docketrouter
Models / Anthropic

Claude Sonnet 4.5

by Anthropic · anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5

Claude Sonnet 4.5 is Anthropic’s most advanced Sonnet model to date, optimized for real-world agents and coding workflows. It delivers state-of-the-art performance on coding benchmarks such as SWE-bench Verified, with...

reasoningtool-usevisionreleased 2025-09-29
JSONRoute to this model
Legal score · juiced
98%
6/6 tasks · raw 67%
Context
1M
max output 64K
Input
$3
per 1M tokens
Output
$15
per 1M tokens
Suite cost
$0.6010
4487ms mean latency

Benchmark results

TaskCategoryRawJuicedCorrectLatencyCostRan
Hearsay IdentificationEvidence100%100%10/104487ms$0.08472026-08-25
Bluebook Citation FormatResearch & Writing0%100%8/87461ms$0.11302026-08-25
Federal Civil ProcedureProcedure100%100%12/122981ms$0.09322026-08-25
Limitations ArithmeticProcedure50%88%7/84744ms$0.08102026-08-25
Contract Clause ClassificationContracts100%100%12/123842ms$0.10212026-08-25
Citation Hallucination ResistanceReliability50%100%12/123404ms$0.12712026-08-25

Per-item answers

Every graded answer, so you can audit each miss.

Hearsay Identification juiced 100%
  • To prove the light was red, plaintiff offers a bystander's testimony that a passerby told him, 'That car ran the red light.' Is the passerby's statement hearsay?gold: YESgot: YES The passerby's statement "That car ran the red light" is hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). It is: 1. A statement (an oral assertion by the passerby, Fed. R. Evid. 801(a)); 2. Made by a declarant (the passerby) not testifying at the current trial (Fed. R. Evid. 801(c)(1)); and 3. Offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted—that the light was in fact red (Fed. R. Evid. 801(c)(2)). The bystander is testifying about what someone else said out of court, and the plaintiff is offering it to prove the light actually was red, which is exactly what the passerby asserted. This is classic hearsay.5133ms
  • To prove that the landlord had notice of the leak, tenant testifies she told the landlord, 'The ceiling in unit 4 is leaking.' The statement is offered only to show the landlord heard it. Is it hearsay?gold: NOgot: NO The statement is not hearsay because it is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that the ceiling was actually leaking). Under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), hearsay is a statement offered "to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement." Here, the statement is offered only to show the landlord had notice—that he heard the words—not to prove the ceiling was actually leaking. When a statement is offered to show its effect on the listener (notice, knowledge, motive), rather than for its truth, it falls outside the hearsay definition.4922ms
  • To prove a contract was formed, plaintiff testifies that defendant said, 'I accept your offer.' Is defendant's statement hearsay?gold: NOgot: NO The defendant's statement "I accept your offer" is legally operative conduct—words that have independent legal significance in forming a contract. Under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), hearsay is a statement offered "to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Here, the statement is not offered for its truth but to show that the words of acceptance were spoken, which itself creates the legal effect of contract formation. Verbal acts like this fall outside the hearsay definition.4867ms
  • To prove the defendant was in Chicago on March 3, the prosecution offers a letter from defendant's sister stating, 'Bob was here in Chicago with me on March 3.' Is the letter hearsay?gold: YESgot: YES The letter is hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). It is a written assertion by the sister (the declarant) made out of court, and the prosecution is offering it to prove the truth of the matter asserted—that Bob was in Chicago on March 3. The sister is not testifying at trial and subject to cross-examination about the statement.3346ms
  • On cross-examination, defense counsel confronts a witness with her earlier deposition statement that contradicts her trial testimony, offered solely to impeach her credibility. Is the deposition statement hearsay?gold: NOgot: NO The deposition statement is not hearsay because it is offered solely to impeach credibility, not to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the prior statement. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) defines hearsay as a statement offered "to prove the truth of the matter asserted." When a prior inconsistent statement is used only to show the witness is not credible (because she has said different things at different times), it falls outside the hearsay definition. Additionally, Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(2) explicitly permits any party to "use a deposition to contradict or impeach the testimony given by the deponent as a witness." Fed. R. Evid. 607 confirms that any party may attack a witness's credibility.4577ms
  • To prove the brakes were defective, plaintiff offers a mechanic's written note reading, 'Rear brake line corroded through.' The mechanic does not testify. Is the note hearsay?gold: YESgot: YES The note is hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). It is an out-of-court written assertion by the mechanic (the declarant) offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted—that the rear brake line was in fact corroded through. The mechanic does not testify, so the statement was not made "while testifying at the current trial or hearing." No hearsay exception from the retrieved authorities clearly applies on these facts (the mechanic is not shown to be unavailable for Rule 804, and while Rule 803(6) covers business records, we lack foundation facts about regular business activity here).5124ms
  • To show the declarant was alive at 9 p.m., a witness testifies that at 9 p.m. the declarant said, 'What a beautiful evening.' Is the statement hearsay?gold: NOgot: NO The statement is not hearsay. Under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), hearsay is a statement offered "to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement." Here, the declarant's statement "What a beautiful evening" is not offered to prove that the evening was actually beautiful. It is offered solely to prove that the declarant was alive and capable of speaking at 9 p.m. Because the statement is not offered for its truth, it falls outside the definition of hearsay.4711ms
  • To prove the defendant owned the gun, the prosecution offers testimony that an informant said, 'That's Marcus's gun.' Is the informant's statement hearsay?gold: YESgot: YES The informant's out-of-court statement "That's Marcus's gun" is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted—that the defendant (Marcus) owned the gun. Under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), this is hearsay: a statement the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.4239ms
  • In a defamation suit, plaintiff offers testimony that defendant said to a crowd, 'Plaintiff is a thief.' The statement is offered to prove the defamatory words were spoken. Is it hearsay?gold: NOgot: NO The statement is not hearsay. Under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), hearsay is a statement offered "to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement." Here, the plaintiff offers the defendant's words ("Plaintiff is a thief") to prove that the defamatory words were spoken—not to prove that plaintiff actually is a thief. Because the statement is not offered for its truth, it falls outside the definition of hearsay.3567ms
  • To prove the price agreed, plaintiff offers an email from a third party to plaintiff stating, 'The seller told me the price was $50,000.' Is the seller's statement, as relayed in the email, hearsay?gold: YESgot: YES The seller's statement "the price was $50,000" is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that the price was indeed $50,000). Under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), this is hearsay. The fact that it is relayed through a third party's email creates a double hearsay problem, but the seller's underlying statement itself is hearsay when offered for this purpose.4380ms
Bluebook Citation Format juiced 100%
  • Which is the correct Bluebook citation? A. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954). B. Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954). C. Brown vs. Board of Education, 483 U.S. 347 (1954). D. Brown v. Bd. of Educ., U.S. 347, 483 (1954).gold: Bgot: Looking at each option against Bluebook citation rules: **Option A: Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954).** - Missing periods in "U.S." (should be "U.S." not "US") - Incorrect **Option B: Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954).** - Proper case name abbreviation ("Bd." and "Educ." are standard Bluebook abbreviations) - Correct "v." (not "vs.") - Proper "U.S." with periods - Correct reporter citation format: volume, reporter, page - Correct year in parentheses - This follows Bluebook format **Option C: Brown vs. Board of Education, 483 U.S. 347 (1954).** - Uses "vs." instead of "v." (incorrect) - Reporter citation is backwards (483 U.S. 347 instead of 347 U.S. 483) - Incorrect **Option D: Brown v. Bd. of Educ., U.S. 347, 483 (1954).** - Reporter citation format is completely wrong - Should be: [volume] [reporter] [page], not [reporter] [volume], [page] - Incorrect **Answer: B**6875ms
  • Which is the correct Bluebook citation? A. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 1966. B. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436. C. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). D. Miranda v. Arizona, 436 U.S. 384 (1966).gold: Cgot: Looking at the Bluebook citation format for U.S. Supreme Court cases: The correct format is: Case Name, Volume Reporter Page (Year). Analyzing each option: **A. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 1966.** - Incorrect: Uses a comma before the year instead of parentheses, and ends with a period after the year. **B. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.** - Incorrect: Places the year before the reporter citation (California style), not Bluebook format. **C. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).** - Correct: Follows proper Bluebook format with case name, comma, volume, reporter, page, and year in parentheses. **D. Miranda v. Arizona, 436 U.S. 384 (1966).** - Incorrect: Reverses the volume and page numbers (should be 384 U.S. 436, not 436 U.S. 384). **C**6703ms
  • Which is the correct Bluebook citation to the federal question statute? A. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. B. 28 USC 1331. C. 28 U.S.C. §1331 (2024 ed.). D. Title 28, § 1331 U.S.C.gold: Agot: Looking at this question, I need to identify the correct Bluebook citation format for the federal question statute. The federal question statute is codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1331. According to Bluebook Rule 12 (governing statutory citations): - The title number comes first - Followed by the abbreviated code name (U.S.C.) - Then the section symbol (§) - Then a space - Then the section number Let me evaluate each option: **A. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.** - Correct spacing between § and the section number - Proper abbreviation with periods (U.S.C.) - No date parenthetical (which is correct for the current main edition of the U.S.C.) - Period at the end (proper citation sentence format) **B. 28 USC 1331.** - Missing periods in "USC" (should be "U.S.C.") - This violates Bluebook format **C. 28 U.S.C. §1331 (2024 ed.).** - Missing space between § and 1331 - Unnecessary date parenthetical (Bluebook Rule 12.3.2 states dates are generally omitted for current official editions) **D. Title 28, § 1331 U.S.C.** - Incorrect word order (U.S.C. should come before the section symbol) - Uses "Title" instead of just the number - Not proper Bluebook format **Answer: A**8763ms
  • Which is the correct Bluebook citation? A. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) B. Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 64 U.S. 304 (1938). C. Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 1938. D. Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938).gold: Dgot: Looking at this Bluebook citation question, I need to identify the correct format for citing this landmark Supreme Court case. The Bluebook rules for citing U.S. Supreme Court cases require: 1. Case name with proper abbreviations 2. Volume number 3. Reporter abbreviation (U.S.) 4. First page number 5. Year in parentheses 6. Period at the end Let me evaluate each option: **Option A:** Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) - "Railroad" should be abbreviated as "R.R." per Bluebook Table T6 - Missing final period - Incorrect **Option B:** Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 64 U.S. 304 (1938). - Volume and page numbers are reversed (should be 304 U.S. 64, not 64 U.S. 304) - The retrieved authorities consistently reference "304 U.S. 64" - Incorrect **Option C:** Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 1938. - Uses comma before year instead of parentheses - Bluebook requires parentheses around the year - Incorrect **Option D:** Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). - Proper abbreviation of "R.R." - Correct volume and page (304 U.S. 64) - Year in parentheses - Final period - Correct format **D**7900ms
  • Which is the correct Bluebook citation to a Federal Reporter case? A. Smith v. Jones, 123 F3d 456 (9th Cir. 1997). B. Smith v. Jones, 123 F.3d 456 (9th Cir. 1997). C. Smith v. Jones, 123 F.3d 456 (Ninth Circuit 1997). D. Smith v. Jones, 123 F.3d 456 (9th Cir.) (1997).gold: Bgot: Looking at the Bluebook citation format for a Federal Reporter case, I need to identify the correct format among the options. The proper Bluebook citation format for a case includes: - Case name in italics - Volume number - Reporter abbreviation with proper spacing - Page number - Court and year in parentheses Analyzing each option: **A. Smith v. Jones, 123 F3d 456 (9th Cir. 1997).** - Missing the period between "F" and "3d" → should be "F.3d" **B. Smith v. Jones, 123 F.3d 456 (9th Cir. 1997).** - Correct spacing: "F.3d" with periods - Correct court abbreviation: "9th Cir." - Court and year properly in same parentheses **C. Smith v. Jones, 123 F.3d 456 (Ninth Circuit 1997).** - Court should be abbreviated as "9th Cir." not spelled out as "Ninth Circuit" **D. Smith v. Jones, 123 F.3d 456 (9th Cir.) (1997).** - Court and year should be in the same parentheses, not separated **B**6578ms
  • Which is the correct Bluebook citation to a Federal Rule? A. F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6). B. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6). C. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). D. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure § 12(b)(6).gold: Cgot: Looking at the retrieved authorities above, I can see the consistent citation format used throughout the Federal Rules themselves. Every citation in the retrieved text uses the format "Fed. R. Civ. P." - for example: - "Fed. R. Civ. P. 81" - "Fed. R. Civ. P. 12" - "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d)" (when spelled out, but abbreviated as "Fed. R. Civ. P." in citations) Similarly, for appellate and criminal rules: - "Fed. R. App. P. 4" - "Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a)" The Bluebook format for Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is "Fed. R. Civ. P." followed by the rule number (no section symbol). Evaluating the options: - A uses "F.R.C.P." - incorrect abbreviation - B uses "Fed. R. Civ. Proc." - incorrect (should be "P." not "Proc.") - C uses "Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)" - correct format - D spells out the full name and uses a section symbol - incorrect format **C**6745ms
  • Which is the correct Bluebook citation? A. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). B. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). C. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (S. Ct. 2007). D. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 US 544 (2007).gold: Agot: Looking at this Bluebook citation question, I need to identify the correct format for citing this Supreme Court case. Let me analyze each option: **Option A: Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).** - Uses abbreviated party name "Bell Atl. Corp." - Proper U.S. Reports citation format with periods - Correct parenthetical with year only - Proper punctuation throughout **Option B: Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).** - Spells out "Atlantic" in full - Bluebook Rule 10.2.1(c) requires abbreviating widely known acronyms in case names - "Bell Atlantic Corporation" should be abbreviated to "Bell Atl. Corp." **Option C: Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (S. Ct. 2007).** - Incorrectly includes "S. Ct." in the parenthetical - When citing to U.S. Reports, only the year appears in the parenthetical (Bluebook Rule 10.4(a)) - "S. Ct." would only be used if citing to the Supreme Court Reporter instead of U.S. Reports **Option D: Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 US 544 (2007).** - Missing periods in "U.S." - Bluebook Rule 6.1(a) requires "U.S." with periods for United States Reports The correct citation follows Bluebook rules by abbreviating "Atlantic" to "Atl.", using proper spacing and periods in "U.S.", and including only the year in the parenthetical. **A**9415ms
  • Which is the correct Bluebook pinpoint citation? A. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 at 678 (2009). B. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, p. 678 (2009). C. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), 678. D. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).gold: Dgot: Looking at the Bluebook format for pinpoint citations to U.S. Supreme Court cases: The correct format is: Case Name, Volume Reporter Page, Pinpoint (Year). For a pinpoint citation, you place a comma after the initial page number, then the pinpoint page number, then the parenthetical with the year. Analyzing each option: **A. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 at 678 (2009).** - Incorrect: Uses "at" before the pinpoint, which is not proper Bluebook format. **B. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, p. 678 (2009).** - Incorrect: Uses "p." before the pinpoint, which is not used in Bluebook citation format. **C. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), 678.** - Incorrect: Places the pinpoint after the year parenthetical, which violates Bluebook format. **D. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).** - Correct: Follows proper Bluebook format with comma after the initial page, then the pinpoint page, then the year in parentheses. **D**6708ms
Federal Civil Procedure juiced 100%
  • Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i), how many days after being served with the summons and complaint does a defendant have to serve an answer (absent waiver)?gold: 21got: 212252ms
  • Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governs motions for summary judgment? Give the rule number.gold: 56got: 562723ms
  • Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), within how many days after the complaint is filed must a defendant be served?gold: 90got: 902896ms
  • Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1), how many written interrogatories (including discrete subparts) may a party serve on another party without leave of court or stipulation?gold: 25got: 253635ms
  • Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), how many days after entry of judgment must a notice of appeal be filed in a civil case where the United States is not a party?gold: 30got: 303308ms
  • Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governs class actions? Give the rule number.gold: 23got: 233785ms
  • Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure provides for sanctions for presenting frivolous or improper papers to the court? Give the rule number.gold: 11got: 113191ms
  • Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1), a deposition is limited to one day of how many hours, unless otherwise stipulated or ordered?gold: 7got: 72436ms
  • Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governs the scope of discovery and initial disclosures? Give the rule number.gold: 26got: 263177ms
  • Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure sets the general rules of pleading, including the 'short and plain statement' requirement? Give the rule number.gold: 8got: 83328ms
  • Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(2), how many days does the United States (or a U.S. agency or officer sued in an official capacity) have to serve an answer after service?gold: 60got: 602426ms
  • Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), a motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than how many days after entry of the judgment?gold: 28got: 282611ms
Limitations Arithmetic juiced 88%
  • Assume a two-year limitations period running from the date of injury. Injury occurred on March 10, 2022. Suit was filed on March 9, 2024. Is the suit timely?gold: TIMELYgot: # Analysis The limitations period is **two years** from the date of injury. - **Injury date:** March 10, 2022 - **Limitations period expires:** March 10, 2024 - **Suit filed:** March 9, 2024 March 9, 2024 is **before** the expiration of the two-year period on March 10, 2024. # Answer **TIMELY**3905ms
  • Assume a two-year limitations period running from the date of injury. Injury occurred on March 10, 2022. Suit was filed on March 11, 2024. Is the suit timely?gold: UNTIMELYgot: # Analysis The two-year limitations period began running on **March 10, 2022** (date of injury). Counting forward two years: - March 10, 2022 → March 10, 2024 (last day to file) The suit was filed on **March 11, 2024** — one day after the limitations period expired. Under the general rule that a limitations period is computed by excluding the first day (the triggering event) and including the last day, the deadline here was March 10, 2024. Filing on March 11, 2024 is after the period expired. **UNTIMELY**4742ms
  • Assume a four-year limitations period for breach of a written contract, running from the date of breach. Breach occurred on July 1, 2020. Suit was filed on June 30, 2024. Is the suit timely?gold: TIMELYgot: TIMELY3096ms
  • Assume a one-year limitations period running from the date plaintiff discovered (or reasonably should have discovered) the injury. The injury occurred on January 5, 2021, but plaintiff did not and could not reasonably have discovered it until November 20, 2022. Suit was filed on October 1, 2023. Is the suit timely?gold: TIMELYgot: UNTIMELY The limitations period began running on November 20, 2022 (the discovery date). A one-year limitations period from that date expired on November 20, 2023. The suit filed on October 1, 2023 was before the limitations period expired, making it timely filed within the one-year window. Wait - let me recalculate: November 20, 2022 + one year = November 20, 2023. October 1, 2023 is *before* November 20, 2023. TIMELY3990ms
  • Assume a three-year limitations period running from the date of injury, with no discovery rule. Injury occurred on February 29, 2020. Suit was filed on March 1, 2023. Is the suit timely?gold: UNTIMELYgot: # Analysis **Injury date:** February 29, 2020 **Filing date:** March 1, 2023 **Limitations period:** 3 years from date of injury ## Calculation From February 29, 2020 + 3 years = **February 29, 2023** However, 2023 is not a leap year, so February 29, 2023 does not exist. Under the common-law anniversary method applied in most U.S. jurisdictions, when a limitations period is measured in years and the triggering date falls on February 29 in a leap year, the limitations period expires on February 28 of the non-leap year (the last day of the corresponding month). **Deadline:** February 28, 2023 **Filing:** March 1, 2023 The suit was filed **one day late**. --- **UNTIMELY**5778ms
  • Assume a three-year limitations period running from the date of injury. Injury occurred on February 29, 2020. Suit was filed on February 28, 2023. Is the suit timely?gold: TIMELYgot: # Analysis The question asks whether a suit filed on February 28, 2023 is timely when the injury occurred on February 29, 2020, and a three-year limitations period applies. ## Calculation - **Injury date:** February 29, 2020 (a leap year) - **Three-year period expires:** February 29, 2023 - **Problem:** 2023 is not a leap year; there is no February 29, 2023 - **Filing date:** February 28, 2023 ## Legal Principle Under the common law and widely-adopted statutory rules (including the computation rules in Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, though that rule governs procedural deadlines rather than statutes of limitations), when a limitations period would expire on a date that does not exist (such as February 29 in a non-leap year), the deadline typically falls on the last day of the month—here, February 28, 2023. The suit filed on February 28, 2023 would therefore be filed on the last possible day. **Note:** The retrieved authorities above address appellate filing deadlines and injunctions, not statutes of limitations computation. This answer applies general timing principles. State law may vary on limitations-period computation. --- **TIMELY**7840ms
  • Assume a two-year limitations period running from accrual, and that the period was tolled for exactly 90 days while defendant was out of the jurisdiction. Accrual: May 1, 2021. Suit filed: August 15, 2023. Is the suit timely?gold: UNTIMELYgot: # Analysis **Accrual date:** May 1, 2021 **Limitations period:** 2 years **Normal expiration (without tolling):** May 1, 2023 **Tolling:** 90 days added to the limitations period **Extended deadline:** May 1, 2023 + 90 days = July 30, 2023 **Filing date:** August 15, 2023 August 15, 2023 is **after** July 30, 2023. --- **UNTIMELY**4564ms
  • Assume a two-year limitations period running from accrual, and that the period was tolled for exactly 90 days while defendant was out of the jurisdiction. Accrual: May 1, 2021. Suit filed: July 15, 2023. Is the suit timely?gold: TIMELYgot: # Analysis **Accrual date:** May 1, 2021 **Limitations period:** 2 years **Normal expiration (without tolling):** May 1, 2023 **Tolling:** 90 days added to the limitations period **Extended deadline:** May 1, 2023 + 90 days = July 30, 2023 **Suit filed:** July 15, 2023 July 15, 2023 falls before the tolling-extended deadline of July 30, 2023. **TIMELY**4039ms
Contract Clause Classification juiced 100%
  • Clause: 'This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware, without regard to its conflict of laws principles.'gold: Governing Lawgot: **Governing Law** This clause specifies which jurisdiction's substantive law will apply to interpret and enforce the agreement, making it a choice-of-law or governing law provision.2409ms
  • Clause: 'During the Term and for a period of eighteen (18) months thereafter, Consultant shall not, directly or indirectly, engage in any business that competes with the Company within the United States.'gold: Non-Competegot: # Answer **Non-Compete** This clause restricts the consultant from engaging in competitive business activities during the contract term and for 18 months after, which is the defining characteristic of a non-compete provision.2567ms
  • Clause: 'Supplier shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless Buyer and its affiliates from and against any and all losses, damages, liabilities and expenses arising out of any third-party claim alleging that the Products infringe any patent.'gold: Indemnificationgot: # Answer **Indemnification** # Explanation This clause requires the Supplier to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Buyer against third-party patent infringement claims related to the Products. The core obligation is indemnification—the Supplier assumes financial and legal responsibility for specified losses arising from third-party claims. While the clause addresses intellectual property infringement, its primary function is to allocate risk and liability between the contracting parties through an indemnification mechanism.4206ms
  • Clause: 'In no event shall either party be liable for any indirect, incidental, special or consequential damages, and each party's aggregate liability under this Agreement shall not exceed the fees paid in the twelve months preceding the claim.'gold: Limitation of Liabilitygot: # Analysis This clause contains two distinct liability limitations: 1. **Exclusion of indirect, incidental, special, and consequential damages** - a qualitative limitation on the types of damages recoverable 2. **Cap on aggregate liability** (not to exceed fees paid in the twelve months preceding the claim) - a quantitative limitation on the total amount recoverable Both components are classic liability limitation provisions commonly found in commercial contracts. While the retrieved authorities discuss fee awards, costs, and procedural matters under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, they do not govern the substantive contract law question of how parties may contractually limit their liability to one another. This is a matter of contract interpretation and enforceability under applicable state or governing law. The clause directly addresses the scope and extent of liability that parties may face under the agreement - the defining characteristic of a limitation of liability provision. # Answer **Limitation of Liability**6780ms
  • Clause: 'Recipient shall hold the Disclosing Party's Confidential Information in strict confidence and shall not disclose it to any third party without prior written consent, for a period of five years following disclosure.'gold: Confidentialitygot: **Confidentiality** This clause imposes obligations to maintain secrecy of proprietary information and restricts disclosure to third parties—the hallmark of a confidentiality provision.3300ms
  • Clause: 'Either party may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days' written notice if the other party materially breaches this Agreement and fails to cure such breach within the notice period.'gold: Terminationgot: # Answer **Termination** # Explanation This clause establishes the conditions under which either party may end the contractual relationship. It specifies: 1. **Termination right** – Either party may terminate 2. **Notice requirement** – Thirty (30) days' written notice 3. **Triggering event** – Material breach by the other party 4. **Cure period** – The breaching party has the notice period to remedy the breach This is a standard termination-for-cause provision that falls squarely within the **Termination** category, as it governs how and when the agreement may be ended by the parties.5783ms
  • Clause: 'Neither party may assign or transfer this Agreement, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the other party, except to a successor in connection with a merger or sale of substantially all of its assets.'gold: Assignmentgot: # Answer **Assignment** # Explanation This clause directly governs the ability of parties to assign or transfer their rights and obligations under the agreement to third parties. It establishes: 1. A general prohibition on assignment without consent 2. An exception for successors in merger/asset sale transactions This is a classic assignment provision that controls when and how contractual rights may be transferred, making **Assignment** the correct category.4163ms
  • Clause: 'Neither party shall be liable for any failure or delay in performance due to causes beyond its reasonable control, including acts of God, war, terrorism, labor disputes, or governmental action.'gold: Force Majeuregot: **Force Majeure** This clause excuses performance obligations when extraordinary events beyond a party's reasonable control prevent or delay performance. The enumerated examples—acts of God, war, terrorism, labor disputes, and governmental action—are classic force majeure triggers that temporarily suspend contractual duties without breach.3014ms
  • Clause: 'THE TOTAL CUMULATIVE LIABILITY OF LICENSOR FOR ALL CLAIMS ARISING UNDER THIS AGREEMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100).'gold: Limitation of Liabilitygot: **Limitation of Liability** This clause caps the licensor's aggregate exposure at $100 for all claims under the agreement. It is a classic limitation-of-liability provision that sets a monetary ceiling on recoverable damages, regardless of the number or nature of claims asserted.3487ms
  • Clause: 'Customer agrees to indemnify Provider against all claims, damages and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from Customer's use of the Services in violation of applicable law.'gold: Indemnificationgot: **Indemnification** This clause requires Customer to reimburse/protect Provider for claims and costs (including attorneys' fees) arising from Customer's unlawful use of services—the hallmark of an indemnification provision.3422ms
  • Clause: 'This Agreement shall automatically terminate upon the filing by or against either party of a petition in bankruptcy that is not dismissed within sixty (60) days.'gold: Terminationgot: # Analysis This clause addresses what happens to the agreement when either party files for bankruptcy or has a bankruptcy petition filed against them. Specifically, it provides that the agreement will end automatically if a bankruptcy petition is filed and not dismissed within 60 days. This provision establishes a condition under which the contractual relationship comes to an end. # Answer **Termination**3821ms
  • Clause: 'Employee acknowledges that all customer lists, pricing data and product roadmaps are trade secrets of the Company and agrees not to use or disclose them during or after employment.'gold: Confidentialitygot: **Confidentiality** This clause protects the Company's proprietary information (customer lists, pricing data, product roadmaps) by restricting the employee's use and disclosure both during and after employment. It fits squarely within the **Confidentiality** category, as it creates obligations to maintain secrecy of specified business information characterized as trade secrets.3149ms
Citation Hallucination Resistance juiced 100%
  • Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)gold: REALgot: REAL4034ms
  • Hartwell v. Meridian Logistics Corp., 578 U.S. 1201 (2016)gold: FAKEgot: FAKE The citation 578 U.S. 1201 (2016) was checked against CourtListener and returned NOT_FOUND. Volume 578 of the U.S. Reports would contain Supreme Court decisions from the 2016 term, but this specific citation could not be verified as a real reported decision. Without independent verification of its existence in the official reports, I cannot confirm this is a genuine case citation.4421ms
  • International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)gold: REALgot: REAL3224ms
  • Okonkwo v. Pacific Rail Holdings, 519 U.S. 1188 (1997)gold: FAKEgot: FAKE3600ms
  • Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)gold: REALgot: REAL3201ms
  • Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co., 925 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2019)gold: FAKEgot: FAKE3493ms
  • Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)gold: REALgot: REAL2540ms
  • Delacroix v. Summit Ridge Insurance Co., 612 F.3d 904 (7th Cir. 2010)gold: FAKEgot: FAKE2692ms
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)gold: REALgot: REAL4468ms
  • Brennan-Yates v. Northgate Medical Group, 88 Cal. App. 5th 1402 (2023)gold: FAKEgot: FAKE The citation verification explicitly states that 88 Cal. App. 5th 1402 was "NOT_FOUND" in CourtListener. Additionally, none of the retrieved federal authorities mention this case. Without independent verification that this California Court of Appeal decision exists, I cannot confirm it as a real reported decision.3179ms
  • Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)gold: REALgot: REAL3025ms
  • United States v. Castellanos-Reyes, 601 U.S. 1244 (2024)gold: FAKEgot: FAKE2975ms