been offered an option for 20 acres leaving only 7.35 acres available for purchase. On May 1, prior to the expiration of the option period, the Authority accepted Standard Contractors’ offer to buy 7.35 acres. On May 2, Garren wrote Firstline offering to sell 20 acres at a price of $10,000 per acre for 16.67 acres with no additional charge for 3.33 acres of woodlands. The letter informed Firstline that the Authority had accepted another party’s offer to purchase the remaining 7.35 acres. Garren enclosed a copy of the plat. Garren sent another letter on May 14 which showed some confusion a
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: FIRSTLINE CORPORATION, VALDOSTA-LOWNDES COUNTY INDUSTRIAL
**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_236/html/0432-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 449,126 |
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:
MUSEUM OF FLIGHT FOUNDATION, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.
No. C98-0029C.
United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle.
Feb. 10, 1999.
Clark Reed Nichols, Perkins Coie, Seattle, WA, for plaintiff.
Diane E. Tebelius, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Seattle, WA, Deirdre A. Donnelly, U.S. Dept, of Justice, Tax Div., Washington, DC, for defendant.
ORDER
COUGHENOUR, Chief Judge.
This a tax case involving the Museum of Flight’s lease of the first 747 back to Boeing to serve as a test-bed for new high-thrust engines in the 777 project. The parties have stipulated to the factual record. The only issue in this case is whether the ordinarily tax-exempt Museum is liable for taxes on the lease income as “unrelated business taxable income” under 511(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code. The parties presented oral arguments on this point, and the Court ruled from the bench that the lease income was not taxable because the lease did not constitute a regular business activity, and because it was substantially related to the Museum’s tax-exempt purposes. This Order supplements and affirms the Court’s oral ruling.
FACTS
In February 1969, the maiden flight of the 747 “City of Everett” inaugurated the age of the jumbo jet. Though it never entered commercial service, Boeing used the first 747 for research and development for nearly twenty years. Boeing retired the plane in 1988, stripped it of its engines, and parked it at Paine Field in Everett. Shortly thereafter, the Museum of Flight began efforts to acquire this hugely significant aviation artifact. In 1990, Boeing donated the jet to the Museum “as-is, where-is.” The Museum began work to restore the aircraft for permanent display at the Paine Field location.
Shortly after donating the aircraft, Boeing identified the need for a test-bed airframe for new high-thrust engines to be used in its forthcoming 777. Boeing possessed no acceptable aircraft, and could not obtain one from a commercial leasing company because the
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: MUSEUM OF FLIGHT, UNITED STATES America
**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-2d_63/html/1257-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 917,268 |
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:
Royal Oak Apartments, Inc., Petitioner, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent
Docket No. 3282-62.
Filed November 30, 1964.
Bucher Todd, for the petitioner.
Sanford S. Neuma/n, for the respondent.
OPINION
Forrester, Judge:
The year at issue before us is petitioner’s fiscal year ending March 31, 1958. The sole remaining issue before us involves a claimed carryback net operating loss deduction to such year from petitioner’s fiscal year ending March 31,1961. The claimed loss item during fiscal 1961 is a corporation excise tax in the amount of $17,653.87 which was paid to the State of Tennessee during such year, but respondent contends it is not deductible by this cash basis petitioner because not paid by it.
Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner’s income taxes for fiscal 1958 in the amount of $6,829.70. This determination resulted from the disallowance by respondent of several claimed carryback loss items from petitioner’s fiscal 1961, all of which items respondent has now conceded with the sole exception of the excise tax mentioned above.
All of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. There follows a recitation of the facts necessary to an understanding of the case.
The petitioner was a corporation organized and operated in Tennessee. It owned and operated an apartment building in Nashville, Tenn.
Petitioner was operated on a fiscal year ending March 31 and on a cash receipts and disbursements method of accounting in keeping its books and in making its Federal income tax returns. For the year in issue its returns were filed with the district director of internal revenue, Louisville, Ky.
On September 5,1959, petitioner, by the unanimous written action of all its shareholders, adopted a plan of complete liquidation as prescribed by section 337 of the Internal Kevenue Code, and pursuant to such plan had sold all of its operating assets and had realized a gain of $466,108.58 by December 31, 1959, which gain petitioner did not recognize for Federa
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Royal Oak Apartments, Commissioner Internal Revenue
**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": "tc_43/html/0243-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,747,833 |
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:
Crescent Foundry Co. Pvt. Ltd. et al., plaintiffs v. United States, defendant
Court No. 95-09-01239
(Dated January 24, 2001)
JUDGMENT
Aquilino, Jr., Judge:
The plaintiffs having interposed a motion pursuant to CIT Rule 56.2 for judgment upon the record compiled by the International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce (“ITA”) sub nom. Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 60 Fed.Reg. 44,849 (Aug. 29, 1995), aff'd in part, remanded in part sub nom. Crescent Foundry Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. United States, 20 CIT 1469, 951 F.Supp. 252 (1996), remand results aff'd, 21 CIT 696, 969 F.Supp. 1341 (1997), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 168 F.3d 1322 (Fed.Cir. 1998), remanded, 23 CIT 12, Slip Op. 99-5 (Jan. 8, 1999), second remand results remanded, 24 CIT 141, Slip Op. 00-21 (Feb. 18, 2000); and this court in slip opinion 00-148, 24 CIT 1278 (Nov. 9, 2000), having remanded to the ITA its remand results dated May 24,2000 and stated to be pursuant to slip opinion 00-21 in order to eliminate the influence of rebates under India’s International Price Reimbursement Scheme and Cash Compensatory Support program on the calculation of any subsidy under §80HHC of India’s Income Tax Act; and the ITA having filed herein its Final Results of Redetermination on Remand dated December 11,2000 and stated to be pursuant to slip opinion 00-148; and this court having reviewed those Final Results and not having received any comments thereon or opposition thereto from any party to this case; Now therefore, after due deliberation, it is
Ordered, adjudged and decreed that the ITA’s Final Results of Rede-termination on Remand dated December 11, 2000 be, and they hereby are, affirmed.
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Crescent Foundry Co, 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": "ct-intl-trade_25/html/0039-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,507,986 |
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: ted, for example, if the court found that after the original sentencing, defendant’s subsequent conduct warranted a longer sentence. 395 U.S. at 726, 85 S.Ct. 2072. That eliminating the possibility of vindictiveness, rather than prohibiting any increase in sentence as such, is the basis of the Pearce rule was re
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_487/html/0631-01.html__-4675597303674120190",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 10,665 |
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: State v. Walter Forbes.
May Term, 1936.
Present: Powers, C. J., Slack, Moui.to.n, Thompson and Snminer.\e, JJ.
Opinion filed October 6, 1936.
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": "vt_108/html/0361-01.html__5790186823543858481",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,801,222 |
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: lies only in situations where a time period begins to run upon service of notice.
Because Bankruptcy Rule 9006(f) is identical to Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(e), Mosel v. Hills controls the instant case. In Mosel, the court of appeals held that Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(e) was inapplicable to a statutory requirement to commence a lawsuit within a specified peri
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_93/html/0910-01.html__1863076653496759620",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,012,811 |
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:
Melodie SHULER, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 08-1651 (RMC).
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
Oct. 15, 2010.
Melodie Venee Shuler, Silver Spring, MD, pro se.
Sarah Ann Sulkowski, Office of the Attorney General, DC, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ROSEMARY M. COLLYER, District Judge.
Melodie Venee Shuler brought this suit pro se against D.C. Department of Corrections Captain Nora Talley and the District of Columbia, alleging violation of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment due to Captain Talley’s alleged refusal to allow Ms. Shuler to visit her husband at the D.C. Jail. Ms. Shuler claims she was denied the right to visit based on her race and gender. Captain Talley and the District now move for summary judgment, because there is no evidence of discriminatory purpose and because there is no evidence of an unconstitutional custom or policy. As explained below, the motion will be granted.
I. FACTS
Ms. Shuler’s claim generally arises from a District of Columbia criminal contempt action against her husband, Melvin Delaney, and from difficulties Ms. Shuler encountered when she attempted to visit Mr. Delaney while he was held at the D.C. Jail. Mr. Delaney was incarcerated at the D.C. Jail from May 29, 2007 to September 25, 2007. Compl. ¶¶ 19-20. Ms. Shuler is an attorney, and she sought to assist Mr. Delaney in dealing with his legal problems.
Count 12 of the Complaint alleges that the District and Captain Talley are liable for violating Ms. Shuler’s right to equal protection because Captain Talley refused to allow Ms. Shuler to visit Mr. Delaney in the D.C. Jail on June 4, 2007 and July 27, 2007 based on Ms. Shuler’s gender (female) and race (African-American). See Compl. ¶¶ 155-60. More specifically, that portion of the Complaint alleges:
157. Discrimination based on race when Ms. Shuler was treated different that other persons solely based on race, because the DOC do not monitor pe
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Melodie SHULER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
**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-2d_744/html/0320-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,061,282 |
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: ted was sufficient to overcome the underlying credibility determination, a determination we previously found to be supported by substantial evidence. See Duka v. Gonzales, 195 Fed.Appx. 29 (2d Cir.2006); see also Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232, 234 (2d Cir.2005) (determining the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying a
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_287/html/0921-01.html__-7275707126852437917",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,930,210 |
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: sation payments. The purpose of the offset is to preclude a double recovery by the employee. See Richard v. Arsenault, 349 Mass. 521, 524-525 (1965). See also Hunter v. Midwest Coast Transp., Inc., 400 Mass. 779, 782-784 (1987), holding, in addition, that in calculating the amount of the offset, the insurer must deduct its share of the e
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": "mass-app-ct_51/html/0081-01.html__6190176234820748609",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,592,495 |
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:
(64 App. Div. 412.)
SMITH v. CUTTER.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
October 4, 1901.)
1. Execution—Supplementary Proceedings—Third Persons—Examination —Affidavit—Sufficiency.
An affidavit to secure an examination, in supplementary proceedings, of a third person claimed to hold assets of the judgment debtor, which alleges in the alternative that such third person has “personal property of the judgment debtor exceeding ten dollars in value, or is indebted to-him in a sum exceeding ten dollars,” is defective.
3. Same—Appointment of Receiver—Discontinuance of Proceedings.
Code Civ. Proc. § 2464, provides that the judge to whom is made returnable an order requiring a judgment debtor to appear and be examined may at any time after making the order appoint a receiver of the debtor’s property, notice of the application to be given in all cases except "where the appointment is made on the return day, or at the close of the examination. Section 2432 authorizes an order for examination against a judgment debtor—First, after return of execution; second, after issuance and before return; third, against a third person having assets of the debtor either before or after return of execution; and also provides that the last remedy may be pursued alone or simultaneously with the others. Held, that the appointment of a receiver did not discontinue the supplementary proceedings, so as to relieve from examination a third person, brought into court after the receiver’s appointment.
Appeal from special term,'Kings county.
Proceedings supplementary to execution by Isaac Smith against John D. Cutter, judgment debtor, and the John D. Cutter Company, a corporation, brought into court under a third-party order. From an order denying a motion to vacate an order requiring the corporation to be examined, it appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before GOODRICH, P. J., and WOODWARD, HIRSCHBERG, JENKS, and SEWEEL, JJ.
Edward P. Lyon, for appellant.
Robert H. Roy, for respondent.
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: SMITH, CUTTER
**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_72/html/0099-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,673,124 |
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: 38215.
SADDLER v. COTTON STATES LIFE & HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY.
Decided June 21, 1960.
J. Robert Smith, for plaintiff in error.
Memory, Barnes •& Memory,
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": "ga-app_101/html/0866-01.html__-7715898528766562384",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 5,078,346 |
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 parties contemplated the leasing of vehicles to the named insured. The specific situation contemplated in each policy has now come about. . . .”
In Lubow v. Morrissey, in which three insurance policies provided overlapping coverage, two of which contained applicable pro rata clauses and the third an excess clause,
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": "wis-2d_39/html/0064-01.html__-7582934518985895965",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,580,626 |
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: refore complain that such findings are not based on the facts, and this court is cited to the eases of Pugh v. Werner (Tex. Civ. App.) 166 S. W. 698; Carrington v. Carrington (Tex. Civ. App.) 230 S. W. 1029, and Compania Bancaria v. Border National Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 265 S. W. 599. Neither of the cases sustains the conte
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_3/html/0589-01.html__5793219619497705489",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,068,419 |
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:
J. David ROUNDTREE and Ernestine Roundtree, his wife, Appellants, v. J. Elliott SMITH, Appellee.
No. 83-776.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
May 2, 1984.
Elaine F. Miller of Miller & Miller, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellants.
Freeman W. Barner, Jr., of Cromwell & Remsen, Riviera Beach, for appellee.
DELL, Judge.
J. David Roundtree and Ernestine Roundtree appeal from an order dismissing the second amended complaint with prejudice. We reverse and remand.
The case concerns an option to purchase real property. Appellants and appellee entered into a lease-option on October 11, 1977. The lease provided in part:
The Owner hereby leases to the Tenant the ... property ... for the period of one month from October 1, 1977 at the monthly rental of Twenty-Five Dollars ($25.00) payment of which is to be made on the signing of this lease. Monthly payments are to be made on the first of each month to the Owner at the above address.
This lease is on a monthly basis and may be cancelled by either party as of the 1st of anymonth [sic] on one (1) months notice.
Also, the Tenant is given the right to purchase this property during the term of this lease for the sum of Thirty Five Thousand 00/100 Dollars ($35,000.00). Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) is to be in cash and the balance of ($25,000.00) Twenty Five Thousand Dollars to be paid off in 180 equal installments plus 8% interest.
On June 1, 1982, appellants sent a letter to appellee and indicated their intent to purchase the property pursuant to their agreement of October 11, 1977. On June 17, 1982, appellants’ attorney sent a contract for sale and purchase with a cashier’s check for $10,000 to appellee. Appellee refused and appellants brought suit. The second amended complaint requested specific performance under Count I and requested damages for breach of contract under Count II.
Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The trial court found the appellants w
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": "so2d_448/html/1252-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 653,606 |
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:
Hess v. Hanover Fire Insurance Company, Appellant.
Insurance — Fire insurance — Waiver—Evidence.
Where in an action on a fire policy, it appears that the plaintiff had not filed proofs of loss, and relied upon a waiver, evidence that the adjuster of the defendant many months after the suit was brought had promised that his company would pay the loss, is not admissible to establish the waiver.
Argued May 5, 1908.
Appeal, No. 219, April T., 1908, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Indiana Co., Sept. T., 1905, No. 140, on verdict for plaintiffs in case of R. L. Hess and B. M. Smith, trading as the Gipsy Mercantile Company, v. Hanover Fire Insurance Company.
Before Rice, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Head and Beaver, JJ.
Reversed.
Assumpsit on a policy of fire insurance. Before Tellford, J.
February 26, 1909:
The facts appear by the report of Hess v. Hartford Insurance Co., post, p. 158, and by the opinion of the Superior Court.
The trial judge charged in part as follows:
This witness further testified to having been sent for by Mr. Wright, an adjuster of the Scottish Union and Hanover Insurance Companies, two of the defendants. He says he came to Indiana and met him in March, 1906 — March 26, I believe — at the office of Mr. Mack. He says that they went over the bills, accounts, etc., and that Mr. Wright then offered him a compromise settlement. An offer of compromise is not admissible as evidence of the plaintiffs’ claim. This item of evidence relating to what occurred at Mr. Mack’s office is only to be considered by you upon the question of the waiver by the agent of the Scottish Union and Hanover Insurance Companies of their rights to proofs of loss. There is no evidence that Mr. Wright, adjuster of the two companies named, had any authority by any act of his to bind other of the defendant companies; and so you will consider this item of testimony only as it bears upon the question of a waiving of the rights of proofs of loss by the Sc
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Hess, Hanover Fire 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": "pa-super_38/html/0151-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 590,373 |
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:
Gerdina W. Bouwmeester, Administratrix, v. The Grand Rapids & Indiana Railroad Company.
[See 63 Mich. 557.]
Negligence — Willful injury to person walking upon railroad track— Contributory negligence.
1. If an engineer, knowing that the whistles and bells are not sufficient to warn a traveler walking on the railroad track of his danger, and being able to stop his train before reaching him, runs recklessly upon him, the contributory negligence of the traveler will not avail against such criminal conduct of the engineer. '
2. The negligence of a traveler killed while walking upon a railroad track without permission, and regardless of the danger signals given by the engineer of the approaching train, will bar a recovery by his administrator, unless it is established that the engineer saw and understood the danger to him, and recklessly ran the train upon him without doing what he could to stop and avoid the injury.
Error to superior court of Grand Rapids. (Parrisb, J.)
Argued June 24, 1887.
Decided October 6, 1887.
Case. Plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
The facts are stated in the opinion, and in the former report of the case, found in 63 Mich. 557.
Fred A■ Maynard and Lincoln B. Livingston, for appellant.
T. J. O’Brien and J. H. Campbell, for defendant.
Morse, J.
This cause was before this Court in the October term, 1886, and will be found reported in 63 Mich. 557. The cause, as then presented, rested upon the statement of facts made by the counsel for the plaintiff in his opening to the jury. We then held that such statement, if proved, entitled the plaintiff to a recovery.
The cause has since been tried in the superior court for the city of Grand Eapids, and the jury, under the instructions of said court, rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff brings error.
The undisputed facts, as developed upon the trial, are as follows:
Peter Brandel, the deceased, was a native of Holland, and 39 years of age at the time
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Gerdina W, The Grand Rapids
**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_67/html/0087-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,229,862 |
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: or its operation does not in the slightest degree depend upon the terms and provisions of the original lease, nor upon the attitude of the landlord.” The defendants rely upon a statement in Anderson v. Lemon, 8 N. Y. 236, the only case cited to me, or that I have been able to find, in which a partner purchased an interest in the fee in his own name or int
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_122/html/0221-01.html__6650684554614567263",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,926,851 |
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: low them to introduce parol evidence to show they intended to sign only in their representative capacity, and held them personally liable as makers.
In Coal River Collieries v. Eureka Coal and Wood Company, 1926, 144 Va. 263, 132 S.E. 337, 338, 46 A.L.R. 485, a note was signed
“Eureka Coal & Wood Co., Inc. “J. Liebman, Treasurer., N. Orleans.”
It appe
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": "so2d_95/html/0891-01.html__6721829873851720265",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 749,115 |
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 James C. Farrington, an Attorney and Counselor-at-Law, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.
[682 NYS2d 647]
—Per Curiam.
Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in .1982 and maintains an office for the practice of law in Rensselaer County.
Respondent has failed to comply with a subpoena duces tecum obtained by petitioner, the Committee on Professional Standards, and with a hearing notice from petitioner which directed him to appear for an examination under oath and produce relevant records on December 16, 1998, regarding complaints filed by two clients. Respondent has further failed to respond to petitioner’s instant motion to suspend him from practice pending his compliance with the subpoena. Respondent last communicated with petitioner by fax dated December 16, 1998, advising he was closing his law practice and was willing to resign from the Bar.
Under such circumstances, we exercise our discretion (see, 22 NYCRR 806.4 [b]) and grant petitioner’s motion (see, e.g., Matter of Roberts, 224 AD2d 801).
Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further, ordered that respondent is suspended from practice pending his full compliance with the subpoena duces tecum dated November 24, 1998, and with the hearing notice dated December 4, 1998, effective 20 days from the date of this order, and until further order of this Court; and it is further, ordered that for the period of suspension respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; and he is forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority or to give to another any opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further, ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rule (22 NYC
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": "ad2d_257/html/0914-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,379,474 |
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: at 19.
“[A] settlement, which does not close the business of the estate in the hands of the administrator, is not a final settlement of the estate.” Stevens v. Tucker, 87 Ind. 109, 115 (1882). The term “final settlement” signifies that “nothing remainfs] to be done by an administrator or by the court in the settlem
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": "so2d_919/html/1166-01.html__7102175982608690763",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 737,711 |
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: plainly wrong or without evidence to support them. Code § 8.01-680; Pizzarelle v. Dempsey, 259 Va. 521, 527, 526 S.E.2d 260, 263 (2000); Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Virginia v. St. Mary’s Hosp. of Richmond, Inc., 245 Va. 24, 34, 426 S.E.2d 117, 123 (1993). We review the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most f
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_266/html/0503-01.html__564306898417356526",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,875,542 |
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: to their testimony are left to the jury's judgment, and where more than one inference is possible, the inference drawn by the jury must be accepted. Roach v. Keane , 73 Wis. 2d 524, 536, 243 N.W.2d 508 (1976). The circuit court did not err when it denied Derousseau's motion to change the special verdict answer.
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": "nw2d_921/html/0002-01.html__-4122707779407984267",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,531,064 |
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:
Floyd HINES and Mildred Hines, Appellants, v. A.O. SMITH HARVESTORE PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Appellees.
No. 88-2484.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted June 16, 1989.
Decided July 26, 1989.
Brock R. Snyder, Topeka, Kan., for appellants.
John C. Dods, Kansas City, Mo., for ap-pellees.
Before JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.
FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Floyd and Mildred Hines appeal from an order of the district court granting A.O. Smith Corporation and A.O. Smith Harve-store Products, Inc.’s joint motion for summary judgment and Agristore Credit Corporation’s motion for summary judgment. The district court concluded that the Hines-es’ breach of contract and fraud claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. For the reasons that follow we reverse and remand.
I. BACKGROUND
Because this is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, we will relate the facts in the light most favorable to the appellants Floyd and Mildred Hines. This is a diversity case brought by the Hineses against A.O. Smith Corporation, A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc., and Agristor Credit Corporation (collectively referred to as Harvestore). The Hineses are farmers who purchased Harvestore grain silos for their farming operation in southwest Missouri. The Hineses purchased two silos and related equipment, one in September 1976 and one in October 1976. These silos were purchased based on numerous oral and written representations and warranties made by the Harvestore salesmen and contained in promotional pamphlets and videos prepared by Harvestore.
The two Harvestore silos were installed on the Hineses’ property in September and October of 1976. The Hineses agreed to purchase the silos only after repeated solicitations by the local Harvestore dealer and a Harvestore salesman. Various representations were made to Floyd Hines to induce him to purchase one or more Harvestore silos. He also
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Floyd HINES Mildred, A
**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_880/html/0995-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,794,942 |
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:
Commonwealth ex rel. Baylinson v. Baylinson, Appellant.
Argued September 22, 1959.
Before Rhodes, P. J., IIirt, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ. (Gunti-ier, J., absent).
Eugene John Lewis, for appellant.
Alfred M. Klein, for appellee.
November 11, 1959:
Opinion by
Hirt, J.,
The parties to this proceeding were married on August 24, 1957; he then was 64 years, and she 59 years, old. It was a second marriage for each of them. Until the final separation on January 30, 1958 when the defendant left his wife, they lived in a “Duplex” apartment house owned by the wife. She has received $75 per month rent from the other apartment; her monthly payment on a mortgage against the premises amounts to $82. At the time of her marriage she quit her employment as bookkeeper with a responsible business concern, which had paid her $85 per week. She testified that, because of her age, she is not now acceptable for steady employment. She however has worked intermittently since the separation in similar employment but what she has earned has no bearing on her right to support. Moreover, there is no contention that the wife is chargeable with misconduct that would entitle the defendant to a divorce, and he therefore is obliged to support her, within legal limits, to the extent of his financial ability.
Following the hearing on August 28, 1959, the court entered an order directing the defendant to pay his wife $45 per week for her support. The defendant is the owner of a building at Twentieth Street and Fair-mount Avenue in Philadelphia where he has operated a neighborhood drug store for more than 20 years. Supplementing his own services in the conduct of the business he employs one full-time, and two part-time pharmacists, in addition to two part-time soda clerks. He testified that his gross sales for the year 1957 were $70,775, and that amount appears in his federal income tax return for that year. His net income shown by that return, which was received in evidence, was but $
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Commonwealth, Baylinson
**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-super_191/html/0051-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,663,475 |
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:
Adamina Vasquez, an Infant by Her Guardian ad Litem, Paula Hernandez, et al., Plaintiffs, v. East River Day Camp, Inc., Defendant.
Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,
April 8, 1959.
Be LuJcey & Shapiro for plaintiffs.
Robinson & Gales for defendant.
Aron Steuer, J.
Motion to examine defendant in order to frame a complaint. The affidavits show that defendant operates a day camp; that the infant plaintiff, a child eight years of age, fell while in the custody of defendant’s servants and that the child does not know the location of the place where she fell. There is no claim that the child is ignorant of the manner in which she fell and the other circumstances. These would be sufficient to frame a complaint.
Plaintiff also alleges that defendant is under a duty to disclose the facts because plaintiff makes out a prima facie case by showing delivery to defendant in a sound condition and return in a damaged condition. If this theory based on apparent similarity of legal relationship of a child to merchandise entrusted to a bailee could be considered sound it would be even simpler to draw a complaint.
The real reason for this application is that plaintiff’s attorney suspects that there may be a cause of action against the city and wants the information to start such an action. The purpose may be legitimate but there is no provision in our law for examing a defendant in order to get information which may result in a cause of action against a third party.
Motion denied.
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Adamina Vasquez, East River Day
**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": "misc2d_17/html/0385-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,632,531 |
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:
Kamco Supply Corp., Appellant, v JMT Brothers Realty, LLC, Respondent, et al., Defendants.
[950 NYS2d 701]
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered June 22, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant owner’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff subcontractor’s claim seeking foreclosure on its mechanic’s lien for materials furnished for a home improvement project, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendant owner had the initial burden on summary judgment of establishing prima facie that at the time the lien was filed, it owed no payment to the general contractor (Penava Mech. Corp. v Afgo Mech. Servs., Inc., 71 AD3d 493, 495 [1st Dept 2010]). It satisfied its burden by showing that by virtue of the general contractor’s unlicensed status, the home improvement contract entered between the two was rendered unenforceable pursuant to Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 20-386, 20-387 (see B & F Bldg. Corp. v Liebig, 76 NY2d 689, 692 [1990], citing Mortise v 55 Liberty Owners Corp., 102 AD2d 719 [1st Dept 1984], affd 63 NY2d 743 [1984]). Where a home improvement contract has been rendered unenforceable, there can be no funds due and owing from the owner to the unlicensed general contractor to support a subcontractor’s mechanic’s lien claim (see e.g. Administrative Code § 20-387 [a]; Matros Automated Elec. Const. Corp. v Libman, 37 AD3d 313 [1st Dept 2007]; see also Blake Elec. Contr. Co. v Paschall, 222 AD2d 264, 267 [1st Dept 1995]). Defendant owner further showed that it had no direct contractual relationship with plaintiff subcontractor; absent such relationship, “the rights of a subcontractor [must be] derivative of the rights of the general contractor and a subcontractor’s lien must be satisfied out of funds due and owing from the owner to the general contractor at the time the lien is filed” (Penava, 71 AD3d at 495 [internal quotation marks omitted]).
The burden shifted to plaintiff, which failed to raise any triable issue of fact in opp
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Kamco Supply Corp, JMT Brothers Realty
**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_98/html/0891-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,879,226 |
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: on could be read to mean that an otherwise seaworthy appliance, i.e., the preventer wire, will not be rendered unseaworthy by the improper use of it. Green v. Skibs, 186 F Supp 459, 188 F Supp 65, 1961 Am Mar Cas 1819 (E.D. SC 1960), aff'd., 292 F2d 393 (4th Cir 1961); De Filippie v. Waterman Steamship Corporatio
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": "or_230/html/0372-01.html__606702868417739523",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,842,906 |
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 Robert Hill, Appellant.
— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.), rendered August 15, 1988, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s contention that the evidence introduced at the trial was legally insufficient is without merit. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The credibility of the People’s witnesses, which the defendant attacks, was primarily an issue to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).
We find no merit to the defendant’s contention that the prosecutor’s summation remarks deprived him of a fair trial. The objected-to remarks constituted a fair response to defense counsel’s summation in which he attacked the credibility of the prosecution witnesses by suggesting that their testimony was unworthy of belief (People v Anthony, 24 NY2d 696; People v Shaw, 150 AD2d 626; People v Rawlings, 144 AD2d 500). Furthermore, the remarks were proper comment as the issue of credibility was crucial to the trial (see, People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105; People v Anthony, supra, at 703; People v Crawford, 130 AD2d 678; People v Oakley, 114 AD2d 473).
The defendant next contends that the court’s charge with regard to the credibility of the witnesses was inadequate and erroneous. However, the defendant failed to preserve this issue for appellate review since he failed to ra
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: The People State, Robert Hill
**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_176/html/0755-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,212,139 |
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:
JOHN WILLIAM PROVINCE and JOHN WATSON PROVINCE, Partners Under the Firm Name of SOUTHERN FUEL and LUMBER COMPANY, Appellees, v. MRS. MARTHA MITCHELL, Appellant.
312 S. W. (2d) 861.
Western Section, Jackson.
March 27, 1958.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court May 2, 1958.
Aaron C. Brown, Paris, for appellant.
Dudley Porter, Paris, for appellees.
BEJACH, J.
This cause involves an appeal by Mrs. Martha Mitchell, who was defendant in the Chancery Court of Henry County, Tennessee, from a decree of that Court rendered against her in the sum of $1,-486.57, together with interest thereon, in favor of the appellees, John William Province and John Watson Province, partners d/b/a Southern Fuel and Lumber Company. For convenience, the parties will be referred to, as in the lower court, as complainants and defendants, or called by their respective names.
The bill in this cause was filed September 20, 1956. As originally filed, G-ayle Mitchell, husband of defendant Martha Mitchell, was also made a defendant. The bill sought a recovery from both defendants in the sum of $1,486.57 for improvements constructed on property of said defendants under a special contract, and sought a lien on their property under the provisions of Section 64-1102, T. C. A., which provides:
“There shall be a lien upon any lot of ground or tract of land upon which a house or structure has been erected, demolished, altered, or repaired, or for fixtures or machinery furnished or erected, or improvements made, by special contract with the owner or his agent, in favor of the contractor, mechanic, laborer, founder or machinist, who does the work or any part of tbe work, or furnishes the materials or any part of the materials, or puts thereon any fixtures, machinery, or material, and in favor of all persons who do any portion of the work or furnish any portion of the materials for such building.”
A fiat for the attachment was signed by Hon. E. J. Carter, County Judge of Henry County, and the writ of attachment as well
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: JOHN WILLIAM PROVINCE, MRS
**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": "tenn-app_44/html/0115-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,652,178 |
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:
Nellie M. Ackerman, Respondent, v. Charles M. Ackerman, Appellant.
Divorce — Statute of Limitations relating thereto — non-residence of a party.
The courts of this state have no common-law jurisdiction over the subject of divorce, and their authority is confined altogether to the exercise of such express and incidental powers as are conferred by the statute.
Section 1758 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides: “In either of the following cases the plaintiff is not entitled to a divorce, although the adultery is established: * * * 3. Where there has been no express forgiveness, and no voluntary cohabitation of the parties, but the action was not commenced within five years after the discovery, by the plaintiff, of the offense charged.” This period of five years begins when a plaintiff discovers that the defendant has contracted a second marriage and is living and cohabiting with the woman as his wife, although such cohabitation is continued down to the commencement of the action.
Chapter IV of the Code of Civil Procedure contains the General Statute of Limitations, sections 362-415, inclusive. By section 414 it is -enacted, “The provisions of this chapter (IV) apply, and constitute the only rules of limitation applicable, to a civil action or special proceeding except * * * a case where a different limitation is specially prescribed by law, or a shorter limitation is prescribed by the written contract of the parties.” Section 401 provides: “ If, when the cause of action accrues against a person, he is without the state, the action may be commenced within the time limited therefor, after his return into the state.” Hence the continued non-residence of a party excepts by virtue of section 401 the right of a plaintiff to bring an action, from the five-year limitation prescribed by section 1758, nor is the fact that a plaintiff may commence an action by the substituted service of process provided by section 435 and the following sections of the Code of Civil Procedure material on this question.
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Nellie M, Charles M
**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": "ny_200/html/0072-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 150,144 |
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 PINETREE PARTNERS, LTD., Debtor. PINETREE PARTNERS, LTD., Plaintiff, v. OTR, an Ohio General Partnership Acting on Behalf of the STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF OHIO and State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, Defendants.
Bankruptcy No. B84-00919.
Adv. No. B84-0552.
United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio.
April 28, 1988.
Marvin A. Sicherman, Dettelbach and Sicherman Co., L.P.A., Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.
David C. Weiner, Mark S. Weisman, and Duane J. Deskins, of Hahn Loeser & Parks, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendants.
FINDINGS OF FACT, OPINION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
JAMES H. WILLIAMS, Chief Judge.
Pinetree Partners, Ltd. (Pinetree), as debtor and debtor in possession, commenced the instant adversary proceeding against OTR and State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio (STRS) wherein Pi-netree seeks to subordinate or recharacterize the claims of OTR and the return of moneys paid by Pinetree to OTR. OTR denies both the factual and legal bases of Pinetree’s allegations and has further alleged that Pinetree is equitably estopped by its conduct from raising these issues.
A four day trial was held at which time evidence was introduced and arguments of counsel were heard. Upon conclusion of the trial, the parties submitted to the court proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
FACTS
1. Pinetree, an Ohio Limited Partnership, was formed in late 1982 to acquire real property consisting of land in Albuquerque, New Mexico, upon which five office buildings, known as the Pinetree Office Park (Project), are situated.
2. CIDCO Partners One (CIDCO), an Ohio General Partnership, is the sole general partner of Pinetree. Thomas P. Slavin (Slavin) and Robert Messing (Messing) are the sole general partners of CIDCO.
3. STRS manages a retirement fund created by the Ohio state legislature for the benefit of present and former Ohio teachers. Ohio Rev.Code Section 3307.01 et seq. OTR is an Ohio general partnership that was formed to facilitate investments of
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: In Matter PINETREE, OTR
**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": "br_87/html/0481-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,267,616 |
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: iced opposition to the election of the judge appears in the judge’s courtroom. Flamm, Judicial Disqualification (1996) 194, Section 6.4.3. See, e.g., Pierce v. Chanty Hosp. of Louisiana at New Orleans (La.App.1989), 550 So.2d 211, 214-215 (“A judge is often in the position of handling matters which involve an attorney w
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_117/html/1233-01.html__-3342839921581570618",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,890,154 |
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: Andrews v. Varvel.
February 13, 1951.
A. J. Bratcher, Judge.
Arthur T. Iler and Meredith, Iler & Logan for appellant.
Russell O’Neill for appellee.
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_314/html/0627-01.html__-3836448888342986913",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,418,900 |
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:
Suttle v. Batie.
“Where on the trial of a cause, the defendant, at a term of court, to which no petit jury had been summoned, demanded a trial by jury, which jury was summoned from the bystanders by order of the court, to which defendant objected, but some of which jurors, when called, he challenged; Held, that the record disclosed no such error in the impanneling of the jury, as will Warrant a reversal of the judgment.
The Code makes no express provision for a challenge to the panel of the petit jury, 'in a civil, although it does in a criminal, case.
Whether a challenge to the array of petit jurors, will lie in a civil case, qtiere ?
Appeal from the Lucas District Court.
This action originated before a justice of tbe peace, on an account, by whom judgment was rendered for tbe plaintiff. Tbe defendant appealed to tbe District Court, and when tbe cause was called for trial, demanded a jury. No petit jury baring been returned for that term, tbe court ordered a jury to be summoned by tbe sheriff from tbe bystanders. Tbe defendant objected to any jury, except tbe regular panel. A jury was afterwards summoned from tbe bystanders by tbe sheriff, and defendant challenged a- part of this jury, so selected, and went to trial without further objection. A verdict was rendered for plaintiff, upon which judgment was entered. Tbe defendant appeals, and seeks to reverse tbe judgment, on tbe ground that tbe jury was improperly im-panneled.
J. D. Neal, for appellant.
J. Baker, for appellee.
Isbell, J.
Tbe several specifications of error in this case, all resolve themselves into tbe question, whether tbe record discloses such error in tbe impanneling of tbe jury, as will warrant a reversal of this case ? We think it does not. A jury in all respects qualified to determine tbe dearest rights known to tbe law, is but “ twelve men, accepted and sworn, to try tbe issue.” See Code, § 2971. Our law makes no express provision for a challenge to tbe panel in a civi
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Suttle, Batie
**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": "iowa_1/html/0141-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,548,381 |
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:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jay E. ROGERS, aka Jay Edward Rogers, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-50383.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 12, 2007.
Filed Aug. 6, 2007.
Becky S. Walker, Esq., Jennifer Corbett, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Donald B. Marks, Esq., Marks & Brooklier, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and SANDOVAL , District Judge.
The Honorable Brian E. Sandoval, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
MEMORANDUM
Jay Rogers (Rogers) challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress incriminating statements and evidence allegedly obtained in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Rogers also challenges his 70-month sentence for possession of child pornography.
The district court did not err in denying Rogers’ motion to suppress. First, Rogers was not in custody and thus not entitled to Miranda warnings. See United States v. Crawford, 372 F.3d 1048, 1059 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc). Second, because Rogers was not subjected to custodial interrogation, the right to counsel, articulated in Miranda, does not apply. See United States v. Washington, 462 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir.2006). Finally, Rogers’ consent to search his computer and his apartment was voluntary. See United States v. Crapser, 472 F.3d 1141, 1149 (9th Cir.2007).
With respect to Rogers’ sentence, the district court explicitly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Mohamed, 459 F.3d 979, 985 (9th Cir.2006) (stating that “the record on appeal [must] demonstrate[ ] explicit or implicit consideration of the sentencing factors set forth in § 3553(a)”) (citations omitted). Considering the circumstances of the present offense, the district court’s sentence was “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to comport with the goals of sentenc
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: UNITED STATES America, Jay 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": "f-appx_235/html/0536-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,163,433 |
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: re, Appellate Rule 15(F), to assess damages against House not exceeding 10% of the judgment. We believe this case is controlled by American Savings & Loan v. Hoosier State Bank (1975), 167 Ind. App. 43, 337 N.E.2d 486 (handed down November 26, 1975), wherein the court said:
“. . . An award of damages pursuant to AP. 15(F) is
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": "ind-app_167/html/0449-01.html__1464796632573915786",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,221,743 |
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: 968). See B. Bittker & J. Eustice, Federal Income Taxation of Corporations and Shareholders ' 13.01 at 13-3—13-4 (4th ed. 1979).
. As the Supreme Court stated in Commissioner v. Gordon, 391 U.S. 83, 91-94, 88 S.Ct. 1517, 1521-1523, 20 L.Ed.2d 448 (1968),
Section 355 provides that certain distributions of corporations controlle
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_630/html/1169-01.html__5296780882274860684",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 78,791 |
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: ders, Tex.Civ.App., 144 S.W. 693; United States v. 2477.79 acres, 5th Cir., 259 F.2d 23, 27; West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. v. United States, 4 Cir., 200 F.2d 100, 104; 4 Nichols, Em.Domain (3rd ed.) Sec. 14.3, pp. 426-439; Rayburn, Texas Law of Condemnation, pp. 455-460; Orgel, Valuation Under Em.Domain, Sec.
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_350/html/0208-01.html__2519817950752398415",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 417,888 |
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:
Daniel Dolan et al., Respondents, v. The Newburgh, Dutchess and Connecticut Railroad Company, Appellant.
The provisions of the General Railroad Act (Chap. 140, Laws of 1850, as amended by § 8, chap. 282, Laws of 1854) requiring railroad corporations to construct and maintain fences on the sides of their roads, and mailing them, in case of failure so to do, liable for damages to any cattle, horses, etc., thereon, does not require such a corporation to indemnify the owner of a team, who has voluntarily driven it on the lands of the corporation and has negligently permitted it to escape onto the track, in front of a moving train.
Defendants road, at a point where it runs east and west, was constructed on a strip of land in front of a grist-mill on the south side of the track, which strip was conveyed to it by the then owners of the mill property for a right of way. The platform of the mill was four feet ten inches south of the south line of the strip. The only approach to the mill was. by a lane leading from a highway north of the track, which lane crossed the track and terminated at the mill. Teams, in approaching the mill, and while standing at the platform, occupy part of the strip. East and west of the mill and on the north side of the road, except where the lane-crosses it, it is fenced. The conveyance to defendant contained a covenant, on defendant’s part, to leave the land opposite the mill unfenced, so as to permit free passage to and from it. Plaintiffs’ agent drove their team to the mill and left it standing unattended at the platform and partly on the strip. The horses escaped, ran upon-the railroad tracks, and were killed by a passing train. In an action, under said statutory provision, to recover the damages, held (Vann. Bradley and Brown, JJ., dissenting), that the court erred in refusing to hold that, under the exception contained in said provision, which declares that “no railroad corporation shall be required to fence the sides of its roads except when such fence is necessary to protect
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Daniel Dolan, The Newburgh
**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": "ny_120/html/0571-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 759,383 |
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: ch provides all transcripts taken in court proceedings will be accepted only if they are certified by a court reporter who holds a valid certificate. See Pullam v. Fulhright, 285 Ark. 152, 685 S.W.2d 151 (1985). However, because this is a criminal case, we will direct the Supreme Court Clerk to accept the transcript in 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:
|
CITES_POSITIVELY
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "ark_345/html/0359-01.html__7114026746237678123",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 633,590 |
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 deliberately withheld, but no explanation was offered for the failure to raise the claims earlier. (Id., at p. 379, fn. 3 [78 L.Ed.2d at p. 544].)
While a major concern of the court was that the second habeas corpus petition in Woodward v. Hutchins, supra, had been filed on the eve of execution, the court’s statement that failure to include all claims in the original petition was an abuse 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": "cal-4th_5/html/0750-01.html__2003365396950897158",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,197,885 |
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:
Anderson to use v. Long, Appellant.
Practice, C. P. — Depositions—Parties—Suit to use.
1. Where in an action of assumpsit the plaintiff is designated as “David R. Perkinpine, Assignee of Percy Anderson,” and subsequently the name of the party plaintiff is amended by leave of court so as to read “Percy Anderson to the use of David R. Perkinpine,” and it appears that at the trial the claim had been assigned prior to the beginning of the suit without fraud, the testimony of the use plaintiff as to the consideration of the assignment and matters of defense taken on deposition, is admissible, although the deposition was taken after the amendment. In such a case the use plaintiff took no better right of action than his assignor had, and all defenses that could be urged against the assignor applied with equal force to the use plaintiff.
Practice, C. P. — Commissions—Production of plaintiff for cross-examination.
2. Where á commission to take testimony has been issued by plaintiff after exceptions to interrogatories had been passed upon, the defendant cannot demand, three weeks before the trial, that the witness examined under the commission be produced at the trial for cross-examination, where it appears that such witness was in London, England, at the time the demand was made, and that there was ample time for the defendant to have issued his own commission, if he was not satisfied that the matters in dispute had not been fully covered under the plaintiff’s commission.
Practice, C. P. — Commissions—Evidence—Opening of commission.
3. A commission to take testimony executed in England and stamped on its return with the words “Supposed liable to custom duties” will not be rejected at the trial because it was opened by the deputy prothonotary and customs officers.
Practice, C. P. — Commissions—Evidence—Jurat.
4. Where a deposition under a commission shows that the witness was “duly sworn and examined on the part of the plaintiff,” on a date giv
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Anderson, Long
**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-super_56/html/0183-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 595,840 |
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:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Kevin BATTS, a/k/a K-Smooth, Defendant—Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Christopher M. Brown, Defendant—Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mario L. Allen, Defendant—Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Kevin Langston, a/k/a Little One, Defendant—Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Antoine D. Allen, a/k/a Ski, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-5048, 04-5049, 04-5050, 04-5051, 04-5052.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued Feb. 3, 2006.
Decided March 21, 2006.
ARGUED: Charles Manley Allen, Jr., Goodman, Allen & Filetti, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellants. Roderick Charles Young, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Carolyn V. Grady, Epperly & Follis, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant Christopher M. Brown; Jeffrey L. Everhart, Rice, Everhart & Baber, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant Mario L. Allen; Samuel P. Simpson, V, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant Kevin Langston; James Mark Nachman, Nachman & Kaufman, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant Antoine D. Allen. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Michael J. Elston, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Batts, Christopher Brown, Kevin Langston, Mario Men, and Mtoine Men appeal their convictions and sentences for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) conspiracy and conspiracy to distribute cocaine base. We affirm the convictions. Applying United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), we vacate the sentences of Batts, Brown, and Langston and remand t
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: UNITED STATES America, Kevin BATTS
**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_171/html/0977-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,080,190 |
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: Although all three cases were decided in the context of the employer/employee relationship, the same rules apply to the principal/agent relationship. See Burnett v. Lewis, 40 Ga. App. 525, 528 (150 SE 462) (1929).
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hyer v. C&S Nat. Bank &c., 188 Ga. App. 452, 453
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": "ga-app_274/html/0242-01.html__-3040043360924641979",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 815,466 |
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:
663 S.E.2d 553
Donald Lee CAISON, Jr. v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.
Record No. 1405-07-4.
Court of Appeals of Virginia, Alexandria.
July 29, 2008.
Dawn M. Butorac, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.
Donald E. Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney General (Robert F. McDonnell, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: CLEMENTS and KELSEY, JJ., and ANNUNZIATA, Senior Judge.
JEAN HARRISON CLEMENTS, Judge.
Donald Lee Caison, Jr., (appellant) was convicted in a jury trial of manslaughter, in violation of Code § 18.2-35. On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a recording of a 911 call and in finding the evidence sufficient to support his conviction. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment and appellant’s conviction.
I. BACKGROUND
“On appeal, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom.” Zoretic v. Commonwealth, 13 Va.App. 241, 242, 409 S.E.2d 832, 833 (1991) (citing Higginbotham v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975)). Viewed by that standard, the evidence demonstrates that around 2:00 a.m. on May 24, 2006, appellant met Katie McLachlan in front of her home at 1103 Clarke Street in Herndon, Virginia. In his pocket, appellant carried an unopened 40-ounce beer bottle. As appellant and McLachlan walked toward her house, they encountered McLachlan’s roommate, Maria Gann, and her boyfriend, William Green. After McLachlan introduced appellant to Green, Green punched appellant in the nose. Appellant then fled, and Green pursued him. McLachlan and Gann followed the two men. During the chase, appellant dropped the 40-ounce beer bottle on the street. Moments later, Green caught up to appellant and a struggle ensued between the men. At some point during the affray, appellant stabbed Green with a knife. Appellant immediately fled from the scene.
After appellant fled, McLachlan and Gann carried Green, who appear
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Donald Lee CAISON, COMMONWEALTH Virginia
**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": "va-app_52/html/0423-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,668,719 |
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:
Henry J. Farrell vs. Philip Fabel, impleaded, etc.
July 17, 1891.
Bond — Undisclosed Condition as to Delivery. — Where a bond, complete on its face, has been actually delivered, the obligee cannot be affected by an agreement between the principal and the surety, not communicated to the obligee, that the bond should not take effect until executed by another surety. Following Berkey v. Judd, 34 Minn. 393.
Same — Answer of Surety held Bad. — The answer held insufficient, because not alleging that the agreement between the principal and the surety was known to the obligee at or before the delivery of the bond.
Appeal by defendant Fabel from an order of the district court for Bamsey county, Brill, -L, presiding, refusing a new trial after verdict of $840 directed for plaintiff. The bond sued on recites the pend-ency of an action between Michael B. Farrell, as plaintiff, and Patrick O’Dea as defendant, in the district court for Bamsey county, having for its object the proper distribution between the parties of $790 paid to O’Dea by the United States on certain contracts, and provides that “if the said plaintiff recover judgment against said defendant, if said defendant shall pay said judgment so recovered, then the above obligation to be void, otherwise to remain in full force.” The complaint alleges and the answer admits that M. B. Farrell recovered judgment in the action against O’Dea, on April 18, 1890, for $967.39, and on the next day the judgment and bond were assigned to plaintiff.
John W. White, for appellant.
P. J. McLaughlin and McLaughlin é Morrison, for respondent.
Mitchell, J.
This action was brought upon a bond executed to one Farrell, plaintiff’s assignor, by defendant O’Dea as principal, and defendant Fabel as surety, and delivered by Sling it, pursuant to an order of court, on July 29, 1889. The bond was complete on its face. The answer of Fabel admits the execution of the bond, but alleges that he did so upon the condition that O’Dea should obtain o
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Bond Undisclosed Condition, Judd
**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_47/html/0011-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,613,469 |
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 Roger Ackley, Petitioner, v Barbara Blum, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.
— Petition granted and determination unanimously annulled, without costs. Memorandum: This is a proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review, vacate and annul respondents’ determination rendered after a fair hearing, which affirmed a determination of the Monroe County Department of Social Services discontinuing petitioner’s public assistance grant and imposing a 30-day sanction upon a finding that petitioner failed, without good cause, to accept manpower services and seek certification for vocational or rehabilitation training. Petitioner has been a recipient of public assistance from the Monroe County Department of Social Services in the category of home relief since September, 1975. Without referral from the agency he voluntarily sought assistance at the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation and under their auspices attended Rochester Institute of Technology. He terminated his schooling in December, 1977 without having obtained a degree but continued to seek assistance from the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation in an effort to locate employment. In June, 1978 the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation sent petitioner a letter advising him to report to its office or to make an appointment to report. He did neither. The Office of Vocational Rehabilitation then closed petitioner’s case because of his failure to make an appointment, a necessary condition for his continued eligibility for public assistance. Petitioner requested a fair hearing. The only proof offered at the hearing was inter and intra agency communications which had to do with petitioner’s case and the fact that he did not respond to the June, 1978 letter. The fair hearing representative for Monroe County Department of Social Services gave hearsay and conclusory testimony. He spoke with a supervisor at the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation, not to petitioner’s counselor. The agency off
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: In Matter Roger, Barbara Blum
**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_73/html/0812-02.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,425,488 |
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. The strange intimation to the contrary in the-dissenting opinion in the Gates case (155 N. Y. 234) is the first that seems ever to have been made (Cady v. Brooklyn Hnion, 23 Misc. Rep. 409). The plaintiff evidently relies wholly on proof of general damage, for he has not pleaded any special damage, viz..., the complai
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_30/html/0232-01.html__2116315350741011007",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 172,086 |
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: LANGAN v. WARREN AXE & TOOL CO.
(Circuit Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.
June 25, 1910.)
No. 11.
1. Patents (§ 168)—Construction—Effect of Proceedings in Patent
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_181/html/0143-01.html__4215187564765070341",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,749,848 |
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: that the conversion was complete before the sale of the property to the plaintiff. (Farrington v. Payne, 15 John. 431; Murray v. Burling, 10 id. 172; Mitchel v. Williams, 4 Hill 13.) The right of action, therefore, being complete before the sale, and being a right *of action r*nqr for a tort, it could not be assigned
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_2/html/0293-01.html__4470531387181847312",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 275,512 |
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:
Randy HALEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 2D00-4064.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Feb. 28, 2001.
PER CURIAM.
Randy Haley appeals the summary denial of his postconviction motion. In his motion, Haley alleged that he was sentenced as a habitual offender during the Heggs window and that his gain time was illegally reduced under chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, because Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000), invalidated chapter 95-184 in its entirety. We affirm the order of the trial court. Appellant must first present his claim administratively to the Department of Corrections; if he is dissatisfied with the result, he can file a petition for writ of mandamus in the circuit court in the county where he is incarcerated. See Clements v. State, 761 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Newsome v. Singletary, 637 So.2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
Affirmed.
NORTHCUTT, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., and CAMPBELL, MONTEREY, (Senior) Judge, Concur.
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Randy HALEY, 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_787/html/0059-02.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,937,049 |
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:
Jonathan Klein, Respondent, v Man Sui, Appellant.
[17 NYS3d 818]
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Michael L. D’Amico, A.J.), entered April 24, 2014. The order granted the motion of plaintiff for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.
It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff, a police officer employed by the Town of Amherst, commenced this action pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e seeking damages for injuries he sustained while chasing and apprehending defendant, who had fled on foot from the scene of a traffic stop. Following joinder of issue, plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, and Supreme Court granted the motion. We affirm.
General Municipal Law § 205-e permits police officers to bring a private cause of action for injuries resulting from a tortfeasor’s noncompliance with “any of the statutes, ordinances, rules, orders and requirements of the federal, state, county, village, town or city governments.” To assert a cause of action under the statute, the injured police officer “must [1] identify the statute or ordinance with which the defendant failed to comply, [2] describe the manner in which the [police officer] was injured, and [3] set forth those facts from which it may be inferred that the defendant’s negligence directly or indirectly caused the harm” (Gammons v City of New York, 24 NY3d 562, 570 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Williams v City of New York, 2 NY3d 352, 363 [2004]; Giuffrida v Citibank Corp., 100 NY2d 72, 77-78 [2003]).
Here, there is no dispute that plaintiff identified the statute violated by defendant, who pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct, and that he sufficiently described the manner in which he was injured (see Baiamonte v Buongiovanni, 207 AD2d 324, 324-325 [1994]). The dispute is whether plaintiff established as a matter of law that defendant’s actions caused his injury, either directly or indirectly a
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Jonathan Klein, Man Sui
**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_132/html/1358-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,877,171 |
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-Penzel case was cited in Medlock v. Owen, 105 Ark. 460, 151 S. W. 995, Harrison v. Harvey, 202 Ark. 486, 150 S. W. 2d 758, and in other decisions. In Pierce v. Jones, 207 Ark. 139, 179 S. W. 2d 454, stress was placed upon the rule that where the public used a road through open and unfenced lands — there having bee
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_224/html/0622-01.html__-1663541161801662597",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 605,129 |
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: esumption, but not an absolute condition of repayment. Under the evidence in the case, clear on Dr. Williamson’s part and ambiguous on Dr. Worlund’s (Gulden v. Newberry Wrecker Service, 154 Ga. App. 130, 131 (267 SE2d 763)), it is not reasonable to infer that Dr. Williamson advanced Dr. Worlund nearly $12,000 (which advance was base
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": "ga-app_164/html/0300-01.html__3124452927686957657",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 5,097,734 |
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: STATE of Louisiana v. Brandon BRUE.
No. 2010-K-1317.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Jan. 7, 2011.
In re Brue, Brandon; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Re
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": "so3d_52/html/0883-02.html__-6413514900809107562",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,267,981 |
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 BROOKLYN INSTITUTE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK and Rudolph W. Giuliani, individually and in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of New York, Defendants.
No. 99 CV 6071.
United States District Court, E.D. New York.
Nov. 1, 1999.
Floyd Abrams, Susan Buckley, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, New York City, for Plaintiff.
Michael D. Hess, Leonard Koerner, City of New York Law Dept., New York City, for Defendants.
Opinion and Order
GERSHON, District Judge.
The Mayor of the City of New York has decided that a number of works in the Brooklyn Museum’s currently showing temporary exhibit “Sensation: Young British Artists from the Saatchi Collection” are “sick” and “disgusting” and, in particular, that one work, a painting entitled “The Holy Virgin Mary” by Chris Ofili, is offensive to Catholics and is an attack on religion. As a result, the City has withheld funds already appropriated to the Museum for operating expenses and maintenance and, in a suit filed in New York State Supreme Court two days after the Museum filed its suit in this court, seeks to eject the Museum from the City-owned land and building in which the Museum’s collections have been housed for over one hundred years.
The Museum seeks a preliminary injunction barring the imposition of penalties by the Mayor and the City for the Museum’s exercise of its First Amendment rights. The City and the Mayor move-to dismiss the Museum’s suit in this court, insofar as it seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, on the ground that this court must abstain from exercising jurisdiction in favor of the New York court action, in which, they argue, the Museum may assert, by way of defense and counterclaim, its First Amendment claims. For the reasons that follow, defendants’ motion is denied, and plaintiffs motion is granted.
BACKGROUND
An examination of the history of the Brooklyn Museum and its relationship to the City of New York will illuminate the current controversy.
I. The History of the Brookly
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: THE BROOKLYN INSTITUTE, THE CITY OF
**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-2d_64/html/0184-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,051,708 |
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: he money by a sale of the land, that it was not subjeci to levy and sale. Leavitt v. Smith et al. 7 Ala. 176, 185; 4 Mass. Rep. 498; 2 N. H. Rep. 83; The Governor v. Gibson, at this term.
6. An officer who returns on an execution that he has levied it upon a tract of land, and sold it for a specific sum, but that 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": "ala_14/html/0541-01.html__-5043848892679367958",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,616,954 |
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:
Case 71 — PETITION EQUITY
October 9.
Johnson v. Kessler, &c.
APPEAL PROM PULASKI CIRCUIT COURT;
Homestead. — Where husband and wife own jointly property in which a right of homestead exists, the husband, as against, his debt, is entitled to have the entire homestead allotted to him out of his interest. The wife’s interest can not be required to contribute to make up the homestead which the statute exempts to the husband out'of his property.
MORROW and NEWELL por appellant.
Whore land is held jointly by husband and wife; the whole must contribute to make up the homestead exemption to the husband. (Giblin v. Jordan, 6 Cal., 417; Lowell v. Shannon, 60 Iowa, 713; Miles v. Hall, 12 Bush, 105-9.)
CURD and WADDLE por appellee.
When the husband and wife own jointly property occupied as a homestead, the husband’s homestead exemption must be carved out of his interest only.
JUDGE HOLT
delivered the opinion op the court.
Tlie appellees, J. F. and Susan Kessler, are bus-band and wife. Prior to the creation of the appellant Johnson’s debt upon the husband, they owned jointly, by inheritance from their deceased daughter, a house and lot, which does not admit of division without sacrifice. The wife is not liable for the debt nor is her property. During the pendency of the suit in the lower court the entire property was, by agreement of parties, sold, the proceeds to remain the subject of the litigation. It brought seventeen hundred dollars. It is agreed that it was worth no more.
It is conceded that a right of homestead in the property existed. The appellee, J. F. Kessler, occupied it as a housekeeper with his family prior to the creation of the appellant’s debt, and continued to do so up to the time of this effort to subject it to its payment.
The question presented is, whether the homestead is to be carved out of the entire property, or whether the wife is entitled to her interest, leaving the residue subject to the homestead right. In other words, must each joint owner’s interest c
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Johnson, Kessler
**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": "ky_87/html/0458-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,021,026 |
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: other cases, see Injunction, Cent. Dig. §§ 474-477, 480-483; Dec. Dig. § 225.*]
9. Contempt (§ 9*)—Obstruction of Administration of Justice.
Under Iiev. St. § 725 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 583), authorizing United States courts to punish contempts of their authority, but providing that such power shall n
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_207/html/0434-01.html__16020078439097526",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,756,188 |
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:
Samuel S. Willard versus Henry Sheafe and Trustee.
A contingent credit is not subject to a foreign attachment
Benjamin Smith, who was summoned in this action, September 8th, 1807, as the trustee of the defendant, Sheafe, disclosed, on his examination, the following facts, viz.: That he sailed in the month of February, 1807, in the schooner Boston, as master, with a cargo of sundry articles, belonging to Zadoc French, Henry Sheafe, and himself, one third each, to Martinique, where he arrived some time in March following; where he disposed of the cargo, with the exception of certain articles, which he specifies, and which he left in the hands of certain merchants in Port Royal, and took their receipts for the same as received by them of him, to sell on his account and risk, the proceeds to be subject to this order; that he then returned to Boston with a cargo, the proceeds of that part of his outward cargo, which he had disposed of as aforesaid, and delivered the same to Z. French, as ship’s husband or agent, who sold it, and accounted to him for his third part thereof; that he again sailed in the same schooner for Martinique, in August, 1807, arrived there in September, and, in October, received payment in sugar for the articles he had left in the preceding voyage, as before stated; that, on his return to Boston, in December of the same year, he delivered the said sugar to said French, who still acted as agent; that Sheafe never gave him directions to deliver the sugar to any person; * that the same was sold by French for [ * 236 ] five hundred sixty-four dollars and seventy-five cents; that he, Smith, also paid over to French a small balance in cash, due from him to Sheafe.
The question upon these facts, viz., whether Smith was the trustee, of Sheafe on the 8th of September, 1807, the date of the service of the process upon him, was briefly argued by Channing for the plaintiff, and Gray for the trustee, and the opinion of the Court afterwards delivered to the following effect by
Parsons,
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_4/html/0210-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,142,167 |
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: app. denied 535 N.E.2d 915, 129 Ill.Dec. 150 (1989) (general statements and guidelines for discipline could not reasonably be construed as an offer); Mursch v. Van Doren Co., 851 F.2d 990 (7th Cir.1988) (repeated use of non-mandatory language evinces a clear intent not to create a binding agreement).
For this reason, Ch
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_731/html/0311-01.html__567053513792643731",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,341,510 |
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:
Jonathan J. Coddington, and Joseph C. Coddington, who were impleaded in the Court below with John F. Randolph, and Josiah Savage, Appellants, against Thomas Bay, Respondent.
A person receivmg nego= fiable paper, us“of ^ndf“lalua able considean^agen/^or fact01"> having no authority to transfer ívhbout know-J.edge of tl?at of the fraud, against the ^u^whére ^ as agent, notes, to be re^’¡“dpa^ and passed them to the defendant* as security against responsibilities assumed by him# as endorser of the notes of Í?.3 and the maker of notes lent for his accommodation, but not then payable, and the defendant had no notice or knowledge that the notes belonged to the plaintiff, but believed that they be« longed^ to R,3 who had become insolvent at the time he received them : Held} that the notes iiot being received in the usual course of trade, nor for a present considerations the defendant Was not entitled to hold them against the true owner»
APPEAL from the Court of Chancery. The bill, filed June 15, 1819, by the respondent against the appellants, stated, that in April, 1819, being the owner of a vessel ed the Express, he employed R. 8/ S., who were merchants and copartners in trade, in New- York, to sell her, on a eredit, and instructed them to take good approved notes in payment, and to transmit them forthwith to him, with an - u ’no account of their charges, which should be immediately paid, with which instructions R. 8f S, engaged to comply. That R. 8f S. sold the vessel for 3,875 dollars, and on the 3d of June, 1819., received from the purchasers six promissorjr notes, dated May 5, 1819, at two, four, and six months, payable to R. 8f S., or order, which they refused to deliver to the respondent. That R. 8f S. became insolvent, and delivered the notes to the appellants, J. J", 8f J. G. Codding-fore, who were under large advances and responsibilities for JR. Sf S. The bill charged, that the appellants, when they received the notes of R. Sf S., knew that they had been S’ven payment for the vessel belonging to
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": "johns_20/html/0637-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,411,026 |
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: WITTEN v. STATE.
(No. 3791.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Nov. 24, 1915.
Dissenting Opinion Dec. 8, 1915.)
Cbiminai. Law ¡&wkey;829 — Ven
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": "sw_180/html/0671-01.html__-8215161000420366844",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,611,766 |
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:
DONAHUE et al. v. DAVIS et al.
Supreme Court of Florida, Special Division B.
Sept. 22, 1953.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 4, 1953.
Anderson & Nadeau, Miami, for appellants.
Sibley & Davis, Ellis, Ervin & Wakeman and W. F. Parker, Miami, for George N. Davis and Joseph O’Connell in proper person for Joseph O’Connell and O’Connell Inv. Co., appellees.
R. P. Terry, Miami, for intervenor Marion Brooks. . :
SEBRING, Justice.
The appellants, who were the plaintiffs in the court below, instituted this suit in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, against the appellees for the purpose of .establishing a joint .venture contract alleged to have been entered into, by the parties and for an accounting. The decree in the cause was in favor .of the defendants and the plaintiffs appealed.
The complaint in the cause alleged, in substance, that early in 1945 the defendants, George N. Davis and Joseph O’Con-nell, induced the plaintiffs to participate in a joint venture, the object of which was the purchase and sale of a certain tract of real property at a profit. The O’Con-nell Investment Company was incorporated as a Florida corporation by the individual plaintiffs and defendants for the express purpose of acquiring and holding title to the lands acquired in the venture for the benefit of the four parties. As part of the contract between the parties it was agreed that each of them ■ would ■ contribute -one-fourth of the purchase price for the property and receive one-fourtK of the capital stock of the corporation. - Fursuant-to this arrangement the land was acquired and deeded to the corporation.
The defendant George N. Davis represented to his coadventurers that he had acquired title to the land at a price of $15 an acre, and agreed that he would convey the land to the corporation for the consideration he had paid for it, the amount paid by him to be adjusted to his contribution of one-fourth of the purchase price. Based upon the representations as to the cost thereof, the land was conveyed
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: DONAHUE, DAVIS
**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_68/html/0163-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,904,253 |
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:
Ruth Hubbell, Individually and as Executrix of Samuel N. Hubbell, Deceased, Appellant, v Trans World Life Insurance Company of New York, Respondent.
— In an action to recover damages by reason of defendant’s bad faith and unlawful conduct in dealing with plaintiff’s claim under an insurance policy, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 25, 1978, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 7). Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. In a prior action on the insurance policy which is the subject of this action plaintiff recovered the benefits payable thereunder when this court reversed an order of Special Term and granted plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment in the full amount of the policy (Hubbell v Trans World Life Ins. Co. of N. Y., 54 AD2d 94). Thereafter plaintiff commenced the instant action to recover compensatory, special and punitive damages from the defendant for breach of its obligation to perform in good faith with respect to the life insurance policy it issued to the plaintiff, and for its commission of unfair and deceptive acts in dealing with plaintiff’s claim in order to avoid liability therefor. A claim for punitive damages may not form the basis for a separate action where, as in the case at bar, it is an element of the single total claim for damages for which recovery was already had in a prior action cast in breach of contract and where the breach involved a private wrong and not a public right (see Garrity v Lyle Stuart, Inc., 40 NY2d 354; cf. Knibbs v Wagner, 14 AD2d 987). Moreover, the allegations in the complaint in support of plaintiff’s claim for the relief requested failed to demonstrate the existence of an adequate legal basis for the maintenance of an action for punitive damages against the defendant insurance company, to wit: that defendant as an insurer had engaged in fraudulent, criminal or dishonest acts or practices affecting the general public and not merely
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Ruth Hubbell, Trans World Life
**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_70/html/0949-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,423,991 |
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: themselves to regulate the disposition of costs. (Code Civ. Pro. § 1280; Kingsland v. Mayor, etc., 42 Hun, 599; U. N. Bank v. Kupper, 63 N. Y. 617 ; Fish v. Coster, 28 Hun, 64; 92 N. Y. 627.)
O’Brien, J.
The question involved in this appeal is the right of the defendant to' an additional allowance of costs,
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_133/html/0239-01.html__-4937165809721371675",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 264,583 |
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: y who has ceased to be a member of the Association from further practicing law in Puerto Rico.
A similar situation arose in the State of California. In the case of Carpenter v. The State Bar, 211 Cal. 358 (295 Pac. 23), it was held as follows:
“The section of the State Bar Act (Stats. 1927, p. 38) involved, •so far as here material, is a
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_51/html/0512-01.html__-1456040634765628652",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,326,836 |
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:
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. Douglas Amos BERTLING, Defendant.
Civ. A. No. B-89-376-CA.
United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division.
Nov. 27, 1990.
T. Alan Hart, Jasper, Tex., and Kip Kevin Lamb, Benckenstein, Oxford & Johnson, Beaumont, Tex., for plaintiff.
Gary H. Gatlin, Seale, Stover, Coffield & Gatlin, Jasper, Tex., and Robert E. De-Long, Jr., Morgan & DeLong, Huntsville, Tex., for defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
COBB, District Judge.
7. Factual Background
Plaintiff, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as conservator of Deep East Texas Savings Association (Deep East), has moved for summary judgment of dismissal of Defendant Douglas Amos Ber-tling’s (Bertling) defenses and counterclaims. For the reasons as set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is granted.
This lawsuit seeks to recover a deficiency judgment on a promissory note. The following facts are undisputed. On May 1, 1986, Bertling borrowed two hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($275,000.00) from Deep East. He signed a note for that sum which was payable on or before May 1, 2006, with interest at the rate of eleven and one-half percent (11.50%) per annum.
Bertling also executed and delivered a Deed of Trust securing the real and personal property described in said Deed of Trust.
Bertling defaulted under the terms of the Note and Deed of Trust. On November 18, 1987, Deep East gave Bertling notice of his default and notice that, if Ber-tling had not cured the default by a specific date, Deep East would accelerate the entire indebtedness. Bertling failed and refused to cure the default and on December 21, 1987, Deep East gave notice of acceleration and notice of foreclosure on the collateral. On January 22, 1988, the Trustee posted notices of sale and forwarded a true copy by certified mail to Bertling.
On March 1, 1988, the date stated in the notice, the collateral was sold at public auction. The sale
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE, Douglas Amos BERTLING
**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_751/html/1235-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,585,976 |
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: page 1092 of the session laws. Except where otherwise noted, all other statutory references in this opinion are to RSMo (2000).
. In England v. Eckley, 330 S.W.2d 738 (Mo. banc 1960), the Supreme Court held that “necessity,” as used in section 162.431's predecessor statute, was initially a political
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_237/html/0237-01.html__-5000280334056093597",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 342,216 |
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: d to say that appellee would have derived no -benefit from a completion of its contract, for that is no concern of its. Letot v. Edens, 49 S. W. 109; Chapman v. Clements (Ky.) 56 S. W. 646; Gayton v. Day, 178 Fed. 249, 101 C. C. A. 609. Appellant received from appellee property of the value of $3,700, for which it unde
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": "sw_163/html/0311-01.html__5773779165117548480",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,608,559 |
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:
SMITH v. STATE.
(No. 5952.)
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
April 6, 1921.)
1. Criminal law &wkey;742(2) — Whether witness is accomplice is for jury if facts are disputed or susceptible to different inferences.
Where the facts with respect to the participation of a witness in a crime are clear and undisputed, it is for the court to determine whether or not he is an accomplice;, hut that question is to be decided by the jury where the facts tending to connect the witness with the crime are disputed or susceptible of different inferences. •
2. Criminal law &wkey;>742(2) — Whether witness was real or feigned accomplice is for court if evidence is undisputed.
Whether a witness who participated in the crime was only a feigned accomplice, as claimed by the state, is a question for the court, where the facts are clear and undisputed and not susceptible of any inferences other than.that of innocent intent.
3. Criminal law <&wkey;780(2) — Uncorroborated testimony of witness that he was feigned accomplice does not require submission of question to jury.
Where a witness who admittedly participated in the offense claimed to have been only a feigned accomplice, hut there was no evidence of that fact except his own testimony, though other evidence would have been available if it was true, it was error to refuse requested instructions submitting to the jury the question whether that witness was an accomplice whose testimony needed corroboration. Code Cr. Proc. 1911, art. 801.
' Appeal from District Court, Houston County; John S. Prince, Judge.
H. S. Smith was convicted of bribery, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Adams & Adams, of Crockett, and Garrison, Pollard, Morris & Berry, of Houston, for appellant.
Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
MORROW, P. J.
Conviction is for bribery ; punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of four years.
It was charged that appellant sought to bribe the County Superintendent of Publ
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: SMITH, 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": "sw_229/html/0523-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,731,175 |
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: irl, and her child, levied upon, as alleged in plaintiff’s petition, until the decision of the Supreme Court has been rendered in the case of John B. Banks v. Wesley Smith, defendant, and John A. Green, trustee, claimant, taken by appeal to said Supreme Court, by the said John A. Green ; and that the plaintiff’s petitio
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": "tex_24/html/0522-01.html__6594602959985472029",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,140,984 |
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: , under the principle that a cause of action for taxes for one year is not the same or identical to a cause of action for taxes for subsequent years, Turn Verein Lincoln v. Paschen, 20 Ill.2d 229; People v. Levy Circulating Co. 17 Ill.2d 168; Chicago Historical Society v. Paschen, 9 Ill.2d 378.
We are cognizant of that principl
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-2d_24/html/0457-01.html__-2791178994780845146",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,385,111 |
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: tnesses. The current or market value of property at the time of conversion, with interest from that time until trial, is the true measure of damages. See Buydmn v. Jenlcins, 3 Saudf. [N. Y.], 614.
Harrison, C. J.
The defendant in error, it appears, was on October 10, 1890, the owner of an endowment limited payment po
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": "neb_59/html/0124-01.html__-4478904611797402612",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,518,046 |
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: MARTIN K. EBY CONSTRUCTION CO., Appellant v. LAN/STV, A Joint Venture of Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc. and STV Incorporated, Appellees.
No. 05-09-00946-CV.
Court of Appeals of Texas, Dall
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_350/html/0675-01.html__-8624896801537934783",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,773,107 |
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: tice of such a change, it couid not insist upon a forfeiture of the policies for. want of prompt payment caused by their failure to give such notice. In the case of Insurance Company v. Davis, cited above, the agent’s powers were discontinued by the occurrence of the war, of which all persons had notice; and the law of non-intercourse-betw
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": "us_96/html/0572-01.html__-7934997022683486778",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,557,934 |
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: KIAH v. WARDEN OF THE MARYLAND PENITENTIARY
[App. No. 5,
September Term, 1964 (Adv.).]
Decided July 29, 1964.
The cause was argued before Bruñe, C. J., and Henderson, Ham
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_235/html/0681-01.html__1244866500894729687",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 578,525 |
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:
NFS Services, Inc., Respondent, v West 73rd Street Associates et al., Appellants.
First Department,
June 28, 1984
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Norman L. Rosenthal for appellants.
Robert J. Poulson, Jr., of counsel (Poulson & Desmond, attorneys), for respondent.
Melvyn R. Leventhal, Richard G. Liskov and John M. Farrar of counsel (Robert Abrams, Attorney-General, attorney), for the Department of State of the State of New York, amicus curiae.
OPINION OF THE COURT
Kassal, J.
The issue on this appeal is whether a real estate broker, licensed in the State of New Jersey but not in New York, may recover for brokerage services rendered in this State.
On February 28, 1979, West 73rd Street Associates (Associates), the owner of 11 Riverside Drive in Manhattan, entered into a letter agreement whereby Associates agreed to pay M. L. Schultz Co. 10% of the profits derived “when, as and if earned by Associates from and upon conversion or sale of the premises if Associates makes a deal concerning these Premises with your client.” The agreement also provided that if Schultz’ client produced financing acceptable to Associates, the latter would pay $200,000 as an advance against the 10% profit sharing. The same day, Schultz assigned to NFS Services, Inc. (NFS), “all rights, title and interest in and to a certain real estate listing between Robert I. Postel as General Partner of West 73rd Street Associates and M.L. Schultz Co. dated February 28, 1979”.
NFS is a Delaware corporation, qualified to do business in this State, and with offices here. Both NFS and Schultz were licensed as real estate brokers in New Jersey but neither was licensed as a broker by the State of New York.
The client, referred to in the agreement with Schultz, was Terratec Corp., a large engineering firm which, in March of 1979, withdrew from the deal because of other commitments. The real estate was not converted to cooperative ownership but, on June 6, 1979, Associates sold the property to Allen & Compan
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: NFS Services, West Street Associates
**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_102/html/0388-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,170,397 |
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. A. No. 4114.
Department One.
January 9, 1918.]
MARY S. POAK, Respondent, v. PACIFIC ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant.
Negligence—Injury to Passenger op Street Railway—Negligent Starting op Oar—Immaterial Variance.—In an action for damages for personal injuries sustained by a passenger on a street-car, where the complaint alleged that she was thrown from the car by the negligent starting thereof while she was on the steps in the act of alighting, but the proof and findings were that after the ear had stopped it was negligently started, before she had time to reach t'he steps, hut the movement was so gradual and the street so dark, that believing the ear to be at rest she attempted to leave the car, and was thrown to the pavement, there was no such variance as could have misled the defendant to its prejudice or as would justify a reversal of a judgment for the plaintiff.
Id.—Finding op Negligence Sustained—Duty to Passenger.—It being the duty of á conductor to take reasonable care to see whether any passenger was preparing to alight before starting- a car, a finding, in such action, that the conductor did not look toward the rear of the car before giving the signal to start and that he would have seen the plaintiff moving toward the exit if he had looked, justifies the conclusion of the court that the starting of the car was an act of negligence.
Id.—Lack op Contributory Negligence — Attempting to Alight prom iStreet-car.—While it is ordinarily negligence per se to attempt to alight from, a moving car, yet where the plaintiff was advanced irf years, her hearing not of the best, her sight slightly impaired, and the movement of the ear so gradual that she did not know it was in motion, the question whether she had been guilty of negligence in attempting to alight was one of fact for the trial court, and the finding in her favor could not be held to be without support.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles ■ County, and from an order denying
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: MARY S, PACIFIC ELECTRIC 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": "cal_177/html/0190-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,597,215 |
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:
Mary Tarditi, Plaintiff, v. Lewis H. Tomazzolli and Charles Zerbarini, Individually and as Executors of the Last Will and Testament of Serafino Piana, and Trustees of the Trust Therein Created, Maria Piana, Victor Piana, Catherine Piana, Adelina Piana, Peter Piana, Matilda Tarditi, Serafino Tarditi, Victor Tarditi, Defendants.
(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,
June, 1919.)
Trusts — to sell real estate and pay proceeds to designated legatees is a valid trust — statutes — executors and administrators — legacy — when there is no suspension of power of alienation — vesting.
A trust in executors to sell real estate and pay the proceeds to designated legatees is a valid express trust to sell land under • the statute.
Where a testator leaves the residue of his estate after certain devises to his executors in trust to mortgage, sell, invest and manage the same, and from it to pay certain legacies, and directs that the remainder be then turned over to his son Peter or to his issue in the event of his death, there is no unlawful suspension of the power of alienation.
The provisions as to the sale of the realty by the executors left them no discretion except as to time and compelled them to distribute the proceeds among the legatees named. Nor did the provisions of the will prevent the legacies from vesting.
Action for the construction of a will.
Lind & Pfeiffer, for plaintiff.
Gustav Goodman, for defendants Lewis H. Tomazzolli, Charles Zerbarini, Maria Piaña, Victor Piaña, Catherine Piaña and Adelina Piaña.
Benjamin Kessler, guardian ad litem of Matilda Tarditi, Serafino Tarditi and Victor Piaña and attorney in person.
Newburger, J.
Serafino Piaña, the testator, died May 26, 1915, leaving him surviving a widow and a number of children and grandchildren. The estate consists of real and personal property. This action is brought for a construction of the will and a partition of the real property. It is contended that the prolusions of the will disposing of the residue are
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Mary Tarditi, Lewis 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": "misc_107/html/0664-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,294,748 |
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: t this late stage of litigation would prejudice the parties.
La Salle County appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In Carver v. Condie, 169 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 1999) (Carver I), the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded this matter for further proceedings before the district court. 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-2d_203/html/0497-01.html__4308904162517011074",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,384,173 |
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 above recited, within the principles of law which are applicable to such a case. These principles have been stated at length quite recently by Mr. Justice Putnam in Thompson v. Diller, 161 App. Div. 98, 146 N. Y. Supp. 438, and the subsequent opinion which he wrote in Sullivan v. Sprung, 170 App. Div. 237, 156 N. Y. Supp. 332, is n
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_158/html/0229-01.html__5799796638555029943",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,836,546 |
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:
Pratt v. Myers et al.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.
March, 1892.)
Interpleader—Action by Assignee op Attached Property.
After an attachment had heen levied on bank deposits, the depositor informed the bankers that he had assigned the same to plaintiff, and the latter brought an action to recover them. Held, that it was proper to require the plaintiff in attachment and the sheriff who levied the writ to interplead as parties defendants instead of the bankers.
Appeal from special term, Erie county.
Action by George L. Pratt against Theodore Myers and another to recover ■certain bank deposits. From an order discharging defendants upon payment into court of the fund in controversy, and requiring Thomas S. Croly and ■Gorman, sheriff, to interplead as parties defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before Dwight, P. J., and Macomber and Lewis, JJ.
M. Shire, for appellant. Simpson & Werner, for respondents.
Dwight, P. J.
The admitted facts presented by the papers on this motion fully justify the granting of the order. Before the 19th day of January, 1891, one John C. Allen had deposited with the defendants, who were bankers in the city of New York, the sum of $4,000, in the name of “Allen & Co. ” ■On the day mentioned he caused the deposit to be transferred to the name of “Allen & Co., Agents.” On the 19th day of March the sheriff of New York ■county levied on the interest of Allen in the fund and deposit in question, by virtue of an attachment issued out of the supreme court of Onondaga county, ■at the suit of one Thomas S. Croly against the said John C. Allen. Twelve days after the levy of the attachment Allen for the first time informed the ■defendants that the deposit had been assigned by him to the plaintiff in this action, and the latter afterwards demanded of the defendants the payment of the deposit to him, and on the 1st day of September commenced this action in Erie county to recover the same. Thereupon the defendants
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Pratt, Myers
**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_18/html/0466-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,124,939 |
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: .2d 208 (1996); State v. Sandstrom, 224 Kan. 573, 581 P.2d 812 (1978); Medlin v. Bettis Asphalt & Constr., 17 Media L. Rptr. 1783 (Kan.Dist.Ct.1990); State v. Hohler, 543 A.2d 364 (Me.1988); Promulgation erf Rules Regarding the Protection of Confidential News Sources, 395 Mass. 164, 479 N.E.2d 154 (1985) (declinin
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": "so2d_720/html/218-220-01.html__3353961699242050319",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,620,235 |
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: comes a criminal act if performed by an attorney. It is simply by virtue of the attorney’s status that criminal consequences attach to such conduct.
In Maunus v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State Ethics Commission, 518 Pa. 592, 544 A.2d 1324 (1988), we stated that
this Court is the only governmental body entitled to regulate and discip
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": "a2d_701/html/0568-01.html__-551784616326323065",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,670,707 |
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:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Kenneth B. HOWE, Jr., George B. Cantu, Bobby Dale Blankenship, Sr., Virgil R. Rohmann, George Irving Secord, Joel Harrison, Daniel Lee Pryor, Todd Story, Christopher Scolaro, Jason Putano, Richard L. Neal, Michael J. Howe, Lisa M. Howe, Catherine Howe, Kenneth B. Howe, Sr., Jack Godoy, Timothy Gregory, a/k/a “Timothy Moore”, Peter Guirastante, John Edward Neely, Quentin Campbell, Ida Brown, Jerry Ann Treuer, Mark W. Wilson, Ronald Bullock, a/k/a “Hairball”, Bob Rogers, Patrick Borelli, Eric Mandl, Defendants, Andy E. Maslin, Defendant-Appellant.
Docket No. 00-1705.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Feb. 21, 2002.
Barbara D. Cottrell, Miroslav Lovric, on the brief, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Joseph A. Pavone, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Albany, NY, for Appellee.
Bruce R. Bryan, Syracuse, NY, and Andy E. Maslin, pro se, Syracuse, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.
Present LEVAL and CALABRESI, Circuit Judges, and RAYMOND J. DEARIE, District Judge.
The Honorable Raymond J. Dearie, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
SUMMARY ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.
Defendant-Appellant Andy Maslin (“Maslin”) appeals from a judgment of conviction entered on October 16, 2000 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (McAvoy, J.). Maslin was charged pursuant to an indictment dated May 10, 1999, along with twenty-seven other defendants, with conspiracy to possess, with intent to distribute, marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846.
From his first appearance before the district court in June 1999 through the trial, which began on March 7, 2000, Maslin was represented by a succession of six attorneys. On or about July 22, 1999, Maslin and his then-attorney entered into a pr
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: UNITED STATES America, Kenneth B
**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_29/html/0708-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,182,908 |
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:
Lena Dvorkin, Respondent, v. The Commercial Travelers Mutual Accident Association of America, Appellant.
First Department,
January 26, 1940.
Charles J. Nehrbas of counsel [Henry C. Moses with him on the brief; Moses, Nehrbas & Tyler, attorneys], for the appellant.
Robert I. Rogin of counsel [Samuel R. Rudey with him on the brief], for the respondent.
Untermyer, J.
The action is upon a policy of accident insurance issued by the defendant to Daniel S. Dvorkin which provides for payment in the event of death caused solely and exclusively by external, violent and accidental means.
On February 4, 1938, the assured accidentally fell into a grease pit located in the basement of a garage operated by him. He was assisted out of the pit by a customer, to whom he complained that he had hurt his leg. He was then taken to his home by his son, who observed a laceration on his father’s leg. Dr. Brown, the family physician, was immediately summoned but the assured died soon after he arrived.
The assured was forty-nine years of age at the time of death. The death certificate, which formed a part of the proof submitted to the defendant, was made by Dr. Brown and set forth the cause of death as follows:
“ Coronary occlusion — duration......yrs.........mos. 1 ds. Contributory — angina pectoris * * * duration 1 yrs .... mos......ds.”
Notice that the assured had died as the result of accident was given to the defendant on February 16, 1938, some time after the burial of the assured. Within six days the defendant demanded an autopsy to determine the cause of death, under the following provision of the policy: “ This Association shall have the right and opportunity to examine the person of the insured when and so often as it may reasonably require, and also the right and opportunity to make an autopsy in case of death, where it is not forbidden by law, and also the right and opportunity to be present in any case at an autopsy performed on the body of a member under the direction of a pub
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Lena Dvorkin, The Commercial Travelers
**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": "ad_258/html/0501-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,018,088 |
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: an action of tort for injuries from defective highways cannot be maintained against the state.” Appellant does not seriously contend otherwise.
III. The distinction between liability for governmental and proprietary functions is discussed in Wittmer v. Letts, supra. It is there held (loc. cit. 650 of 248 Iowa) that a county may be sued under section 332.1, Code of Iowa, and be held liable for tort inciden
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": "iowa_256/html/1297-01.html__5645825212863199290",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 5,119,906 |
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, Appellant, v. Donald Di Carlo, Respondent.
Order unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The People appeal from an order suppressing evidence obtained as a result of police wiretap, pursuant to an eavesdropping warrant. From information secured from the wiretap police seized evidence during the search of an apartment at 502 Linwood Avenue in the City of Buffalo. The search warrant was based substantially upon information secured through a previously authorized wiretapping of two telephone numbers listed to one other than defendant. The wiretap warrant was issued upon the affidavits of the District Attorney and a police officer named Derrico. The District Attorney’s affidavit was entirely upon information and belief, the source of which was Officer Derrico. The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the affidavits upon which the search warrant was granted contained the quantum of proof required for a showing of probable cause, which “ exists when there is a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by facts and circumstances strong enough in themselves to warrant a cautious man in the belief that the law is being violated on the premises to be searched (Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132; Dumbra v. United States, 268 U. S. 435; Aderhold v. United States, 132 F. 2d 858)” (People v. Marshall, 13 N Y 2d 28, 34). The People strongly urge that the decision in People v. Gnozzo (31 N Y 2d 134) requires a reversal of the order which suppressed the evidence. An examination of the affidavits in support of the applications for warrants in Gnozzo and the instant case indicates that there was substantially more evidence in both Gnozzo and the companion case of People v. Zorn (31 N Y 2d 134) than in the ease at bar. In both Gnozzo and Zorn there was direct information that the telephone numbers sought to be tapped were being used for illegal gambling purposes. Such proof is absent in the instant case and the affidavits recite less than the minimum information necessary to show pro
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: The People State, Donald Di Carlo
**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_43/html/0797-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,406,002 |
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: because the officer failed to announce and make known the purpose before entering the premises to execute a search warrant. See United States ex rel. Campbell v. Rundle, 216 F. Supp. 41. Also, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 41) do not require that the warrant be read before the search is valid.
The ma
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": "pa-d-c2d_29/html/0695-01.html__-8992194007500626692",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,892,108 |
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:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronnie Joseph BRUSCINO and Charles Eugene Kell, Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 80-2336, 80-2337.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued April 3, 1981.
Reargued En Banc May 26, 1982.
Decided Aug. 17, 1982.
Mary M. Runnells, Bloomfield, Ind., Robert F. Hellmann, Terre Haute, Ind., for defendants-appellants.
Virginia Dill McCarty, U. S. Atty., Sarah Evans Barker, Asst. U. S. Atty., Richard L. Darst, Indianapolis, Ind., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before CUMMINGS, Chief Judge, and PELL, BAUER, WOOD, CUDAHY, ESCHBACH, POSNER, and COFFEY, Circuit Judges.
POSNER, Circuit Judge.
Bruscino and Kell, inmates at the federal penitentiary at Terre Haute, Indiana, were indicted along with fellow inmates Barron, Howell, and Norman for conspiracy to murder, and for the murder of, another inmate, Martinez. Bruscino and Kell stood trial and were convicted; the other defendants pleaded guilty. A panel of this court reversed Bruscino’s and Kell’s convictions (over the dissent of Senior Circuit Judge Floyd Gibson of the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation) because two documents found in the jury room had not been admitted into evidence. 662 F.2d 450 (1981). We granted the government’s petition for rehearing to consider the proper standard of appellate review of a district court’s finding that documents not properly before the jury were not so prejudicial as to require a new trial.
We state the facts very briefly, and refer the reader to the panel’s opinion for a fuller statement, including the full text of the two documents in question. Howell was the principal witness for the prosecution. He had known Bruscino at McNeil Island Penitentiary before both had been transferred to Terre Haute, and at McNeil Bruscino had told him that Martinez was a “rat.” Apart from evidence of similar statements (e.g., “this joint [Terre Haute] is full of rats,” of whom Martinez was one), the motive for the killing was not explored at the trial.
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: UNITED STATES America, Ronnie Joseph BRUSCINO
**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_687/html/0938-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,332,815 |
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:
ABERNATHY v. RYLEE et al.
No. 17885.
Argued June 9, 1952
Decided September 2, 1952.
Telford, 'Wayne & Smith, for plaintiff in error.
Stow & Andrews, J. B. G. Logan, H. W. Davis and Jack S. Davidson, contra.
Head, Justice.
In the present case the deed under which the plaintiff claims title to the timber contains a provision warranting the title to the plaintiff “against the claims of all persons whomsoever.” Such general warranty of title in a deed covers defects in the title, including liens and encumbrances, although the defects may have been known to the purchaser at the time of the execution of the deed. Osburn v. Pritchard, 104 Ga. 145 (30 S. E. 656).
“In an action on a general wai'ranty of title to land against the claims of all persons, an eviction or equivalent disturbance by an outstanding paramount title must be alleged.” White & Corbitt v. Stewart & Co., 131 Ga. 460 (62 S. E. 590, 15 Ann. Cas. 1198); Joyner v. Smith, 132 Ga. 779 (65 S. E. 68); Darley v. Mallary Bros. Machinery Co., 136 Ga. 345 (71 S. E. 471); Brooks v. Winkles, 139 Ga. 732 (78 S. E. 129). The allegations of the petition in the present case are in substantial compliance with the above rule, in that the petition sets forth an assertion of title by the claimants which, upon its face, would appear to be the paramount title.
The contentions of all the defendants in the present action, that the allegations of the petition are in the alternative, are without merit. Alternative means “an opportunity for choice between two things, courses, or propositions, either of which maybe chosen, but not both.” Webster’s New International Dictionary (2d ed.), p. 77. For examples of alternative pleadings, see Baggett v. Edwards, 126 Ga. 463, 465 (55 S. E. 250), where the plaintiff referred to an instrument “in the alternative as a mortgage or deed”; and Fraser v. Smith & Kelly Co., 136 Ga. 18 (70 S. E. 792), where an employee in an action for damages against the master alleged that the master “knew, o
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: ABERNATHY, RYLEE
**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_209/html/0317-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,994,297 |
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: respass in thé juridical sense, but only a case of “consequential damage,” namely, damnum absque injuria, arising from defendant’s lawful operations. See Gordon v. Ellenville R. R. Co., 195 N. Y. 137, 88 N. E. 14, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 462. In that case it is pointed out that, had the complaint been framed in negligence, there
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": "nys_153/html/0425-01.html__5795409674713690969",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,834,828 |
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: ude that the State did not call the witness because it did not want the witness exposed to cross-examination.
In discussing the issue before us, the Fourth District in People v. Cameron, 189 Ill. App. 3d 998 (1989), favorably cited the following language from Professor McCormick’s treatise on evidence:
“ ‘In criminal cases, an arres
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_408/html/0504-01.html__8423958346377581846",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,357,250 |
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: inadmissible as tending to show the existence of the custom and the knowledge of it and acquiescence in it on the part of the company’s conductors.
In Auld v. Southern Ry. Co., 136 Ga. 266 (71 S. E. 426), a similar principle to that now being considered was involved. A passenger brought suit against a carrier on accoun
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": "ga_138/html/0177-01.html__-7842164946654135603",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,656,248 |
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:
Remon SHIELDS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 03-15182.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 10, 2004.
Decided May 14, 2004.
Remon Shields, Represa, CA, pro se.
Constance Picciano, Esq., Office Of The California Attorney General, Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
MEMORANDUM
Remon Shields, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials’ failure to process his grievances denied him access to the courts. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Shields’ action because he failed to allege sufficient facts to indicate that any alleged failure to process his grievances resulted in actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 353-55, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996). To the extent Shields attempted to state claims on the basis of the events underlying the grievances, the district court properly dismissed his action because he failed to allege sufficient facts to show that he had standing to bring those claims. See id. at 348-50, 116 S.Ct. 2174.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Shields’ motion for appointment of counsel because exceptional circumstances were not present in this case. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Remon SHIELDS, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
**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_97/html/0164-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,211,988 |
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: supporters of his candidacy for President of the United States filed suit in this Court seeking a place on the November ballot.
. The claim of electoral disruption discussed by the Supreme Court in Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 34-5, 89 S.Ct. 5, 21 L.Ed.2d 24 (1968), differs substantially from that argued by the defendants here. In Williams, an order to place 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": "f-supp_421/html/0726-01.html__-7631804541026404732",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,755,587 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.