Instruct: Given a premise, retrieve hypotheses that are entailed by the premise.
Query: That's certainly true, and we also believe that, for the reasons averted to by amicus AOL in this case and the reasons you've just suggested, the disruption in that context under the retrospectivity cases Ryder and Reynoldsville Casket Company would be sufficient to fit it within the, quote, "severe disruption exception" to the retrospectivity.
This text regards a retrospectivity case.
the courts may disrupt the Lumber company's original plan
Ryder and Reynoldsville Casket Company will go out of business in the next ten years
a court decision may disrupt the Lumber company's original plan
Ryder and Reynoldsville Casket Company has been in operation for 5 years
 the courts potentially disrupt the Lumber company's original plan
AOL is an amicus in this case.
Ryder and Reynoldsville Casket Company has great yelp reviews
Ryder and Reynoldsville Casket Company was founded in 1897
Ryder and Reynoldsville Casket Company sells only wooden caskets
 the courts may or may not disrupt the Lumber company's original plan
Ryder and Reynoldsville Casket Company was founded by charles ryder
The retrospective extension argument is an acceptable argument. 
Ryder and Reynoldsville Casket Company has an annual revenue of $300,000
Ryder and Reynoldsville Casket Company sells 50 caskets per day
Ryder and Reynoldsville Casket Company is based in canada
the third circuit would think hard about the case before reversing
The case brought in the 200's apply to the previous cases
The closure was delayed a time before this
The disruption at the event is being investigated.
The retrospective extension argument should be accepted   
Regular service will no resume on line 1.
Ryder and Reynoldsville Casket Company has been in operation for 5 years
The statement refers to a previous unidentified true statement.
Ryder and Reynoldsville Casket Company has great yelp reviews