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:
ADVANCED VIDEO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. HTC CORPORATION, HTC America, Inc., Blackberry Ltd., Blackberry Corporation, Motorola Mobility, LLC, AKA Motorola Mobility, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
2016-1476
2016-1514
2016-1515
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
February 27, 2017
Robert William Morris, Eckert Sea-mans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, White Plains, NY, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Ojeiku Christopher Aisiku, Thomas Martin Smith.
Heidi Lyn Keefe, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued for all defendants-appel-lees. Defendants-appellees HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., also represented by Kyle Dakai Chen, Mark R. Weinstein.
Jeffri A. Kaminski, Venable LLP, Washington, DC, for defendants-appellees Blackberry LTD, Blackberry Corporation. Also represented by William Dean Coston; Christopher T. La Testa, Baltimore, MD.
Frederick Lee Whitmer, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, New York, NY, for defendant-appellee Motorola Mobility, LLC. Also represented by Akarsh Belagodu, Washington, DC; David Clay Holloway, Atlanta, GA; Steven Moore, San Francisco, CA.
(Newman, Moore, and O’Malley, Circuit Judges).
JUDGMENT
Per Curiam
This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:
AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: ADVANCED VIDEO TECHNOLOGIES, HTC CORPORATION
**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_677/html/0684-02.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,187,747 |
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:
Morgan, Appellant, v. Reese et al., Appellees.
(No. 381
Decided July 24, 1954.)
Messrs. Meredith S Meredith, for appellant.
Messrs. Unverferth & Unverferth, for appellees.
Middleton, J.
The plaintiff brought this action in the Court of Common Pleas seeking a money judgment from the defendants, which money she alleges is due her as her share from the sale of the premises described in the petition.
The cause was tried, by agreement, to the court without the intervention of a jury.
Upon trial, the court found for the defendants and entered judgment accordingly. It is from that judgment that the plaintiff prosecutes this appeal on questions of law.
The petition, in substance, sets forth that in 1949 the parties to this action were the owners of the real estate therein described; that the interest of the plaintiff in said real estate was in dispute; that all the parties desired to sell the land and distribute the proceeds, providing a sale could be arranged; that all the defendants agreed with plaintiff that if she would join in a contract to sell the real estate and join in the execution of a warranty deed conveying the title to the premises and warranting the same to be free of encumbrances, except taxes and assessments due and payable in June 1950 and thereafter, she would receive one-fifth of the proceeds of sale after the payment of the expenses incident to the sale; that the parties agreed to sell the premises to Dwight E. Downing and Edna G. Downing for $28,000; that plaintiff, relying upon the representations of the defendants that she would receive one-fifth of the purchase price, signed a contract of sale and joined with defendants in a warranty deed to the purchasers; that plaintiff fully carried out the promises on her part to be performed, and the purchasers paid the purchase price to the defendants; that defendants have failed and refused to pay the plaintiff her one-fifth share as agreed upon, although all the defendants have been paid in full; and that plaintif
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Morgan, Reese
**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": "ohio-app_99/html/0473-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 503,740 |
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: Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation v. Arkansas-Missouri Power Company.
4-9847
255 S. W. 2d 674
Opinion delivered February 23, 1953.
Rehearing denied March 30, 1953.
Fitz
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_221/html/0638-01.html__-7957257103347928585",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 604,097 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: raiso Bank in the amount of $18,971.64, together with interest and costs, from which RDM now appeals.
We find the district court’s interpretation of Bertman v. Kurtell, Fla.App., 205 So.2d 685 (1968) to be correct and affirm its decision. In Bertman, the garnishee successfully traversed the garnishor’s Motion to Gar
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
AFFIRMS
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "f2d_535/html/0911-01.html__-8727099047068899534",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 38,301 |
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 disqualified himself because of his participation in plea negotiations. He relies on State v. Fullwood, 194 Conn. 573, 580, 484 A.2d 435 (1984) and State v. Gradzik, 193 Conn. 35, 47, 475 A.2d 269 (1984), where our Supreme Court criticized the practice of trial judges actively participating in plea negotiations o
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": "conn-app_10/html/0422-01.html__6339723774934144263",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 961,727 |
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, Plaintiff, v. Lewis Gelac Brown, Defendant.
County Court, Monroe County,
March 8, 1960.
Lewis Gelac Brown, defendant in person.
Harry L. Rosenthal, District Attorney (John C. Little, Jr., of counsel), and Leo T. Minton, Monroe County Legal Adviser (William J. Stevens of counsel), for John R. Reardon, as Clerk of the Monroe County Court.
George D. Ogden, J.
Lewis Gelac Brown has filed a verified petition in support of his application that the Clerk of this court show cause why he should not furnish, at no expense to defendant, a copy of indictment, minutes of sentence, minutes of arraignment, and minutes of pleading. Defendant Brown was arrested on or about November 1,1952, charged with first degree assault and third degree burglary. Thereafter he was convicted, and sentenced on or about February 24,1953. No appeal has ever been taken from such judgment of conviction.
The application for an order to show cause in this matter, in all respects, is denied. (People v. Moylan, 4 Misc 2d 747; People v. Lewis, 12 Misc 2d 266; People v. Brown, 3 A D 2d 696; People v. Pitts, 6NY2d288.) Submit order.
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: The People State, Lewis Gelac Brown
**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_21/html/0549-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,637,434 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: f law: Ellis v. Lane, 85 Pa. 265; Forman v. Hosier, 94 Pa. 418; Lewars v. Weaver, 121 Pa. 268; Com. v. Equitable Beneficial Association, 137 Pa. 412; Carpenter v. Yeadon Borough, 208 Pa. 396; Marr v. Marr, 103 Pa. 463; Sweigard v. Wilson, 106 Pa. 207; Harris v. Hay, Ill Pa. 564; Butterfield v. Lathrop, 71 Pa. 225; Insurance C
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "pa-super_76/html/0396-01.html__1946645453165935396",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 513,395 |
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. Beryl ZYSKIND, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 1614, Docket 96-1770.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued May 27, 1997.
Decided July 2, 1997.
Eric Bernstein, Assistant United States Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Zachary W. Carter, United States Attorney, Emily Berger, Assistant United States Attorney, Brooklyn, NY, on the brief), for Appellee.
Nathan Lewin, Washington, DC (Ellen Fels Berkman, Kirsten D. Levingston, Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin, Washington, DC, Frederick P. Hafetz, Susan R. Necheles, Goldman & Hafetz, New York City, on the brief), for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: VAN GRAAFEILAND and KEARSE, Circuit Judges, and HAIGHT, District Judge.
Honorable Charles S. Haight, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
KEARSE, Circuit Judge:
Defendant Beryl Zyskind appeals from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York following a jury trial before Edward R. Korman, Judge, convicting him of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (“Count I”); misappropriation of funds held as a fiduciary, in violation of 38 U.S.C. § 6101 (“Count II”); and theft involving federal funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666 (“Count III”). Zyskind was sentenced principally to 30 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by a five-year term of supervised release. On appeal, he contends chiefly (1) that his conviction on Count III should be reversed because § 666 does not reach agents of organizations that are not direct beneficiaries of federal government benefits programs, and (2) that with respect to Count II, the district court gave erroneous instructions to the jury as to the role of a fiduciary. Finding no merit in any of his contentions, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
In 1980, Zyskind became the administrator of Hi-Li Manor Home for Adults (“Hi-Li”), a facility licensed by the New York State Department of Social Service
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: UNITED STATES America, Beryl ZYSKIND
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "f3d_118/html/0113-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,053,184 |
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: JOHN H. BONER v. HENDERSON ADAMS, Auditor of the State of North Carolina, and DAVID A. JENKINS, Treasurer of the State of North Carolina.
Tiie Auditor of the State is not a mere
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "nc_65/html/0639-01.html__-925164514715576136",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,024,927 |
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:
Jessup & Moore Paper Co. v. Bryant Paper Co.
Contract — Breach of contract — Damages—Elements of damages—Overhead and depreciation charges—Evidence—Books of account.
1. Where it appears in an action of assumpsit that plaintiff had agreed to manufacture and deliver goods to defendant, and that defendant had refused to accept them, and suit was brought to recover the'profits plaintiff would have realized if the goods had-been manufactured and delivered, the defendant is entitled -to an opportunity to examine the plaintiff’s books of account for the purpose of apportioning the overhead and other expenses of plaintiff’s manufacturing business to all of its production and to the goods in question as if they had been manufactured.
2. In such a case, the plaintiff cannot successfully contend that such an examination might disclose business secrets to a competitor.
Rule to show cause why plaintiff should not permit its books and records, showing general overhead and depreciation accounts, to be examined by the accountants named by the court. C. P. No. 5, Phila. Co., March T., 1922, No. 364.
Charles S. Wesley, for plaintiff; Thomas Raeburn White, for defendant.
May 25, 1926.
Martin, P. J.,
By agreement, this case is being tried by the court without a jury. It has already been decided that there was a breach by defendant of the contract with plaintiff. The question now before the court is the amount of damages to which the plaintiff is entitled.
The contract provided that plaintiff should manufacture and deliver, and the defendant would accept, a certain amount of soda pulp at prices to be fixed in the manner provided by the contract. After some of the pulp had been delivered, the defendant notified plaintiff that it would not accept any further deliveries of soda pulp, and plaintiff, regarding this notice as a breach of the contract, manufactured no more pulp for delivery to plaintiff, and instituted this suit to recover the profits it would have realized if the pulp ha
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Jessup Moore Paper, Bryant Paper Co
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "pa-d-c_7/html/0517-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 859,281 |
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:
William Duke, et al., Plaintiff in Error, vs. Charles Brandt, Defendant in Error.
J. Dower — Action for — Possession of deceased husband-Seizin, etc. — In suit for dower, evidence that the deceased husband of the claimant possessed the lands, claiming them as his own, and left his family there at the time of his death is sufficient to make out a, prima facie case of seizin in the husband.
2. Dower — Contract for purchase of land — Possession—Seizin—Vendor’s lien, etc. — Certain school lands were sold by order of the County Court; tile purchaser giving his note to the county for the purchase money and receiving the usual certificate of purchase. (Wag. Stat., 868, (j 1.) A. bought the land from the original purchaser, lifted the note and substituted his own.. He died in possession, leaving the whole of the note still unpaid. At administrator’s sale, B. purchased the land and paid the amount of a judgment obtained on the note of A. Held, that B. might be subrogated to the rights of the county, and enforce the vendor’s lien against the land. But that the title thereto would remain in the heirs of A., subject to be defeated by sale under the vendor’s lien ; but that aside from such divestiture, there was in A., an equitable seizin, such as would entitle his widow upon payment out of his assets of the amount of the note, to her dower in the land, under @ 1 of the dower act. And this right of dower would still remain notwithstanding the fact that no money had been paid by the deceased husband to the county, and no sale had been made by the county to him as contemplated by $$ 2, 3, of said act.
Error to Morgan Circuit Court.
Spurlock, for Plaintiff in Error.
Draffin & Stover, and Neilson, for Defendant in Error.
By virtue of the administrator’s deed, Brandt acquired Thruston’s inchoate title to the land, and nothing remained for him to do in order to perfect the title in himself, but to discharge the county’s lien on the lands for the purchase money ; and havi
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": "mo_51/html/0221-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,477,395 |
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 suit may be dismissed for want of prosecution where there has been no service upon the defendant. Lapka v. Chicago City Ry. Co., 139 Ill. App. 133; Sheehan v. Supreme Lodge Knights of Pythias, 237 Ill. App. 530.
Courts have the inherent power, in the interest of justice, to dismiss suits for want of prosecution. Daly v. City of Chicago, 2
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_267/html/0434-01.html__6419084513412283736",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 315,865 |
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: ely requires a showing that either assumption or rejection of the exec-utory contract or unexpired lease will benefit the Debtor’s estate. See, e.g., Bregman v. Meehan (In re Meehan), 59 B.R. 380, 385 (E.D.N.Y.1986) (“The primary issue under the business judgment test is whether rejection of the contract would benefi
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_466/html/0239-01.html__8970624515001808406",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 237,030 |
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: ot proper in the regular conduct of the proceedings and 2) the existence of an ulterior motive.” Nadeau v. State, 395 A.2d 107, 117 (Me.1978) (citing Bourisk v. Derry Lumber Co., 130 Me. 376, 156 A. 382 (1931)). See also Saliem v. Glovsky and Fogg, 132 Me. 402, 172 A. 4 (1934); Lambert v. Breton, 127 Me. 510, 144 A. 864 (192
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": "a2d_471/html/0688-01.html__8152529961005903431",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 957,912 |
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:
GLASS et al, Respondents, v. BASIN MINING & CONCENTRATING CO., Appellant.
[No. 1025.]
[Submitted January 27, 1899.
Decided February 6, 1899.]
Eminent Domain — Mimes—Ditches—Petition for Right of Wap — Sufficiency.
1. The right to take private property from its owner against his will, can only be invoked pursuant to law, and there must always be a rigorous compliance with the provisions of „the law.
2. Compiled Statutes 1887, Fifth Division, See. 1407, authorizing a mine owner to petition for a right to construct a ditch over another’s claim if the right “shall not have been acquired by an agreement,” requires the mine owner to make an unsuccessful attempt to come to an agreement before filing his petition.
3. A petition by a mine owner, under Fifth Division, Compiled Statutes 1887, for a right to construct a ditch over another’s claim, must allege that plaintiff attempted to come to an agreement as required by Section 1497, and failed.
4. A petition by a mine owner under Fifth Division, Compiled Statutes 1887, for a right to construct a ditch over another’s claim, does not show that he attempted to agree with him and failed, by alleging that there never was an agreement, and that plaintiff offered to do a certain act to allay defendant’s apprehensions of damage to him in case the ditch was constructed.
Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County/ Framh Showers, Judge.
Action by James Glass and another, composing the firm of Glass Bros., against the Basin Mining & Concentrating Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Glayberg, Corbett do Gunn, for Appellant.
T. E. Crutcher, for Respondent.
We contend that under our statute it is not necessary to ah lege an attempt to agree. It will be observed that this writ was instituted previous to July 1st, 1895, and is governed by the law as it stood at that time. There are two statutes relative to the exercise of eminent domain. The first a general statut
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: GLASS, BASIN MINING CONCENTRATING
**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": "mont_22/html/0151-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 659,302 |
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 North Carolina v. David Michael COSTIN, Defendant.
No. COA17-521
Court of Appeals of North Carolina.
Filed: December 5, 2017
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant
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": "se2d_808/html/0179-04.html__839308309871644743",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,467,456 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
[No. H010855.
Sixth Dist.
July 6, 1994.]
In re the Marriage of RICHARD B. and MARY B. GOOSMANN. RICHARD B. GOOSMANN, Appellant, v. MARY B. GOOSMANN, Respondent.
Counsel
James T. Bialson and Hugh T. Thomson for Appellant.
Mark Portman for Respondent.
Opinion
PREMO, J.
— Richard B. Goosmann appeals from the trial court’s order awarding child support to his ex-wife, Mary B. Goosmann (now Mary Fisher). Richard contends that the trial court erred by awarding, in 1992, child support retroactive to 1990. We conclude that although the issue of child support was raised in 1990, it was not decided. We hold that an original child support order may be retroactive only to the date of the filing of the motion for support or to the date of the order to show cause seeking child support. (Civ. Code, former § 4700, subd. (a), now Fam. Code, §§ 4009, 3651 et seq.) The trial court’s order awarding retroactive support was thus improper, and we reverse the order with respect to the improperly retroactive portion.
Facts and Procedural Background
Richard and Mary were married for four years before they separated. They have two daughters, now nine and twelve years old. The parties entered into a marital settlement agreement in October 1985, and Richard petitioned for dissolution of the marriage on January 10, 1986. Mary filed her response on February 24,1986, in which she requested an award of child support. Earlier that day Richard had taken Mary’s default, but the parties apparently ignored the default and proceeded with the dissolution as a contested matter.
In April 1986, Richard sought an order bifurcating the issue of the validity of the marital settlement agreement. Mary argued that the agreement was invalid because she had signed it under duress. The trial court found the marital settlement agreement valid. The trial court did not confirm the agreement as a judgment, presumably because that relief was not requested. With respect to the issue of child support, the marital settlement agre
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: In Marriage RICHARD, MARY 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": "cal-app-4th_26/html/0838-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,784,053 |
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:
Wendy ELWELL, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS HOME CARE SERVICES, Defendants Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Nos. 00-3061, 00-3171.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued Aug. 9, 2001.
Decided and Filed Jan. 11, 2002.
Lucian J. Bernard (briefed), Elizabeth Zink Pearson (argued and briefed), Pearson & Bernard, Covington, KY, for Wendy Elwell.
Dennis N. LoConti (argued and briefed), Scott H. Schooler (briefed), Forbes, Fields & Associates, Cleveland, OH, for University Hospitals Home Care Services.
Before: MOORE and COLE, Circuit Judges; FORESTER, Chief District Judge.
The Honorable Karl. S. Forester, Chief United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.
OPINION
MOORE, Circuit Judge.
On cross-appeals, Plaintiff-Appel-lee/Cross-Appellant, Wendy Elwell (“El-well”), and Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, University Hospitals Home Care Services (“University” or “the hospital”), raise a number of issues arising from Elwell’s suit alleging that the hospital had failed to pay her, one of its home health care nurses, overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and Ohio’s Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, Ohio Revised Code § 4111 et seq. University appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment and grant of Elwell’s cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether Elwell was a professional, and therefore exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements. The district court found that Elwell was not paid on a fee basis, as required by the FLSA regulations’ definition of a professional, because she received both per-visit fees and hourly compensation. On cross-appeal, Elwell argues that University has not satisfied its burden of showing good faith, and that the district court therefore abused its discretion by not awarding her liquidated damages following a jury verdict in her favor on damages. El
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Wendy ELWELL, UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS HOME
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "f3d_276/html/0832-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,077,666 |
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: . Carr, Office of the U.S. Atty., Benton, IL, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before FLAUM, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
The Supreme Court remanded this case to us for consideration in light of Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000), and the parties have filed their statements under Circuit Rule 54.
Garrott’s collateral attac
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": "f3d_238/html/0903-01.html__-2576523766461504632",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,785,818 |
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:
CITIZENS COALITION FOR BLOCK GRANT COMPLIANCE, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF EUCLID, et al., Defendants, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 82-3290.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued June 16, 1983.
Decided Sept. 20, 1983.
Edward G. Kramer (argued), Vincent T. Lombardo, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Henry B. Fischer, Asst. Director of Law, Euclid, Ohio, for amicus curiae, City of Euclid.
Patrick M. McLaughlin, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), Robert C. Maynard, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendants-appellees.
Before MARTIN, Circuit Judge, and PHILLIPS and PECK, Senior Circuit Judges.
BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., Circuit Judge.
The Citizens Coalition for Block Grant Compliance, Inc., plaintiff in a proceeding against the City of Euclid and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, appeals denial of its motion for attorney’s fees. See Citizens Coalition for Block Grant Compliance, et al. v. City of Euclid, et al., 537 F.Supp. 422 (N.D.Ohio 1982). We affirm.
The Coalition is a non-profit civic corporation which monitors disbursement of Community Development Block Grant funds in Cuyahoga County, Ohio (Cleveland, and surrounding municipalities) to ensure recipients provide adequate and affirmative fair housing programs. HUD administers the Block Grant program under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5301 et seq. The City of Euclid is a recipient of Block Grant funds.
On September 8, 1978, the Coalition, together with two white residents of Euclid and two black non-residents, filed suit against HUD, the City, and others because of the City’s alleged failure to comply with, and HUD’s failure to ensure compliance with, its fair housing obligations under the Housing and Community Development Act, supra, and other specific civil rights laws. The plaintiffs, who sought class certification, requested declaratory and equitable r
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: CITIZENS COALITION FOR, CITY OF EUCLID
**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_717/html/0964-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,339,413 |
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 stock at or near railroad tracks are not sufficiently stated in the instruction, and cites Preece v. O. S. L. R. R. Co., 48 Utah, 551, 161 Pac. 40; Reid v. San Pedro R. Co., 42 Utah, 431, 132 Pac. 253; Richards v. O. S. L. R. R. Co., 41 Utah, 99, 123 Pac. 933, and Bunnell v. Railway Co., 13 Utah, 314, 44 Pac. 927. 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": "utah_60/html/0563-02.html__1192631769839462995",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,567,185 |
You are a legal citation expert. Complete the following legal citation according to proper Bluebook format.
Citation to complete: Fill in the citation: ___ U.S. ___ (___)
Provide the complete, properly formatted citation:
|
466 U.S. 364 (1984)
|
bluebook
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": null,
"volume": "466",
"page": "364",
"court": null,
"year": "1984",
"reporter": "U.S.",
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 121,328 |
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 re MARRIAGE OF JANET SUE ANDERSON, a/k/a Janet Sue Senseney, Petitioner-Appellee, and RICHARD H. ANDERSON, Respondent-Appellant.
Second District
No. 84—0826
Opinion filed February 11, 1985.
Feiwell, Galper & Lasky, of Chicago, and Michael J. Berger, Lawrence S. Starkoff, and Andrew D. Eichner, all of Mirabella & Kincaid, of Wheaton, for appellant.
George J. Sotos and Joan Brady, both of Lyle B. Haskin & Associates, and Burek & Field, both of Wheaton, for appellee.
JUSTICE STROUSE
delivered the opinion of the court:
The respondent, Richard Anderson, appeals from an order of the trial court that restricted his visitation rights and denied his petition for a rule to show cause. His principal assignment of error in this court is the trial court’s order restricting his visitation rights.
The petitioner, Janet Sue Anderson, a/k/a Janet Sue Senseney, and the respondent were married on August 10, 1968. Two children, Justin and Marc, were born as a result of the parties’ union. Their marriage was dissolved in Cook County on November 14, 1979, pursuant to Janet’s petition for dissolution. A written separation agreement, which granted the petitioner custody of the two minor children and provided for visitation rights as agreed upon by the parties, was incorporated as part of the judgment of dissolution.
On June 15, 1984, the petitioner sought to enroll the Cook County judgment in the circuit court of Du Page County, and to terminate the respondent’s visitation with his minor children. The court, ex parte, enrolled the Cook County judgment of dissolution and suspended the respondent’s visiting rights until further order of the court based on allegations of sexual misconduct of the father with his minor son, Marc, age six, when they repeatedly bathed together in a tub.
On June 25, 1984, the court granted respondent leave to file a petition to vacate the ex parte order, and on June 29 the parties appeared in court to determine whether Sharon Ellis, a social worker employed by t
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": "ill-app-3d_130/html/0684-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 976,338 |
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: ned an aborted habeas corpus proceeding filed by petitioner from the Lyon Circuit Court. Davidson v. Buchanan, Ky., 271 S.W.2d 373, certiorari denied 348 U.S. 919, 75 S.Ct. 305, 99 L.Ed. 721.
Petitioner complains that he and his counsel had an agreement with the prosecutor as to the length of his sentence; tha
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_344/html/0814-01.html__6595810057205750830",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 415,305 |
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:
SOUTH DAKOTA WHEAT GROWERS ASSOCIATION, INC., A CORPORATION, v. THE UNITED STATES
[No. 43528.
Decided January 8, 1940]
Mr. Ben 8. Fisher for the plaintiff.
Mr. William A. Stem, //, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney Generad Francis M. Shea, for the defendant. Mr. Paul Campbell was on the brief.
GreeN, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court:
This case comes before the court pursuant to a joint resolution of Congress directing this court to investigate losses sustained during the stabilization operations of the Federal Farm Board in 1929 and 1930 by cooperative associations to which loans were made by the Federal Farm Board through withholding grain from the market and making advances to their members to stabilize prices. The object of the investigation is to determine the amount of loss, if any, in the case of each association and the facts and circumstances with relation to such loss, and especially whether because of any agreement or understanding between such associations and the Federal Farm Board, or any member, officer, or employee thereof, or because of any other facts or circumstances, there is any legal, equitable, or moral obligation on the part of the United States to reimburse such associations for the whole or any part of such loss.
The findings in this case show that in the latter part of January 1930, the manager of plaintiff conferred with the -chairman of the Federal Farm Board with reference to turning over the wheat which it held to the Farm Board at the fixed loan prices, and the chairman urged the plaintiff not to do this and stated that the Federal Farm Board would take care of the plaintiff on its storage and carrying -charges. The principal witness for the defendant on this point (the chairman of the Federal Farm Board, Mr. Legge) was deceased at the time the testimony was taken •and counsel for defendant insist that the circumstances of the case impeach the testimony of the manager. There are some facts recited in the findings that tend to rebu
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: SOUTH DAKOTA WHEAT, THE UNITED STATES
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "us-ct-cl_90/html/0222-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,150,097 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: ). This court is cognizant of the fact that some courts have ruled that the destruction of the test ampoule denies the defendant due process of law. (See Van Halen v. Municipal Ct. for the Pasadena Judicial District of Los Angeles County, 3 Cal. App. 3d 233.) However, a different California appellate court has ruled to the cont
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": "misc2d_79/html/0630-01.html__5992547996384196514",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,922,938 |
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: A99A1088.
KRIEGER v. WALTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS et al.
(525 SE2d 147)
Smith, Judge.
This is the second appearance of this case in the appellate courts of Georgia. In Krieger v. Walton County Bd.
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_241/html/0373-01.html__-3951908071158380089",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 805,414 |
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 vs. Josefa Tejeda.
Suffolk.
December 8, 2016.
April 20, 2017.
Present: Gants, C.J., Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, & Budd, JJ.
Misleading a Police Officer.
This court concluded that misleading conduct within the meaning of G. L. c. 268, § 13B, which prohibits wilfully misleading a police officer, is conduct that is intended to create a false impression such that it is reasonably likely to send investigators astray or in the wrong direction; therefore, a judge in the Boston Municipal Court properly dismissed a criminal complaint charging the defendant with violating that statute, where, although there may have been probable cause to believe that the defendant, in picking up a small bag of what was believed to be heroin and swallowing it as a police officer watched, intended to impede, obstruct, or otherwise interfere with a criminal investigation within the meaning of the statute, there was insufficient evidence that the defendant’s conduct was wilfully misleading under that statute. [818-821]
Complaint received and sworn to in the Roxbury Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department on October 8, 2014.
A motion to dismiss was heard by David Weingarten, J., and a motion for reconsideration was considered by him.
After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review.
Jason Shaffer (Robert E. Proctor & Colin Doyle also present) for the defendant.
Zachary Hillman, Assistant District Attorney (.Alexandra Halprin, Assistant District Attorney, also present) for the Commonwealth.
Budd, J.
This case presents an opportunity to further clarify the meaning of “misleads” in the context of G. L. c. 268, § 13B, specifically as it relates to nonverbal conduct. Here, a complaint issued charging the defendant, Josefa Tejeda, with misleading a police officer after she picked up a small bag of what was believed to be heroin and swallowed it as the officer watched. A Boston Municipal C
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_476/html/0817-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,148,277 |
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:
Leo Michuda and Leo Michuda, Jr., Copartners Trading as Leo Michuda & Son, Appellants, v. Sanitary District of Chicago, Appellee.
Gen. No. 40,925.
Heard in. the third division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1939.
Opinion filed May 22, 1940.
Litsinger, Heady, Reid & Bye, for appellants.
Ernst Buehler, Francis X. Busch, James J. Magner and Richard A. Beck, all of Chicago, for appellee.
Mr. Justice Burke
delivered the opinion of the court.
On July 18, 1935, defendant advertised for bids for the construction of an intercepting sewer, known as “Southwest Side Intercepting Sewer, Contract No. 4,” and gave prospective contractors until 12:30 p. m. central standard time, on August 8,1935, to submit sealed proposals, at which time the proposals were to be opened. The work, for which tenders were invited, consisted of building approximately 7,420 lineal feet of concrete sewer of an internal width of 14 feet 8% inches, and an internal height of 16 feet 4 inches, in earth and rock, a river crossing, and miscellaneous work collateral thereto. The southwest side intercepting sewer was part of a sewer system which extended from the Sanitary District property located on South Crawford avenue in the city of Chicago, near the sanitary and ship canal, in an approximately due-easterly direction along West 38th street and along Pershing road (old 39th street), respectively, in Chicago, to approximately South Racine avenue, 38th street extended, and the south fork of the south branch of the Chicago river. Southwest side intercepting sewer No. 4 began at a point on South Western boulevard, a little north of 38th street, progressed in a southeasterly direction through McKinley Park, until it reached South Damen avenue and Pershing road, then extended in a due-easterly direction along the southern south half of Pershing road to South Ashland avenue, passed under the western arm of the south fork of the south branch of the Chicago River, and then continued eastward until it r
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Leo Michuda Leo, Sanitary District Chicago
**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": "ill-app_305/html/0314-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 183,014 |
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: Otherwise, materials not referenced in Civ.R. 56(C) may be properly considered if they are incorporated by reference in a properly framed affidavit. Spagnola v. Spagnola, Mahoning App. No. 07 MA 178, 2008-Ohio-3087, 2008 WL 2486429.
{¶ 12} While the unsworn letter does not fall within any of these categories and was
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "ohio-app-3d_187/html/0393-01.html__-8717041263067538900",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,713,830 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: . In In re Incorporation of Borough of Pocono Raceway, 646 A.2d 6 (Pa.Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 539 Pa. 658, 651 A.2d 544 (1994) cert. denied sub nom. Mattioli v. Tunkhannock Township, 514 U.S. 1064, 115 S.Ct. 1693, 131 L.Ed.2d 557 (1995), this Court held that persons who owned commercial property within a proposed borough which co
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "a2d_999/html/0644-01.html__-8929017161497278614",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,906,640 |
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:
Marvin T. STEELE, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Doris Faye STEELE, Defendant-Appellant.
Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Middle Section, at Nashville.
June 2, 1988.
Permission to Appeal Denied by Supreme Court Aug. 22, 1988.
Charles C. Peterson, Waynesboro, for plaintiff-appellee.
W.C. Keaton, Keaton, Turner & Spitzer, Hohenwald, for defendant-appellant.
OPINION
TODD, Presiding Judge.
The defendant, Doris Faye Steele, has appealed from a judgment which granted to plaintiff, Marvin T. Steele, Jr., deceased, an absolute divorce, dismissed the counter-complaint of defendant and divided the marital property.
The first issue to be resolved is whether the judgment of the Trial Court is valid, having been entered after the death of plaintiff.
The case was tried on July 3 and 9, 1987, and taken under advisement by the Trial Judge. On August 28, 1987, the Trial Judge wrote a letter to the Trial Clerk as follows:
This case was tried on July 3, 1987, and the attorneys made their arguments on July 9, 1987.
After considering all the evidence introduced at the trial of the case, the exhibits and arguments of the attorneys, I have decided the following.
The divorce should be granted to the plaintiff, Marvin T. Steele, Jr. The counterclaim filed by the defendant will be dismissed.
In attempting to make an equitable division of the property of the parties, and considering the fact that in this case, the divorce must be granted to the plaintiff, I direct that the following property will become the sole property of the defendant, Doris Faye Steele.
Please refer to the attachment to the sworn statement of parties’ separate and joint assets and liabilities filed by defendant on July 3, 1987.
Item 1 — House and lot — Pillow St., Clifton Tn.
Item 2 — House and 4.92 acres.
Item 8 — Vacant lot, Main St., Clifton, Tn.
Item 21 — Titan Motorhome.
Item 28 — Boat.
Item 29 — Lincoln Automobile.
Item 30 and 31 — Horses.
Item 37 — Horses.
Item 24 — Horse trailer.
Also, plaintiff will pay to defendant the sum of $25,0
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Marvin T, Doris Faye STEELE
**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": "sw2d_757/html/0340-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,523,485 |
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:
Alexander WELLS v. GEORGE PEABODY COLLEGE FOR TEACHERS.
Civ. A. No. 6816.
United States District Court, M. D. Tennessee, Nashville Division.
May 24, 1973.
Larry D. Woods, Nashville, Tenn., for plaintiff.
Frank M. Farris, Jr., Nashville, Tenn., for defendant.
MEMORANDUM
MORTON, District Judge.
Plaintiff brings this action alleging that the defendant refused and continues to refuse to allow him to complete his candidacy as a Ph.D. student at George Peabody College for Teachers as a result of racial bias on behalf of the defendant’s agent. The relief sought is (a) an injunction restraining the defendant from refusing to permit the plaintiff to continue his doctoral studies, (b) an injunction restraining the defendant from enforcing decisions of the oral qualifying examination committees of May 14, 1970, and December 1, 1970, (c) an injunction requiring the defendant to establish a new and unbiased oral qualifying examination committee, and (d) money damages.
Plaintiff alleges that defendant’s refusal to allow him to complete his candidacy as a Ph.D. student amounted to a denial to the plaintiff of the same full and equal benefits that defendant accords to white citizens. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Plaintiff also alleges a breach of contract under the court’s pendent jurisdiction.
Plaintiff, a graduate from Tennessee State University at Nashville, was admitted to George Peabody College for Teachers (hereinafter “Peabody”) on September 22, 1965, as a non-degree graduate. On July 28, 1967, he was admitted to the Doctor of Education program. On March 7, 1968, his request to change the designation of his doctoral program to Doctor of Philosophy with a major in education and a minor in biology was granted. On November 5, 1968, plaintiff failed a qualifying written preliminary examination which was graded by a committee consisting of four individuals by the names of Rogers, .Kirk-man, Wicke and Lawrence. Subsequent thereto he was gr
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Alexander WELLS, GEORGE PEABODY COLLEGE
**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_377/html/1108-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,018,278 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
CITY FINANCE COMPANY v KLOOSTRA
1. Husband and Wife-Joint Liability — Promissory Notes — Consideration.
A married woman is jointly liable if she co-signs a promissory note with her husband; judgment entered on the note may be satisfied only out of property held jointly with her husband, and the wife’s separate estate is not liable unless consideration for the note passed directly to her separate estate (MCLA 557.52-557.54).
2. Husband and Wife — Disability of Coverture — Constitutional Convention.
Delegates to the Constitutional Convention who supported the provision abolishing the disabilities of coverture and providing for the rights of wives in their separate property had no intention of making married women jointly and severally liable on joint obligations with their husbands (Const 1963, Art 10, §1).
3. Husband and Wife — Married Women’s Property Act — Disability of Coverture. *
The married women’s property act is still the law of Michigan and is not superseded by the constitutional provision which abolishes the disabilities of coverture; the trial court erred in refusing to limit execution on a plaintiffs judgment in a case where a married woman co-signed a promissory note with her husband to the defendant woman’s interest in property previously owned jointly by her and her husband (Const 1963, Art 10, § 1; MCLA 557.52-557.54).
Appeal from Kent, Roman J. Snow, J.
Submitted Division 3 March 8, 1973, at Grand Rapids.
(Docket No. 13590.)
Decided May 23, 1973.
Complaint in district court by City Finance Company against Pat Kloostra to recover the balance due on a promissory note. Summary judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appealed to circuit court. Affirmed. Defendant appeals.
References for Points in Headnotes
41 Am Jur 2d, Husband and Wife §§ 145-147, 220, 223.
41 Am Jur 2d, Husband and Wife §§ 16-20, 34.
Reversed and remanded.
Mohney, Goodrich & Titta, P. G (by Robert V Dugan), for plaintiff.
Kent Cou
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: CITY FINANCE COMPANY, KLOOSTRA
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "mich-app_47/html/0276-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 364,611 |
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:
Robert A. Bower, Jr., executor of the estate of John Thrash, deceased, appellant, v. Perry Thrash, appellee.
Trover to recover amount of note claimed by defendant to have been returned to him by payee as a gift. Judgment for defendant. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Champaign county; the Hon. Franklin H. Boggs, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1917.
Reversed.
Opinion filed July 15, 1918.
Frank T. Carson and Green & Palmer, for appellant; Henry I. Green and William G. Palmer, of counsel.
Frank E. Williamson and Dobbins & Dobbins, for appellee.
Mr. Presiding Justice Eldredge
delivered the opinion of the court.
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Robert A, Perry Thrash
**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": "ill-app_212/html/0640-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 174,907 |
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:
Louise M. Fredendall, Also Known as Louise M. Schaefer, Respondent, Appellant, and Beverly Fredendall, Plaintiff, v. Abraham & Straus, Inc., Appellant, Respondent.
Judgment unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered with costs to the defendant to abide the event, unless the plaintiff Louise M. Fredendall, also known as Louise M. Schaefer, stipulates to reduce the judgment as entered to the sum of $2,000, with interest from the date of the breach to the date of the trial, plus $172.60 costs; in which event the judgment as so modified is affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Dore and Callahan, JJ.
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Louise M, Abraham Straus
**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_252/html/0740-04.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,014,981 |
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:
In the Matter of Dawson PRIMES v. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF PRACTICAL NURSE EXAMINERS.
No. 2007-CA-1638.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
July 23, 2008.
Opinion Granting Reconsideration Sept. 17, 2008.
Randall A. Fish, Lacombe, LA, for PlaintifCAppellee.
Francis B. Mulhall, Metairie, LA, for Defendant/Appellant.
(Court composed of Chief Judge JOAN BERNARD ARMSTRONG, Judge PATRICIA RIVET MURRAY, Judge MAX N. TOBIAS, JR.).
JOAN BERNARD ARMSTRONG, Chief Judge.
| ]The Louisiana State Board of Practical Nurse Examiners (the Board) suspensively appeals a judgment of the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans setting aside the Board’s Order suspending Dawson Primes’ license as a Licensed Practical Nurse (L.P.N.) and modifying the Order with respect to substance abuse evaluation and treatment. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court reversing the order of the Board.
On November 8, 2005, the Board filed a formal complaint against Mr. Primes, alleging violations of La.R.S. 37:969 A(4)(c), (d), and (f), and Louisiana Administrative Code, title 46, Part XLVII, Subpart 1, Section 306 T(3) and (4) and (8)(a), (g), (j), (l), (p), (q), and (r). The complaint arose from a report that Lakeview Medical Center (Lakeview) referred to the Board.
The Board held a full hearing concerning the Lakeview report on December 1, 2005 and January 10, 2006, at which eight witnesses testified. The witnesses included Mr. Primes, Registered Nurses Tina Coker, Candace Young, Susan Waller, Melanie Comeaux, Jane Romero, Ian Fitzgerald and Lisa King.
12Mr. Primes testified at the hearing that he is thirty-three years old, has been married for ten years and is the father of a five-year-old son and a sixteen-year-old stepson. He graduated from Indian High School and attended Southeastern Louisiana University for two years before joining the Army National Guard (Guard) in 1992. He graduated from L.P.N. school at Louisiana Technical College in 1995 and holds a
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: In Matter Dawson, LOUISIANA STATE BOARD
**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_994/html/0547-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 426,268 |
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:
CHARLES S. DiGIOVANNI as Special Adm’r of the Estate of Laverne DiGiovanni, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALBERTSON’S, INC., d/b/a Osco Drugs, Defendant-Appellee (Sachidananda D. Shastri et al., Defendants).
First District (3rd Division)
No. 1—09—1297
Opinion filed August 25, 2010.
Rehearing denied January 12, 2011.
Spina, McGuire & Okal, EC., of Elmwood Fark (Timothy H. Okal, of counsel), for appellant.
Cassiday Schade LLR of Chicago (David C. Van Dyke and Trisha K. Tesmer, of counsel), for appellee.
National Association of Boards of Fharmacy, of Mount Frospect (Moira Gibbons and Melissa M. Madigan, of counsel), amicus curiae.
JUSTICE STEELE
delivered the opinion of the court:
This appeal arises from an order of the circuit court dismissing defendant Albertson’s, Inc., d/b/a Oseo Drugs (Oseo), from a suit filed by plaintiff, Charles DiGiovanni, as special administrator of the estate of Laverne DiGiovanni (the Estate), with prejudice on the basis that Oseo had no duty to warn either the physician or the patient of a potential drug-to-drug interaction under the learned intermediary doctrine. For the following reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
The decedent, Laverne DiGiovanni, was a longtime patient of defendant, Dr. Sachidananda D. Shastri. For 10 years, he had prescribed lithium to Laverne for her probable manic depressive psychosis. On January 16, 2003, Dr. Shastri prescribed a drug called Tenoretic to treat Laverne’s high blood pressure. The prescription for the Tenoretic was filled on January 20, 2003, at Oseo. However, prior to filling the prescription, the pharmacist called Dr. Shastri. According to the pharmacist, Dr. Jonathan Huynh, the pharmacy computer indicated that there would be an interaction between lithium and Tenoretic. The interaction between the two drugs could cause lithium toxicity. When Dr. Huynh called Dr. Shastri to inform him of the interaction, Dr. Shastri told Dr. Huynh to fill the prescription and that he would monitor the patient. Th
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: CHARLES S, ALBERTSON’S
**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": "ill-app-3d_405/html/0932-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,660,649 |
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:
Jerry VANDIVER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
No. A-17107.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.
Jan. 8, 1973.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 24, 1973.
W. B. Ward, Jr., Ada, for appellant.
Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., Fred H. Anderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frank Muret, Legal Intern, for appellee.
OPINION
BUSSEY, Presiding Judge:
Appellant, Jerry Vandiver, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court of Pontotoc County for the offense of Unlawful Sale of Stimulants. His punishment was fixed at one (1) year in the state penitentiary and from said judgment and sentence, a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.
At the trial, Jenny Lynn Lee testified that during the fall of 1970 she was employed as a carhop at Jerry’s Drive-In in Ada. The defendant was also employed at the drive-in as a cook. She and the defendant discussed drugs and the defendant stated that he could get them. She informed Detective Cranford of the conversations and agreed to attempt to purchase drugs from the defendant. On the evening of November 23, 1970, she asked the defendant if he could get some “speed” or “hash” for her. The defendant stated that it would be easier to get the “speed”. They agreed on the purchase price of Five Dollars ($5.00). She went outside where her mother was waiting in the car and obtained the Five Dollars. She returned to the drive-in and gave the money to the defendant. The defendant stated that he would call her at home after he “got it”. At approximately 9:00 the defendant telephoned her and stated “ T have the “speed”, let’s go — ’ ” and “ ‘We will meet behind Lefty’s Truck Stop, and hurry, make it fast.’ ” She replied, “ ‘Okay, I’m on my way.’ ” (Tr. 14) She told her mother to call Detective Cranford and inform him where she was going. She proceeded to the location behind the truck stop. The defendant got in the front seat of her car and gave her a small foil package containing five tablets. At this time, she ob
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Jerry VANDIVER, The STATE Oklahoma
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "p2d_505/html/1349-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 224,855 |
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:
Sandra Kazery LITTLE (Davis), Appellant, v. Henry Stephen LITTLE, Appellee.
No. 2003-CA-02078-COA.
Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
July 27, 2004.
John Robbins, Brandon, attorney for appellant.
David Earl Rozier, attorney for appellee.
Before KING, C.J., LEE and GRIFFIS, JJ.
GRIFFIS, J.,
for the Court.
¶ 1. Henry Little sued Sandra Davis, his former wife, in the Chancery Court of Hinds County seeking to terminate child support payments because both children had reached the age of majority. Davis counterclaimed seeking support for the children while in college. The trial court granted Little’s motion for summary judgment, finding that both children were over the age of twenty-one and there was no agreement between the parties providing for post-emancipation child support payments. Davis now appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶2. Little and Davis were granted a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences on September 19, 1995. The parties entered into a valid written agreement regarding child custody and support which gave Davis custody of the two minor children and required Little to pay $600 per month in child support. Little also agreed to continue providing medical and dental insurance for the children.
¶ 3. On March 5, 2003, Little filed a petition to modify the final judgment of divorce. Little asserted that there had been a material change in circumstances in that both children were twenty-one years of age or older, as of February 18, 2003, and that he should be relieved of his obligation to pay child support and provide insurance. On March 10, 2003, Davis answered Little’s petition and counterclaimed for additional support for the children, asserting that the children’s needs had increased because they were in college.
¶ 4. On March 13, 2003, Little answered Davis’ counterclaim. Little asserted that the Merrill Lynch account awarded to Davis during the divorce was to be used for the children’s education. Little also asserted that the parties int
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Sandra Kazery LITTLE, Henry Stephen LITTLE
**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_878/html/1086-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 399,740 |
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: 226, 181 N. E. 2d 239 remanded this cause to the trial judge to state in writing his reasons for having sustained the separate motions for new trial. Newsom v. The Pennsylvania Railroad Co. et al. (1962), 133 Ind. App. 582, 181 N. E. 2d 240.
The trial court complied by filing in this court ten separate reasons for sustaining appellees’
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": "ind-app_134/html/0120-01.html__-4854735358205880662",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,215,641 |
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: 02. Cf. Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 65 S.Ct. 1416, 89 L.Ed. 2013 (1945).
. See United States v. General Motors, 384 U.S. 127, 86 S.Ct. 1321, 16 L.Ed.2d 415 (1966); Ford Motor Co. v. Webster's Auto Sales, Inc., 361 F.2d 874 (1st Cir. 1966). Cf. Interstate Circuit v. United S
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
CITES_POSITIVELY
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "f2d_521/html/1230-01.html__-4219059961216291818",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 31,685 |
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 the Federal Land Bank, it cannot be enlarged by judicial fiat. These assignments are overruled. Michael v. Crawford, 108 Tex. 352, 193 S.W. 1070; Taylor v. San Antonio Joint Stock Land Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 101 S.W.2d 868; Holcomb v. Nettleton, Tex.Civ.App., 35 S.W.2d 745; Rhoton v. Texas Land & Mortgage Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 763.
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_118/html/1077-01.html__4627843217134220971",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,300,212 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: re that Topin-ka could not honestly have believed Steere the better candidate and so must have discriminated in her decision (see Rabinovitz v. Pena, 89 F.3d 482, 487 (7th Cir.1996), denying a discrimination claim because the record did not support the allegation that plaintiff was so much more qualified that
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
CITES_POSITIVELY
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "f-supp-2d_28/html/1081-01.html__-6640461388178625400",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 661,636 |
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:
Leslie W. Winter v. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, a Corporation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
(September 1, 1948.)
Pearson, J., sitting.
James R. Morford (of the firm of Marvel and Morford) for plaintiif.
William S. Potter and Henry Van Der Goes (of the firm of Southerland, Berl and Potter) for defendant.
Pearson, Judge.
Defendant’s motion to dismiss is based on the ground that the complaint does not comply with the requirement of Rule 9(b) that “In all averments of * * * negligence, the circumstances constituting * * * negligence shall be stated with particularity.” The motion to strike is on the ground that certain averments are redundant, immaterial and impertinent.
It appears from the amended complaint that plaintiff was a passenger on one of defendant’s trains.- The conductor informed plaintiff that he would have the train stopped at defendant’s yards to let plaintiff off and invited plaintiff to follow him forward. The conductor went forward and after an interval, plaintiff followed. It is then alleged:
“4. While proceeding to the forward part of the train, defendant’s conductor opened the door in the forward part of the coach in which the plaintiff was riding and left the same open for the plaintiff to pass through; said door apparently being- secured or fastened by a device or fitting provided by defendant for the purpose of holding the door open and to prevent it from slamming shut from the movement of the train in stopping or starting.
“5. Plaintiff saw defendant’s conductor open said coach door and believed that the same had been securely fastened in an open position. While plaintiff was in the act of passing through said open door, defendant’s conductor gave to the operator of defendant’s train a signal for an emergency stop. Thereupon said train came to a sudden, unusual and violent stop, which sudden, unusual and violent stop was not expected or foreseen by the plaintiff, could not have been expected or foreseen by him, in the exerc
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Leslie W, The Pennsylvania Railroad
**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": "del_44/html/0429-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,047,984 |
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: dividends paid direct to shareholders of a lessor company are payments to the company? Rensselaer & S. R. Co. v. Irwin, 249 F. 726, 161 C. C. A. 636; Blalock v. Georgia R. & E. Co., 246 F. 387, 158 C. C. A. 451; West End St. R. Co. v. Malley, 246 F. 625, 158 C. C. A. 581; Houston, etc., Co. v. U. S., 250 F. 1, 162 C. C
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_9/html/0548-01.html__393898437142129749",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,489,706 |
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: 209 Md. 154, 120 A.2d 384 (1956) ; Beacon Club v. Buder, 332 Mich. 412, 52 N.W. 2d 165, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 343 U.S. 971 (1952) ; Arrow Club, Inc. v. Nebraska Liquor Control Commission, 177 Neb. 686; 131 N.W. 2d 134 (1964) ; The Kent Club v. Toronto, 6 Utah 2d 67, 305 P
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "pa-commw_32/html/0041-01.html__8498711938056886935",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 385,833 |
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: remand that case only so that the Commission may make its determination in the light of a correct interpretation of the requirement of Mastronar-di.
In the case of Merlino v. Beecroft Chevrolet Company, an additional issue was raised at oral argument relating to the prospectivity or retroactivity of G.L.1956 (1979 Reenactment) § 28-33-7 which provid
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_488/html/0695-01.html__-6696626898251435472",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,186,981 |
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:
Winkler, Appellee, v. City of Columbus, Appellant.
(No. 31024
Decided January 28, 1948.)
Mr. James F. Henderson and Mr. Russ Bothwell, for appellee.
Mr. Richard W. Gordon, city attorney, Mr. Hugh K. Martin and Mr. Edward J. Cox, for appellant.
Turner, J.
Assuming for the purpose of this decisión that the defendant city was guilty of negligence, we are of the opinion that the record clearly discloses negligence on the part of plaintiff. Such negligence was not dispelled. Therefore, the decision of this case depends upon whether such negligence of plaintiff contributed directly to her injury.
In the case of Highway Construction Co. v. Sorna, 122 Ohio St., 258, 171 N. E., 312, relied upon by the trial court, it was held in paragraph one of the syllabus :
“One. using a sidewalk, crosswalk, street or highway, which ordinary and reasonable care would in- , form him was dangerous, takes the risk of such injuries as may result to him by open and apparent defects, such as his observation ought to have detected and avoided.”
Where one steps on an apparently good sidewalk but owing to some hidden defect an injury occurs, a plaintiff may be justified in claiming a “latent defect,” but where the step is taken on an obviously defective walk we see no justification for attempting to distinguish between apparent and latent defects of such walk, In this case plaintiff deliberately stepped upon a walk which she saw and realized was a defective walk. Certainly the tilting of a piece of concrete in a defective walk is not an unusual concomitant of a defective walk. When plaintiff stepped upon such piece of concrete in a defective walk she took the risk.
We have no criticism of the rule stated by the Court of Appeals in its opinion that upon motion for a directed verdict the trial court is required to give the most favorable intendment to plaintiff’s whole evidence. That is a well settled rule. But where plaintiff herself makes admissions against interest during her cross-examination
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Winkler, City Columbus
**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": "ohio-st_149/html/0039-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,049,373 |
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 he entered for the plaintiff against the Secretary of Banking for $1,000 with interest as claimed.” (Emphasis ours.)
In Mahanor v. United States, 192 F.2d 873, 876, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit considered the question and ruled against the sufficiency of such a denial as this one. It sai
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": "nm_57/html/0428-01.html__-1528915376102005934",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,703,292 |
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: we could hold that the father is liable in this case, we would in effect be holding the father liable for the breach of the contract of the minor.”
In Ohio Casualty Insurance Company v. Nunez, 134 So.2d 309 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1961) this Court approved of Maloney in the following discussion:
“Counsel for plaintiff argues that the Maloney ca
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_385/html/1264-01.html__1241801325558214188",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,088,519 |
You are a legal citation expert. Complete the following legal citation according to proper Bluebook format.
Citation to complete: Fill in the citation: ___ F.2d ___ (7th Cir. ___)
Provide the complete, properly formatted citation:
|
937 F.2d 346 (7th Cir. 1991)
|
bluebook
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": null,
"volume": "937",
"page": "346",
"court": "7th Cir.",
"year": "1991",
"reporter": "F.2d",
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 80,562 |
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: Belknap
No. 89-232
The State of New Hampshire v. Christopher B. Hall
July 27, 1990
John P. Arnold, attorney general (Tina Schneider, assistant attorney general, on the brief), by brief for 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": "nh_133/html/0446-01.html__6053752838675566472",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,059,003 |
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:
GELLER v. TRANSAMERICA CORPORATION.
No. 322.
District Court, D. Delaware.
Sept. 5, 1945.
Daniel O. Hastings (of Hastings, Stockly and Layton), and John VanBrunt, Jr., all of Wilmington, Del., for plaintiff.
Hugh M. Morris and Edwin D. Steel, Jr. (of Morris, Steel & Nichols), all of Wilmington, Del., for defendant.
LEAHY, District Judge.
Plaintiff, a minority stockholder of Ax-ton-Fisher Tobacco Company, sued defendant, the majority stockholder, for damages resulting to plaintiff from the sale by him to defendant in November, 1942, of 240 shares of class A stock of Axton-Fisher, or, alternatively, by rescission of the sale. Defendant moved for summary judgment. Upon the pleadings and affidavits filed by the respective parties, the court rendered its opinion in favor of defendant. See Geller v. Transamerica Corporation, D.C., 53 F. Supp. 625. And on January 4, 1944 judgment was entered granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing the action. After several intermediate steps involving the taking of an appeal from the judgment, all of which it is unnecessary to .detail, plaintiff on December 11, 1944, filed in this court his petition for leave to file a bill of review based on discovery of new matter.
Defendant has filed an amended motion to dismiss plaintiff’s petition upon the grounds that it fails to state facts which probably would have changed the decision of the court had they been before the court when it granted the motion for summary judgment; that the record in the cause discloses that plaintiff, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could have discovered substantially all the “newly discovered evidence” prior to the entry of the judgment; and that the petition is not supported by the affidavits of any witnesses by whom plaintiff expects to prove certain of the facts alleged in the petition.
The matter is now before the court upon the amended motion of defendant to dismiss the petition.
Facts upon which the original opinion was based are detailed
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: GELLER, TRANSAMERICA CORPORATION
**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_63/html/0248-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 76,079 |
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 one of the assessment maps of the city, the other three lots being owned by others, a reassessment levied jointly on the four lots was invalid.
Submission of controversy as authorized by Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1279, •1281, between John P. Gehrhardt and others against John J. Schwartz. Judgment for plaintiffs.
Argued before HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and BAR
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_92/html/0613-01.html__5422882265475720400",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,449,727 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
No. B057555.
Second Dist., Div. Six.
Apr. 9, 1992.]
In re the Marriage of SHARON M. and LAWRENCE J. BIDERMAN. SHARON M. BIDERMAN, Appellant, v. LAWRENCE J. BIDERMAN, Respondent.
Counsel
Taylor, McCord, Johnson, Conroy & Praver and David L. Praver for Appellant.
Loomis & Barrabee and Jan Loomis for Respondent.
Opinion
YEGAN, J.
Sharon M. Biderman appeals from the order extending permanent spousal support beyond the termination date specified in the final judgment. She was ordered to pay $650 per month for an additional six months to Lawrence J. Biderman, her former husband, with a review date of July 24, 1991. At the July 24, 1991 hearing, appellant was ordered to continue making $650 per month support payments until we decide the instant appeal. Appellant meritoriously contends the trial court abused its discretion as a matter of law by modifying the support termination date because respondent failed to show a material change of circumstances.
After a 20-year marriage the parties separated in 1984. Appellant filed her petition for dissolution in 1985. The issue of marriage status was bifurcated and dissolution was granted in 1986. In January of 1990, following a contested trial before retired Judge Jerry Pacht, judge pro tempore, judgment was entered on reserved property and support issues. Each party was awarded approximately $350,000 worth of assets, real property and cash. Appellant was ordered to pay respondent support in the sum of $650 per month for 12 months at which time it would “reduce to zero.” Prior to trial, respondent had not requested pendente lite support and no order thereon was made during the five-year period.
The court retained jurisdiction to award spousal support to respondent but expressly determined that “. . . based on the value and nature of the award of property to him as set forth above, there will be no need for an award of spousal support after the 12-month period. The court further finds that the award of assets to respondent, if prudently
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: In Marriage SHARON, LAWRENCE 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": "cal-app-4th_5/html/0409-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,785,887 |
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 was acquitted. In the second instance, defendant was represented by counsel of his choice, notwithstanding that petitioner had not been appointed. See People v. Potts (1974), 17 Ill. App. 3d 867, 309 N.E.2d 35.
Since petitioner does not have standing to assert an alleged violation of a defendant’s personal sixth am
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": "ill-app-3d_99/html/0630-01.html__1067063675896780725",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,366,819 |
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: law to a judgment, it will, in like manner, control the judgment, and restore the injured party to his original rights.” 2 Story’s Eq; Juris., § 885. In Pearce v. Olney, 20 Conn., 544, this court, in restraining a suit upon a judgment recovered in New York, said:—“Indeed, this falls directly within, and is but an ill
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": "conn_46/html/0065-01.html__-1705950606282915447",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,177,274 |
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 and accepted by the defense. There was, therefore, no foundation upon which to place an instruction as to any other time as was done by the State.
In the case of State v. Socwell, 318 Mo. 742, 300 S. W. 680, l. c. 684, this exact question was before this Court and in disposing of the case, we said:
“While the state may show t
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "mo_351/html/0157-01.html__9107698238089615876",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 565,617 |
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:
Croneis Brothers v. The Toledo Computing Scale Company.
Negotiable instruments — Conditional sales contract — Contravenes Section 4155-1 et seq., Revised Statutes — Payee cannot maintain action, when — Waiver.
Where notes are executed and delivered contemporaneously with the execution and pursuant to the terms of a contract for the conditional sale of personal property, which contains provisions in contravention of Section 41SS-1 et seq., Revised Statutes, the payee of the notes cannot maintain an action thereon in the absence of conduct on the part of the maker amounting to a waiver of his right to defend against them.
(No. 13604
— Decided December 9, 1913.)
Error to the Circuit Court of Crawford county.
Mr. William C. Beer, for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. W. C. McCullough, for defendant in error.
By the Court.
The defendant in error made a written contract with the plaintiffs in error for the sale to them of a pair of scales. It was a conditional sales contract, and contemporaneously with its execution plaintiffs in error executed and delivered to the company their ten promissory notes in the sum of $7.50 each, due in one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine and ten months from date. The scales were shipped to the plaintiffs in error, and shortly thereafter they were returned to the defendant in error and the contract repudiated. The company refused to accept the return of the scales and brought suit on the notes before a justice of the peace, where judgment was rendered for the defendant. On appeal to the common pleas court, the company in its petition set up the notes in ten separate causes of action. Croneis Brothers answered denying any liability on the notes, set out the contract and averred that it was void because in violation of Sections 4155-1 et seq., Revised Statutes. By its reply the defendant in error admitted the execution of the contract and asserted its binding force and effect as well as the validity of the notes. The plaintiffs
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Croneis Brothers, The Toledo Computing
**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": "ohio-st_89/html/0168-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 816,766 |
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:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LARRY LAMB
No. 567A93
(Filed 3 November 1995)
1. Conspiracy § 33 (NCI4th)— conspiracy to commit armed robbery — evidence sufficient
There was sufficient evidence of conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon where defendant met with two other men, one of whom was armed; the three men drove to the home of the victim; and the three men then left the vehicle, entered the victim’s home, robbed, and shot him.
Am Jur 2d, Conspiracy § 40; Trial § 1286.
2. Criminal Law § 794 (NCI4th)— acting in concert — armed robbery — instructions—presence of defendant
There was no error in an instruction on acting in concert where the court did not instruct the jury that it must find that defendant was actually or constructively present when the armed robbery was committed before the defendant could be convicted. It is not necessary to tell the jury it must find the defendant was present to find him guilty so long as the court explains the doctrine so that the jury can apply it, and if the jury’s acceptance of the State’s version of the evidence mandates finding the defendant was present. Here, if the jury had believed the defendant, he would have been found not guilty without regard to a charge on acting in concert, but the jury accepted the State’s version of the incident, under which the defendant was present at the scene of the crime.
Am Jur 2d, Trial § 1255.
3. Evidence and Witnesses § 2966 (NCI4th)— armed robbery — witness afraid of accomplice — relevant
There was no plain error in a prosecution for felony-murder, armed robbery, and conspiracy in the admission of evidence that an accomplice had beaten the witness and stolen things from her and her children and that she was afraid to leave him because there would be trouble when he found her. This testimony was relevant to prove that the witness’s fear of the accomplice was the reason she waited as long as she did before coming forward to tell of the robbery-murder.
Am Jur 2d, Evidence §§ 340, 3
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: STATE OF NORTH, LARRY LAMB
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "nc_342/html/0151-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,717,999 |
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: presented by counsel, yet this it must be observed was said of the charge upon the law, not upon the greater or less detailed reference to the facts. And even in regard to the charge upon the law it must be read in connection with the general rule as shown in the later case of McMeen v. Com., 114 Pa. 300, that the omission to charge upon a point to which the attention of the court is not called and request made is not error.
“The law of
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "pa_222/html/0297-01.html__-1185693850223072175",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 540,274 |
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:
Glen F. DEAN, Jr., Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.
No. 90-SC-691-MR.
Supreme Court of Kentucky.
Dec. 17, 1992.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 18, 1993.
Julie Namkin, Asst. Public Advocate, Frankfort, for appellant.
Chris Gorman, Atty. Gen., Ann Louise Cheuvront, Asst. Atty. Gen., Criminal Appellate Div., Frankfort, for appellee.
SPAIN, Justice.
The appellant, Glen F. Dean, Jr., was convicted by a jury in the Christian Circuit Court of two counts of first-degree rape, three counts of first-degree sodomy, one count of complicity to first-degree rape, and two counts of complicity to first-degree sodomy. He appeals as a matter of right his sentence to imprisonment for ninety years.
The evidence at trial established that on December 17,1989, the sixteen-year-old victim was abducted by Dean and his co-defendant, Steven Allen Wallace, from a shopping mall parking lot in Hopkinsville. Wallace forced the young lady at knife-point into his car, which Dean was driving. For the next three and one-half hours, the victim was transported to two different rural locations where she was raped and orally and anally sodomized repeatedly by both men.
At their joint trial, the co-defendant, Wallace, testified on his own behalf, but the appellant, Dean, declined to take the stand. Wallace recanted his prior statement given to the police and admitted that the victim’s testimony was largely accurate, except that he denied raping her. The prosecution introduced into evidence the appellant’s taped confession, which the trial court had declined to suppress at a pretrial hearing. Whether its admission violated Dean’s state and federal constitutional rights is the principal issue in this appeal.
Five additional assignments of error are raised by the appellant, which we will hereafter discuss briefly. Four of these issues were common to the appeal by the co-defendant, Wallace, whose sentence to imprisonment for eighty years was affirmed by this Court in a non-published opinion rendered on Sep
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Glen F, COMMONWEALTH Kentucky
**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": "sw2d_844/html/0417-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,539,094 |
You are a legal citation expert. Complete the following legal citation according to proper Bluebook format.
Citation to complete: Fill in the citation: ___ F.2d ___ (5th Cir. ___)
Provide the complete, properly formatted citation:
|
532 F.2d 1003 (5th Cir. 1976)
|
bluebook
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": null,
"volume": "532",
"page": "1003",
"court": "5th Cir.",
"year": "1976",
"reporter": "F.2d",
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 10,820 |
You are a legal writing expert. Create a concise legal case summary using the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion).
Summarize this legal case using IRAC format (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) in ≤200 words:
CITY OF KANSAS CITY, Respondent, v. McArthur TYSON, Appellant.
No. WD 64326.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Sept. 6, 2005.
Donald P. Herron, Independence, for appellant.
Todd Darren Wilcher, Kansas City, for respondent.
PAUL M. SPINDEN, Judge.
A jury convicted McArthur Tyson of violating Kansas City Ordinance Section 80-212(10) by operating a demolition debris landfill in a Kansas City residential yard without a permit. We reverse the circuit court’s judgment.
Tyson owned and operated TSC, Inc., a concrete construction business. After Tyson tried unsuccessfully to obtain a conditional use permit, his neighbors and a city inspector saw dump tracks with the TSC logo on their doors enter Tyson’s land and dump asphalt, concrete, and dirt. City prosecutors filed an information against Tyson, charging him with unauthorized use of the premises in violation of the city code.
The Municipal Division of the Jackson County Circuit Court entered judgment against Tyson. Tyson then applied for a trial de novo in circuit court, which also entered judgment against him.
Tyson presents several grounds for appeal, but we reverse Tyson’s conviction on the ground that the city did not make a 'prima facie case against him. Although this is a civil action involving violation of a municipal ordinance, it was gwm-criminal; hence, the city’s burden was to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Tyson had violated its ordinance. City of Cape Girardeau v. Jones, 725 S.W.2d 904, 907 (Mo.App.1987).
Kansas City ordinance Section 80-212(10)a requires citizens to obtain a conditional use permit before maintaining demolition debris landfills on their property. The ordinance defines a demolition debris landfill as “a place designated for the disposal of used building materials resulting from the demolition, site clearance or waste materials from the construction of buildings or structures.” Section 80-212(10)a. The ordinance further defines “used building materials” as “any and all material requiri
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: CITY OF KANSAS, McArthur TYSON
**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": "sw3d_169/html/0927-02.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 186,310 |
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:
JUNO s.r.l. and S/Y CHARLES JOURDAN, Plaintiffs, v. S/Y ENDEAVOUR her engines, tackle, etc., and Endeavour, Inc., Defendants.
Civ. No. 93-265-P-C.
United States District Court, D. Maine.
Sept. 27, 1994.
Michael X. Savasuk, Portland, ME, Jeremy J.O. Harwood, Healy & Baillie, New York City, for plaintiffs.
William H. Welte, Welte & Welte, P.A., Camden, ME, Lars Forsberg, Bradford D. Conover, Dickerson & Reilly, New York City, for defendants.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
GENE CARTER, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff brought this action seeking damages arising out of an accident between the sailing yacht CHARLES JOURDAN and the sailing yacht ENDEAVOUR. In a two-count complaint, CHARLES JOURDAN sought both the cost of repairs to the yacht and compensation for loss of income. Endeav-our, Inc. filed two counterclaims alleging loss of income due to wrongful arrest and compensation due to loss of income which arose from ENDEAVOUR foregoing charters in the Mediterranean in 1993.
After a bench trial, this Court finds that both sailing vessels were at fault in the accident, that CHARLES JOURDAN’s fault was sixty percent (60%), and ENDEAVOUR’S fault was forty percent (40%). The Court will award costs for certain repairs and disallow others. For the reasons that follow, the Court also finds that neither party proved its claim of loss of charter and sponsorship income and that no evidence to support the ENDEAVOUR’S wrongful arrest claim was submitted. These conclusions are based on the following findings of fact and discussion of the applicable law.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In the fall of 1992, the sailing yacht CHARLES JOURDAN and the sailing yacht ENDEAVOUR were both participating in the La Nioulargue Regatta which includes a series of sailing races in and around the Bay of Saint Tropez. The CHARLES JOUR-DAN is a “maxi-yacht” racing boat of an ultra-light displacement design measuring approximately 72 feet in length. The EN-DEAVOUR is a restored, classic, high-aspect-rig yacht of the “J” class of a
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: JUNO, S/Y ENDEAVOUR
**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_865/html/0013-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,625,632 |
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: 68, 472; Ritter v. Ritter (1943), 381 Ill. 549, 46 N.E.2d 41.) The cost statutes, being in derogation of the common law, are to be stricdy construed (Department of Revenue v. Appellate Court, First District (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 392, 367 N.E.2d 1302), and only those items of costs designated by statute as so taxable may be assessed as 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": "ill-app-3d_82/html/0832-01.html__7075605701785382265",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,364,365 |
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:
CIRCUIT COURT OF AMHERST COUNTY
Arlene Sandidge v. Erik Michael Hilliard Fannie Sandidge Page v. Erik Michael Hilliard
Case No. 4715 Case No. 4714
September 5, 1996
By Judge J. Michael Gamble
I am writing this letter to rule on the plea of the statute of limitations that has been raised in each of the above cases. In this regard, I sustain the plea of the statute of limitations in both cases as a result of the failure of the plaintiffs to file their actions within the original time period of the statute of limitations. The reasons for this ruling are set forth more fully below.
It is important to first recite the factual background of these cases. Both cases arise out of an automobile accident occurring on January 12, 1994, in Amherst County, Virginia. Therefore, the original two year statute of limitations would expire on Friday, January 12, 1996. The original cause of action in each case, Case No. 4694 and No. 4695, was filed on Tuesday, January 16, 1996. Thereafter, no service of the motion for judgment was obtained on the defendant in either case. On motion of the plaintiff in each original case, the court entered a nonsuit order on March 6, 1996. Both plaintiffs then refiled their actions on March 8, 1996. R. Creigh Deeds, attorney-at-law, and a member of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, filed the actions for both plaintiffs on March 8,1996. Mr. Deeds was not the original attorney who filed the actions on January 16,1996.
The plaintiffs argue that, by virtue of § 30-5 of the Code of Virginia, they have a period of thirty days from March 11, 1996, to file their cause of action because their second attorney, Mr. Deeds, was a member of the General Assembly that was in session at the time that the second pleadings were filed. It is correct that § 30-5 of the Code of Virginia provides for an extension of time for the filing of “any pleading or the performance of any act relating thereto” until thirty days after the adjournment of the session of the General Assembly. The
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Arlene Sandidge, Erik Michael Hilliard
**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-cir_66/html/0409-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,675,993 |
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: City of Compton, 239 F.2d 226, 231 (9th Cir. 1956). Contra, Truitt v. State of Illinois, 278 F.2d 819, 820 (7th Cir. 1960), cert. den. 364 U.S. 866, 81 S.Ct. 109, 5 L.Ed. 2d 88 (1960).
. See, e. g., Monroe v. Pape, supra; Egan v. City of Aurora, Ill., 365 U.S. 514, 81 S.Ct. 684, 5 L.Ed.2d 74
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_213/html/0049-01.html__7236708283314300423",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,146,741 |
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: dered and decided adversely to her contention in Finders v. Bodle, 58 Neb. 57; Draper v. Clayton, 87 Neb. 443; Helming v. Forrester, 87 Neb. 438; and McFarland v. Flack, 87 Neb. 452. Under the above decisions, these questions are now foreclosed in this state.
The judgment of the district court is
Affirmed.
Reese,
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
AFFIRMS
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "neb_88/html/0278-01.html__-8548427640501869668",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,522,871 |
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:
598 A.2d 1042
WESTERN CENTER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Petitioner, v. William L. HOON, Respondent.
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued Feb. 14, 1991.
Decided Oct. 23, 1991.
Jeffrey P. Schmoyer, Asst. Counsel, for petitioner.
Theodore E. Breault, for respondent.
Before PELLEGRINI and KELLEY, JJ., and SILVESTRI, Senior Judge.
KELLEY, Judge.
This is an appeal by Western Center, Department of Public Welfare (employer), from an order of the State Civil Service Commission (commission) sustaining the appeal of William L. Hoon (employee) and overruling the removal of employee from employment as a regular Staff Dentist 1. The commission also ordered that employee be returned to duty as a regular Staff Dentist 1, and that he be reimbursed such wages and emoluments as would have been earned after serving a thirty-day suspension beginning September 22, 1989, less wages earned and benefits received. We affirm.
Employee was employed as a Staff Dentist 1, regular status, at employer’s state facility for the mentally retarded from February 1984 until his removal on November 3,1989. Employee was suspended from his position as Staff Dentist 1, regular status, for a period of time not to exceed thirty working days, effective September 22, 1989, pending investigation into alleged abuse. By letter dated November 2, 1989, employer informed employee that he was removed from his position effective November 3, 1989.
Although employee was suspended for “alleged abuse,” employer ultimately based its termination of employee on charges that employee (1) made inappropriate, unprofessional and adverse philosophical statements during his presentation to an orientation class on May 4, 1989, and (2) provided inappropriate treatment for an appointing authority resident, J.M., on September 18, 1989. Employee appealed his suspension and removal to the commission which conducted a hearing on February 26,1990. The commission concluded that employer had failed to es
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: WESTERN CENTER, William L
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "pa-commw_143/html/0212-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 213,317 |
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 and Mary DOE, as parents and Guardians of Student No. 9387, Plaintiffs, v. DOLTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 148, a body politic and corporate, William Serne, Superintendent, and Joyce Forbes, Trever Casada, Edward Dorman, Mark Myers, Patrick Ryan, Cheryl Brvozas, and Susan Hasier, in their official capacities as members of the said School Board, Defendants.
No. 87 C 8713.
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D.
June 23, 1988.
James L. Elsesser, James L. Elsesser & Assoc., Inc., John T. Harris, Donald P. Smith, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.
Ben A. Goodin, John W. Norris, Brydges, Riseborough, Morris, Franke & Miller, Chicago, Ill., George E. Riseborough, for defendants.
ORDER
NORGLE, District Judge.
This is a motion for a preliminary injunction to return Student #9387, a student who has Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (“AIDS”), to his regular classes as a full-time student. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a). For the following reasons, the motion is granted.
THE DISEASE
AIDS is a disease caused by a retrovirus that invades certain body cells which are vital to the immune system. Eventually, the virus kills its host cells, resulting in a decrease in the body’s ability to combat disease.
An AIDS victim initially becomes a carrier of the AIDS virus. The carrier can transmit the virus to others, but is himself asymptomatic. It is, however, generally agreed that more than fifty percent of the carriers of the AIDS virus will eventually contract the AIDS disease.
A person has AIDS Related Complex (“ARC”) when he carries the AIDS virus and exhibits symptoms of a weakened immune system. This indicates that the person is no longer a mere “carrier”; he has been attacked by the virus. The ARC symptoms can be fatal. Once a person’s immune system is weakened, he is susceptible to diseases which uninfected persons’ immune systems can easily fight off. Such diseases are labeled “opportunistic infections.” Once a person contracts an opportunistic infection, he is diagnosed as h
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: John Mary DOE, DOLTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
**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_694/html/0440-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,574,158 |
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:
Richard F. HEIMBUCH, Plaintiff, v. PRESIDENT AND DIRECTORS OF GEORGETOWN COLLEGE, a corporation, Defendant. Richard F. HEIMBUCH, Plaintiff, v. Emmett F. BYRNE, Jr., Defendant.
Civ. A. Nos. 2211-61, 1041-63.
United States District Court District of Columbia.
March 10, 1966.
Marshall E. Miller, of Danzansky & Dickey, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
Albert F. Beasley, Washington, D. C., for defendant, President and Directors of Georgetown College, a corporation.
J. Roy Thompson, Washington, D. C., for defendant, Emmett F. Byrne, Jr.
MATTHEWS, District Judge.
The sole question before the court is whether the corporate defendant as a charitable institution is immune from liability in a tort action brought by plaintiff, who was seriously injured in a hazing activity while a freshman at Georgetown University. The University is one of the charitable activities conducted by the corporation. The corporate defendant will be referred to herein as Georgetown.
In addition to the action against Georgetown, plaintiff has filed an action against Emmett F. Byrne, Jr., a sophomore participant in the hazing activity in which plaintiff was injured. The two actions have been consolidated.
The plaintiff alleges that Georgetown negligently arranged or knowingly permitted a dangerous and hazardous physical activity known as hazing of freshman students by members of the sophomore class, including a sophomore hazing committee ; that Georgetown failed to supervise or improperly supervised such hazing activity; that pursuant to this activity plaintiff was a member of a group of freshmen who were directed or compelled by members of the sophomore hazing committee to leave their dormitory and move in a long line in an awkward and ungainly posture known as the “elephant march” over various portions of Georgetown’s campus toward the athletic field where they were to be subjected to a “mud bath”; that during the course of the “elephant march” the line of freshmen students broke formation and thereupon plaintiff
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Richard F, PRESIDENT AND DIRECTORS
**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_251/html/0614-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,412,984 |
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:
210 La. 995
WHITE v. SUCCESSION OF CANDEBAT.
No. 38099.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Nov. 12, 1946.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 13, 1946.
Legier, McEnerny & Waguespack, by Harry McEnerny, Jr., all of New Orleans, for defendant and appellant.
Geo. Montgomery, of New Orleans, for plaintiff and appellee.
FOURNET, Justice.
The National Bank of Commerce of New Orleans as the executor of the Succession of Mrs. Josephine Arias Candebat is appealing from the judgment of the lower court ordering that the claim of John H. White in the amount of $1,250 be placed on the account filed by it in the succession proceedings as compensation in quantum meruit for services rendered by the claimant over a period of 286 weeks prior to the decedent’s death, she having failed to carry out her promise to compensate him in her will. Answering the appeal in this court the appellee seeks to have the judgment of the lower court awarding him $1,250 for these services amended by increasing the amount to the $2,860 sued for.
The services alleged to have been rendered by the opponent to the bank’s final accounting as executor are that beginning with November 1938 and continuing up until the time of Mrs. Candebat’s death on July 18, 1944, he agreed to and did render her innumerable services, including driving her to collect dividends and interest from various homesteads in which she had investments at least twice a year, to attend to insurance matters concerning her home and furnishings, to pay her city taxes, to pay her state taxes, to the doctor’s office for medical treatment, to hospitals for ex-ray treatment, to various banks; handling some personal correspondence and looking into certain prospective investments at her behest; cutting weeds on her property during the years 1939 and 1943 as well as the yearly filing of her homestead exemption claims with the office of the assessor; supervising the painting of her home; entertainment of a friend of the decedent’s at her request; and taking her for automobile rides
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: WHITE, SUCCESSION OF CANDEBAT
**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_29/html/0039-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 597,253 |
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 time thereafter, and that he was not on bail at the time he escaped, but was in lawful custody of the proper officers of Tarrant County, Texas.
In the case of State v. Frank Fossett, the State having announced ready for trial, and the defendant having presented his application for a continuance, and the court having announced his
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-crim_43/html/0117-01.html__-3624984899812056822",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,012,828 |
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: persons admitted to practice law in the courts is not satisfied by such conduct as merely enables them to escape the penalties of the criminal law”: People v. Macauley, 230 Ill. 208. Efforts to interfere with the draft in time of war furnish sufficient proof of such a disregard for the laws of the land, which an att
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "pa_269/html/0206-01.html__2746602997176162025",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 990,220 |
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:
Walter S. Britton, by Stephen A. Britton, appellee, v. Consumers Company, appellant.
Gen. No. 24,763.
Action to recover damages for personal injuries from barrel negligently placed on roof of defendant’s ice house, and blown off and upon plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Charles M. Walker, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1918. Certiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).
Reversed with finding of fact.
Opinion filed April 7, 1919.
Wilkerson, Cassels & Potter and John M. McKinley, for appellant; Ralph F. Potter and Kenneth B. Hawkins, of counsel. Crafts & Stevens and Winters, Price & Stevens, for appellee; Clayton E. Crafts, George M. Stevens and J. C. Risk, of counsel.
Mr. Presiding Justice Dever
delivered the opinion of the court.
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Walter S, Consumers Company
**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": "ill-app_214/html/0627-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 175,143 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: al.Rptr. 839, 471 P.2d 487); or if the parties have made a contract with “no reason to suspect” that its provisions would later be declared unlawful (Mitchell v. National Automobile & Cas. Co. (1974), 38 Cal.App.3d 599, 113 Cal. Rptr. 391).
We now apply these principles to the present case. The Royal Globe decision was as abrupt
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_481/html/0431-01.html__7802647314057304710",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 90,278 |
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:
Kathryn L. GRAYSON, Plaintiff, v. HIGH POINT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and CBL/G.P., Inc., Defendants.
No. COA05-555.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina.
February 7, 2006.
Appeal by plaintiff from judgment entered 18 March 2005 by Judge W. Douglas Albright in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 1 December 2005.
Morgan, Herring, Morgan, Green, Rosenblutt & Gill, LLC, by John Haworth, High Point, for plaintiff-appellant.
Brotherton Ford Yeoman & Worley, PLLC, by Steven P. Weaver, Greensboro, for defendant-appellees.
JACKSON, Judge.
Plaintiff filed a complaint, alleging negligence on the part of defendants, after she was injured in a fall upon property owned by defendants. Defendants filed an answer denying negligence and asserting plaintiff's contributory negligence as an affirmative defense. Defendants subsequently moved for summary judgment and a hearing on the Summary Judgment Motion was held 17 March 2005. After hearing argument from counsel, the trial court granted defendants' motion and entered summary judgment in defendants' favor. Plaintiff appeals.
The undisputed facts of the case are that plaintiff was a salesperson at the Belk's store at the Oak Hollow Mall ("the mall"). Belk leased its store space from defendants. On 27 January 2004, plaintiff was returning to her vehicle in a parking lot at the mall after completing work. Plaintiff's vehicle was parked in an area designated for employee parking. While walking to her vehicle, plaintiff slipped on some ice and fell. As a result of the fall, plaintiff suffered fractures of both wrists.
A heavy snow fall had occurred in the area of the mall beginning on 25 January 2004 and ending on 26 January 2004. The resulting snow and ice had not been removed from the mall's parking lot when plaintiff crossed the parking lot going to work at approximately 1:00 p.m. on the day of her fall. Plaintiff testified that she was aware of the snow and ice when she arrived at work and that "it was bad, but it was
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Kathryn L, HIGH POINT DEVELOPMENT
**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": "se2d_625/html/0591-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,715,106 |
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:
Song ZHANG, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent, Song Zhang, Petitioner, v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General; Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, Respondents.
Nos. 03-2183, 03-3123.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR "34.1(a) April 15, 2004.
Decided April 19, 2004.
Theodore N. Cox, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Carol Federighi, United States Department of Justice, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Terri J. Scadron, Lyle D. Jentzer, United States Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before RENDELL, STAPLETON and LAY, Circuit Judges.
Honorable Donald P. Lay, Senior Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
OPINION OF THE COURT
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Song Zhang, a citizen of China, petitions for review of two decisions issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). In the first decision, the BIA affirmed without opinion the findings of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) that Zhang lacked credibility and therefore was not qualified for withholding of removal. In the second decision, the BIA denied Zhang’s motion to reopen because Zhang failed to produce material evidence that was not previously available. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We will affirm the decision pertaining to Zhang’s claims for withholding of removal and will deny the petition for review.
In June 1995, Zhang entered the United States as a nonimmigrant with authorization to remain in the country for one month. Four years later, in July 1999, Zhang was arrested and placed in removal proceedings for overstaying his visa. He subsequently conceded removability but filed claims for relief from removal because of persecution on account of his affiliation with the Falun Gong movement.
At his hearing before the IJ, Zhang testified that he first became interested in the movement in May 1997, when the owner of a New Jersey restaurant he worke
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Song ZHANG, John ASHCROFT
**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_94/html/0924-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,210,971 |
You are a legal precedent expert. Analyze the relationship between legal cases based on the provided context.
Context: What is the relationship between the citing case and the cited case?
Context: had no alternative and could only eject the plaintiff.
III. His Honor erred, it is respectfully submitted, in charging the jury as follows:
“I desire to read the language of Justice Hydrick in the case of Smith v. Railroad, reported in 88 S. C. 421, 427, 70 S. E. 1057, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 708. This, of course, is about another case, but you will catch the principle that
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "sc_99/html/0397-01.html__-8396103880998165061",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,256,098 |
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 Schneider, Simon Reichman and Frederick Wernecke v. John R. Williams.
1. The jurisdiction of a court of equity to give relief against the violation of a trade-mark, rests, not upon the ground that the defendant is committing a fraud on the public, but entirely on the ground that the defendant is violating a property right of the complainant.
2. Three things are requisite to the acquisition of a title to a trade-mark. First, the person desiring to acquire title must adopt some mark not in use to distinguish goods, of the same class or kind, already on the market, belonging to another trader; second, he must apply his mark to some article of traffic; and third, he must put his article, marked with his mark, on the market.
3. Mere adoption of a mark, and a public declaration that the mark, so adopted, will be used to distinguish goods, to be put on the market at a future time, create no right. No title arises until the thing is actually on the market, marked with the particular mark.
On hearing on demurrer.
Mr. T. H. 8. Van Roden and Mr. J. Frank Fort, for the demurrant-.
Mr. Henry Young, for the complainants.
Van Fleet, V. C.
This action is brought by three persons as members of a voluntary association called the Cigarmakers’ International Union of America.
The complainants sue on behalf of their fellow members, as well as themselves, alleging that the association consists of over ten thousand members, many of whom are unknown to them, but that if they knew the names of all, their number is so great that it would be impracticable to join them all as parties corm plainant. The action is brought to protect a right, which, it is alleged, is held in common by all the members of the association.
The substance of the case made by the bill may be stated as follows: The Cigarmakers’ International Union is a voluntary association, composed of practical cigarmakers. It was formed for purposes of mutual protection, advantage and benefit. The bill says it was formed “ for
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Samuel Schneider, John R
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "nj-eq_44/html/0391-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,114,110 |
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: sidences in a residential area should be required to submit to even the “necessary” barking of large numbers of dogs which are boarded commercially.
We find ourselves in agreement with the views expressed by the Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit in Robertson v. Shipp, La.App., 50 So.2d 699, 704, “The business of boarding, raising and training dogs in large numbers, in a rural community, such as that wherein the pa
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_51/html/0666-02.html__-2622643306436099562",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,981,544 |
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:
Patsy O. TIFFANY, Administratrix, and Personal Representative of the Estate of Henry H. Tiffany, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. BRANDON LADD CORPORATION, Third-Party Defendant. (In Re AIR CRASH OFF CHERRY POINT, NORTH CAROLINA, JANUARY 9, 1983).
Civ. A. Nos. 84-0100-C, 85-0004-C, 85-0040-C, 85-0048-C and 85-0052-C.
United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Charlottesville Division.
Nov. 27, 1989.
Frank A. Mika, Waynesboro, Va., Michael J. Pangia, Gilman, Olson & Pangia, Washington, D.C., for Patsy Tiffany.
John J. Tigert VI, Kathryn A. Ledig, Nicholas H. Cobbs, Tigert & Roberts, Washington, D.C., for Brandon Ladd.
E. Montgomery Tucker, Asst. U.S. Atty., Roanoke, Va., Thomas B. Almy, Torts Branch, Civ. Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for U.S.
Frederic A. Swartz, Swartz & Swartz, Boston, Mass., for Sean and Elizabeth O’Mahony.
J. Page Williams, Charlottesville, Va., pro se.
Nicholas H. Cobbs, Washington, D.C., Gregory N. Harney, Petree, Stockton, Robinson, Vaughn, Glaze & Maready, Winston-Salem, N.C., for Brandon Ladd and Patsy 0. Tiffany.
Gerard R. Lear, Washington, D.C., William H. Hollows, New Bern, N.C., for Sally Furniss Witaker.
. The transponder enhances the aircraft’s presence on a radar screen and transmits additional information which assists in identifying the aircraft.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MICHAEL, District Judge.
This matter arises out of a mid-air collision off the coast of North Carolina at approximately 16:44:46 EST on January 9, 1983, between a civilian aircraft, a Beech-craft Baron BE 55, and an F4-C phantom interceptor. The cause of action arises under the Death on the High Seas Act (DOH-SA), 46 U.S.C.App. § 761 et seq. Plaintiff has brought the action on behalf of the estate of the deceased, Henry Tiffany, pilot of the Baron, and is seeking damages for pecuniary loss only, pursuant to 46 U.S.C. App. § 762. Offshores Logistics v. Tallentire, 477 U.S
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Patsy O, 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_726/html/0129-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,580,652 |
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: roup in the labor market, the individual components of that process — such as a screening test — are also to be evaluated for adverse impact.” NAACP, Ensley Branch v. Seibels, 13 EPD ¶ 11,504 (N.D.Ala. Jan. 10, 1977). As the Court noted earlier, a large portion of those in the crafts jobs have come through the apprentice p
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_472/html/1304-01.html__-7669734063414301169",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 87,501 |
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: With respect, I dissent.
The immunity was "virtually" absolute because it was subject to occasional exceptions for specific situations. In Republic of Mexico v. Hoffman , 324 U.S. 30, 65 S.Ct. 530, 89 L.Ed. 729 (1945), for example, the State Department declined to recommend, and the Court did not grant, immunity from
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": "s-ct_139/html/0759-01.html__-9209160090751487990",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 2,836,222 |
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:
Beall et al., executors, vs. Clark et al.
f • ®° ^ar as concerns the principles laid down in 39 Ga., 533, as applicable to this controversy, the case is res adjudieata, but not further.
2. Where, after the trial of a case, the defendant discovered testimony to show that complainants, desiring to have a leading witness on the stand personally, entered into a contract with him that, if the testimony of the witness resulted in recovering certain plantations, they would employ him to oversee such places at a salary of $1,500 per annum, and that one of the jurors was a half brother of such witness, a new trial should have been granted.
(a.) The counter-showing didnot relieve the testimony of the witness from suspicion, or render the juror competent.
3. A parol contract for land, on which specific performance is sought, should be made out so clearly, strongly and satisfactorily, as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the agreement.
(5.) A specific performance of a voluntary agreement, or merely gratuitous promise to convey land, will not be decreed. There must have been possession of the land given under the agreement, upon a meritorious consideration, accompanied by valuable improvements made upon the faith thereof.
(c.) A contract by one to transfer to his son certain plantations as soon as the latter should pay the cost of the same, it being the intention that such payment should be made from the profits of tlie plantations themselves, was deficient in mutuality and a nude pact.
(d.) This case differs from those in 33 Oa., 9, and 54 lb., 523.
4. Statement of the questions remaining to be disposed of in the court below.
January 15, 1884.
New Trial. Witness. Jurors. Contracts. Title. Specific Performance. Parent and Child. Presumption. Before Judge Bower. Dougherty Superior court. April Term, 1883.
Jeremiah Beall brought complaint to the June term, 1868, of Dougherty superior court against J. A. Pace (now McLaren), E. A. Beall (now Clark), and M. L= Br
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": "ga_71/html/0818-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,006,744 |
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: 817; 6 Sm. L. 438; Act of June 13, 1836, P. L. 568; Phillips v. Library Co., 141 Pa. 462; Act of March 21, 1842, P. L. 145; Act of April 8, 1851.
The ruling in the case of Cochran v. Library Co., 6 Phila. Rep. 492, referred to by appellant, is erroneous. When that ■case was decided, the interpretation of this act, as given in the ■ease of Pa
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "pa_174/html/0114-01.html__-4931603751570415968",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 531,367 |
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: No. 1363,
Misc.
Holly v. LaVallee, Warden.
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
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_377/html/1004-03.html__-6829333551699839284",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,762,542 |
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 Illinois Improvement and Ballast Company, Appellant, vs. Inger C. Heinsen, Exrx., Appellee.
Opinion Med December 22, 1915.
1. Bills of exceptions — when a bill of exceptions is not properly in the record. Where a bill of exceptions is presented to the trial judge within the time allowed by law and an order is obtained extending the time for filing the same, if the bill is not signed by the judge within the extended time it may be filed on the date when it is signed by the judge, or the judge may at that time enter an order that the bill shall be filed nunc pro tunc as of the date of its presentation; but if it is not filed for several days after it is signed it is not properly in the record, even though on the day following the filing an order is entered by a judge not shown to have had any connection with the case, directing that the bill be filed nunc pro tunc as of the date of its presentation. (.People v. Rosenwald, 266 Ill. 548, followed.)
2. Same — the Appellate Court has power to strike bill of exceptions from record. If it appears from the record that a bill of exceptions has not been filed within the time allowed by law the Appellate Court has power to strike the same from the record.
Appeal from the Appellate Court for the First District; — heard in that court on writ of error to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. J. Sterling Pomeroy, Judge, presiding.
David B. Maxwell, and Harry F. Hamlin, for appellant.
Moses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, (Walter Bachrach, of counsel,) for appellee.
Mr. Justice Carter
delivered the opinion of the court:
This was an action brought in the probate court of Cook county and appealed from that court to the circuit court of said county. Verdict and judgment were in favor of appellee. That judgment, on appeal to the Appellate Court, was affirmed. Petition for certiorari to this court was denied in that case. A writ of error was thereafter sued out from the Appellate Court to the circuit court to review the entire proceedings.
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": "ill_271/html/0023-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,903,063 |
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: aw modified in Childress v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., etc., 194 Va. 191, 72 S.E.2d 349, 353, 35 A.L.R.2d 1, decided 1952, and, if so, to what extent?
The opinion in Childress v. Fidelity, etc., supra, makes no mention of Penn v. Whiteheads and Catlett v. Alsop, Mosby & Co., both supra. It will be noted that, in Childress, the creditor
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_136/html/0756-01.html__5715101676044923331",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,132,138 |
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: m the Appellate Court will lie is a question to be addressed to that court. The cause is transferred to the Appellate Court for the Second District.” This last case was considered by this court in People v. Cornelius, 332 Ill. App. 271. This court in its opinion analyzes the reasons why a writ of error or appeal will not lie to review the question of whether a per
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_344/html/0407-01.html__-9089087714149743287",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,354,506 |
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 Court is to ensure that there is “some evidence” to support the union’s findings. Lewis v. Am. Fed. of State County and Municipal Emp., AFL-CIO, 407 F.2d 1185 (3d Cir.1969); Int’l Broth. of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO v. Hardeman, 401 U.S. 233, 246, 91 S.Ct. 60
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-2d_375/html/0351-01.html__6552659930952218395",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 682,490 |
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:
339 A.2d 253.
State vs. Philip A. Pailin.
JUNE 11, 1975.
Present: Roberts, C. J., Paolino, Joslin, Kelleher and Doris, JJ.
Kelleher, J.
The defendant was convicted by a Superior Court jury on an indictment charging him with rape, breaking and entering with intent to commit rape, and breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny. He asks that we overturn this conviction because of prejudice which he claims occurred as a result of three incidents during his trial.
The prosecutrix was 69 years old at the time of trial. She lived on the first floor of a small apartment house. The defendant was the boyfriend of the prosecutrix’ upstairs neighbor. The evidence shows that defendant often stayed with his girlfriend and her three children. He sometimes received mail there.
On February 5, 1973, the prosecutrix was up very early, and at about 5:30 a.m. she went out of her apartment into the common hallway to put her cat outside. There she saw and spoke briefly to defendant. She returned to her apartment and minutes later heard the crash of the front door being broken down and found herself face-to-face with defendant. The defendant queried the prosecutrix about her available cash, saying he needed it to fix his car; he then forced her into the bedroom and raped her. He left threatening her with death if she went to the police.
The complaining witness took a bus to her landlord’s office and reported the incident to him. He sent a handyman with his tenant to secure the apartment, fix the broken door, and to drive her to the police station where she reported the incident.
The defendant was apprehended at his girlfriend’s apartment some 7 months later and was brought to trial. Through his own testimony and that of his brother, defendant placed his alibi before the jury. His story was that he had gone to Philadelphia with his brother and his brother’s girlfriend Diane. His brother placed the date of the move as sometime in January, but upon having his memory refreshed on cross-examination with a mo
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": "ri_114/html/0725-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 4,263,187 |
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 State v. Hickman, Appellant.
1. Criminal Law: absent witness : continuance. The statute-which enables the prosecution to force the accused to tiial notwithstanding the absence of a witness, by admitting that if present the-witness would testify as stated in the application of the accused for a continuance, (B. S. 1879, § 1886,) can only be invoked by the State after the accused, by exercising reasonable diligence, shall have unsuccessfully employed the power of the court to secure the personal presence of such of his witnesses as may be within the reach-of its process. It does not apply to a case where a subpoena has been seasonably issued, but for want of time has not been returned. See The State v. Underwood, ante, p. 230.
2. -: -: impeaching evidence. In a criminal case, when the prosecution, in order to avoid a continuance, has admitted that an absent witness if present would give testimony as stated in defendant’s application for a continuance, evidence will not be received, by way of impeaching such testimony, that the witness' has. made a contradictory statement.
3. -: evidence : statement of confederate. Statements made by one jointly indicted with the defendant, long after the commission of the alleged offense, and not in the presence of the defendant,.are not admissible against him.
Appeal from Bates Circuit Court. — Hon. James B. Gantt, Judge.
Reversed.
Parkinson $ Abernathy for appellant.
The action of the court below in overruling the two motions for continuance, (vide Rec. pp. 13 and 17,) and compelling appellant to trial on .the day after arraignment and before a reasonable time had elapsed for the return of process for certain witnesses within the jurisdiction of the court, is a literal application of the statute of continuances (§ 1886), but is subversive of the guaranty contained in section 22 of article 2 of the constitution of Missouri, and is or may become as administered and applied in this case a violation of article 3. Goodman v. Stat
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: The State, Hickman
**Analysis**: Based on the case facts and applicable legal principles.
**Conclusion**: The court's ruling addresses the core legal issue presented.
|
summarise
|
{
"pair_id": null,
"case_id": "mo_75/html/0416-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,480,111 |
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: No. 251,
Misc.
Gaines v. Maryland.
Court of Appeals of Maryland. Certiorari denied.
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_364/html/0896-07.html__1539954536623096412",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,316,353 |
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: Sibley v. Barr & McGogney Law Firm
174 EDA 2016
01/20/2017
Quashed
2011-07256-27 (Bucks)
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": "a3d_160/html/0261-04.html__-5091172158725624855",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,944,996 |
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:
JUNE 9, 1803.
Peyton Short v. John Jackson et al.
Upon a rehearing of so much óf a decree pronounced in the suit at the last October term, as respects the said Short’s right of redress over against Trabue.
The preceding opinion affirmed.
The only point to be reconsidered is, whether, for the parts of the land Trabue sold to Short which, it is alleged, are lost, the general court ought to have decreed him a compensation, he having brought the case before that court by a suit in chancery, or have left him to obtain compensation therefor by a suit or suits at law. The general court decreed a dismissal of the bill, and this court at its last term -affirmed the decree. The circumstances of the case, to which it may be necessary now to advert, are these: Trabue sold to Short two tracts or parcels of land; for one he made him a deed with general warranty, and for the other he gave him bond and security to make him a deed with general warranty; and Short charges in his bill that part of each of these parcels of land had, by the district court of Franklin, been decreed to adverse claimants on the decision of two distinct suits, and makes the papers in those suits exhibits in this suit. But, from the transcripts of the papers belonging to those suits, it does not apear how much of each of the parcels were lost, nor from any other papers which were exhibited in this suit. Had the suit been set for hearing in the general court, only as to the defendants Jackson, Young, and Berry, Short afterward might have acquired such exhibits, and then, and not before, the court would have been enabled to have directed the proper issues of facts, on which a jury could have ascertained the damages to be paid by Trabue. But as .'Short did not except to a general hearing of the cause, it ought to 'be presumed that he had delayed an unreasonable length of time -to procure such exhibits, or that he was then content, if he did not succeed against the other defendants, to have his remedy against Trabue depend
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: Peyton Short, John Jackson
**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_2/html/0194-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 3,633,306 |
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, Appellant, v. DON LEE, Inc., Appellee.
No. 10206.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
June 16, 1943.
Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Sewall Key, L. W. Post, and Lester L. Gibson, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., and Frank J. Flennessy, U.S. Atty., and. Esther B. Phillips, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Zagon, Aaron and Fink, Samuel S. Zagon, Max C. Fink, and Nathan Schwartz, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before GARRECHT, HANEY, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment in this case, 42 F.Supp. 884, is reversed on the authority of Virginian Hotel Corporation of Lynchburg v. Helvering, 63 S.Ct. 1260, 87 L.Ed. -, decided June 7, 1943.
Provide a structured summary following IRAC format:
|
**Issue**: Legal issue regarding the case facts.
**Parties**: UNITED STATES, DON LEE
**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_136/html/0241-01.html",
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 1,295,612 |
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: hogs and gave his check in payment therefor under the circumstances shown does not bar him from his remedy of recoupment for the breach of warranty. Wheelock v. Berkeley, 138 Ill. 153; Cantrall v. Fawcett, 2 Ill. App. 569; Underwood v. Wolf, 131 Ill. 425; Doane v. Dunham, 65 Ill. 512; Babcock v. Trice, 18 Ill. 420. Ap
Classify the relationship between the cases. Choose from:
- OVERRULES: The citing case overrules or abrogates the cited case
- DISTINGUISHES: The citing case distinguishes itself from the cited case
- AFFIRMS: The citing case affirms or follows the cited case
- NONE: No clear relationship is established
Relationship classification:
|
OVERRULES
|
entail
|
{
"pair_id": "ill-app_221/html/0601-01.html__-4792014948172784356",
"case_id": null,
"volume": null,
"page": null,
"court": null,
"year": null,
"reporter": null,
"num_choices": null
}
|
train
| 308,501 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.