Law_of_the_United_States

qas: question: What is the foundation of the United States federal government?
answers: text: United States Constitution
is_impossible: no

question: In the Unites States what sets out the boundaries of federal law?
answers: text: The Constitution
is_impossible: no

question: What is defined as the official codification of federal statutory law?
answers: text: The United States Code
is_impossible: no

question: What is compromised of many levels of codified and uncodified forms of law?
answers: text: law of the United States
is_impossible: no

question: The constitution set boundaries for case law that originates from where?
answers: text: federal judiciary
is_impossible: no

question: What is the foundation of the U.S. federal government?
answers: text: the United States Constitution
is_impossible: no

question: What sets out the boundries of federal law?
answers: text: The Constitution
is_impossible: no

question: What two forms of law make up the laws of the United States?
answers: text: codified and uncodified
is_impossible: no

question: What is th eofficial compilation of federal statutory law called?
answers: text: The United States Code
is_impossible: no

question: What different kinds of law make up the laws of the United States?
answers: text: codified and uncodified
is_impossible: no

question: What is the most important document in the US, setting the boundries for all other laws?
answers: text: the United States Constitution
is_impossible: no

question: What branch of gevernment is responsible for ratifing treaties?
answers: text: Senate
is_impossible: no

question: With branch of government deals with new regulations?
answers: text: the executive branch
is_impossible: no

question: Who's responsibility is case law?
answers: text: the federal judiciary
is_impossible: no

question: What is the least important form of law in the US?
is_impossible: yes

question: What is the foundation of the US Constitution?
is_impossible: yes

question: The acts of Congress creates boundaries for what kind of law?
is_impossible: yes

question: What type of law does the executive branch create?
is_impossible: yes

question: Laws that are only general are called what?
is_impossible: yes

question: What is the Restatement of Torts not successfull as a whole yet?
is_impossible: yes

question: Why would one judge reject another's opinion?
is_impossible: yes

question: When did scholars begin to argue that judicial power includes precedential effect?
is_impossible: yes
context: The law of the United States comprises many levels of codified and uncodified forms of law, of which the most important is the United States Constitution, the foundation of the federal government of the United States. The Constitution sets out the boundaries of federal law, which consists of acts of Congress, treaties ratified by the Senate, regulations promulgated by the executive branch, and case law originating from the federal judiciary. The United States Code is the official compilation and codification of general and permanent federal statutory law.

qas: question: What comes before state and territorial laws in the 50 U.S states?
answers: text: Federal law and treaties
is_impossible: no

question: Federal sovereign only possess authority if it is stated in what?
answers: text: the Constitution
is_impossible: no

question: States may grant their citizens border rights as long as they do not infringe on what?
answers: text: federal constitutional rights
is_impossible: no

question: Most U.S law, the kind of law we live everyday, consists of what kind of law?
answers: text: state law
is_impossible: no

question: Does every state have the same laws?
answers: text: vary greatly from one state to the next.
is_impossible: no

question: Federal law overrides what laws?
answers: text: conflicting state and territorial laws
is_impossible: no

question: The scope of federal power is not what?
answers: text: universal
is_impossible: no

question: What type of system is American Federalism?
answers: text: dual-sovereign system
is_impossible: no

question: American Federalism can also be considered tripartite because of the presence of what?
answers: text: Indian reservations
is_impossible: no

question: States can grant their people broader rights than those granted in what document?
answers: text: the federal Constitution
is_impossible: no

question: Is there anything that trumps state law?
answers: text: Federal law and treaties
is_impossible: no

question: How many state make up the United States?
answers: text: 50
is_impossible: no

question: Can states grant rights to citizens that are not defined by the constitution?
answers: text: as long as they do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights
is_impossible: no

question: What is day-to-day, operational law considered?
answers: text: "living law"
is_impossible: no

question: What is living law mostly made up of?
answers: text: state law
is_impossible: no

question: State and territorial laws preempt what kind of laws and treaties?
is_impossible: yes

question: The scope of what is considered universal?
is_impossible: yes

question: What type of government system do Indian reservations have? 
is_impossible: yes

question: States may grant citizens fewer what?
is_impossible: yes

question: What are examples of family law?
is_impossible: yes

question: Once the slip laws are placed into the United States Statutes at Large, what are they called?
is_impossible: yes

question: What type of property are trademarks and copyrights?
is_impossible: yes

question: How many English law volumes were there in 1810?
is_impossible: yes
context: Federal law and treaties, so long as they are in accordance with the Constitution, preempt conflicting state and territorial laws in the 50 U.S. states and in the territories. However, the scope of federal preemption is limited because the scope of federal power is not universal. In the dual-sovereign system of American federalism (actually tripartite because of the presence of Indian reservations), states are the plenary sovereigns, each with their own constitution, while the federal sovereign possesses only the limited supreme authority enumerated in the Constitution. Indeed, states may grant their citizens broader rights than the federal Constitution as long as they do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights. Thus, most U.S. law (especially the actual "living law" of contract, tort, property, criminal, and family law experienced by the majority of citizens on a day-to-day basis) consists primarily of state law, which can and does vary greatly from one state to the next.

qas: question: In order for a unconstitutional statue to disappear, it has to be deleted by?  
answers: text: a subsequent statute
is_impossible: no

question: What has remained on the books after they were ruled unconstitutional? 
answers: text: federal and state statutes
is_impossible: no

question: What principle  states no lower court will enforce an unconstitutional statue? 
answers: text: stare decisis
is_impossible: no

question: Who can reverse an unconstitutional court ruling?
answers: text: the Supreme Court
is_impossible: no

question: What must happen to a statute for it to become unconstitutional?
answers: text: it must be deleted
is_impossible: no

question: What can delete a statute and make it unconstitutional?
answers: text: a subsequent statute
is_impossible: no

question: Some federal and state statutes remain on the books for how long after they are ruled unconstitutional?
answers: text: decades
is_impossible: no

question: What decisis states that no lower court will enforce an unconstitutional statute?
answers: text: the principle of stare decisis
is_impossible: no

question: Any court that enforces an unconstitutional statute will be overturned by what court?
answers: text: the Supreme Court
is_impossible: no

question: If a statute is unconstitutional, how is it removed?
answers: text: deleted by a subsequent statute
is_impossible: no

question: What happens when an unconstitutional statute remains on the books?
answers: text: no sensible lower court will enforce
is_impossible: no

question: What would happen if a lower court tried to enforce an unconstitutional statute?
answers: text: reversed by the Supreme Court
is_impossible: no

question: What would happen if a lower court refused to uphold a constitutional law?
answers: text: risk reversal by the Supreme Court
is_impossible: no

question: What must happen before the Supreme Court will reverse a decision by a lower court refusing to uphold a constitutional law?
answers: text: constitutionality has been expressly established in prior cases
is_impossible: no

question: A statute is automatically removed when it is found to be what?
is_impossible: yes

question: How long does it take for the principle of stare decisis to come into affect?
is_impossible: yes

question: What is the name of the principle that demands that unconstitutional laws must be removed via subsequent rulings?
is_impossible: yes

question: What kind of court can reverse unconstitutional enforcements by the Supreme Court?
is_impossible: yes

question: What court created the principle of stare decisis?
is_impossible: yes

question: How close is current American law to English law?
is_impossible: yes

question: What began at the time the Constitution was framed?
is_impossible: yes

question: What happens when both the federal and state governments have regulations that overlap?
is_impossible: yes
context: Notably, a statute does not disappear automatically merely because it has been found unconstitutional; it must be deleted by a subsequent statute. Many federal and state statutes have remained on the books for decades after they were ruled to be unconstitutional. However, under the principle of stare decisis, no sensible lower court will enforce an unconstitutional statute, and any court that does so will be reversed by the Supreme Court. Conversely, any court that refuses to enforce a constitutional statute (where such constitutionality has been expressly established in prior cases) will risk reversal by the Supreme Court.

qas: question: The rule of liability for defective products originated from what law?
answers: text: law of warranty
is_impossible: no

question: In what case did the supreme court of California, throw away warranties and strictly impose liability for defective products?
answers: text: Greenman v. Yuba Power Products
is_impossible: no

question: What was most influential American 20th century tort law?
answers: text: rule of strict liability for defective products
is_impossible: no

question: What year was the case Greenman v. Yuba Power products?
answers: text: 1963
is_impossible: no

question: What is one of the most influential changes to tort law?
answers: text: rule of strict liability for defective products
is_impossible: no

question: Who was at the forefront of the fight to change the laws on defective products?
answers: text: Roger J. Traynor
is_impossible: no

question: What case was fundamental in the fight to change warranty laws?
answers: text: Greenman v. Yuba Power Products
is_impossible: no

question: When was the Greenman rule in Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts published?
answers: text: 1964
is_impossible: no

question: When was the Restatement (Second) of Torts beginning to be adopted outside of the United States?
answers: text: 1985
is_impossible: no

question: What case occurred in 1994?
is_impossible: yes

question: What section of the Product Liability Directive discusses warranties?
is_impossible: yes

question: What minor rule went on the books on the 20th c?
is_impossible: yes

question: Who is the head of the American Law Institute?
is_impossible: yes

question: When did Traynor publish the Restatement (Second) of Torts?
is_impossible: yes

question: What did the missing plenary reception do?
is_impossible: yes

question: When did Americans really begin to establish their own laws independent of the English?
is_impossible: yes

question: When did federal law lose jurisdiction over aviation?
is_impossible: yes
context: Notably, the most broadly influential innovation of 20th-century American tort law was the rule of strict liability for defective products, which originated with judicial glosses on the law of warranty. In 1963, Roger J. Traynor of the Supreme Court of California threw away legal fictions based on warranties and imposed strict liability for defective products as a matter of public policy in the landmark case of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products. The American Law Institute subsequently adopted a slightly different version of the Greenman rule in Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which was published in 1964 and was very influential throughout the United States. Outside the U.S., the rule was adopted by the European Economic Community in the Product Liability Directive of July 1985 by Australia in July 1992 and by Japan in June 1994.

qas: question: What law covers wrongs which humans can inflict upon each other?
answers: text: Tort law
is_impossible: no

question: Why can American tort law not be easily summarized?
answers: text: because of its immense size and diversity
is_impossible: no

question: While attempting to standardize tort law, multiple versions of tort law have come about, what are there versions called?
answers: text: Restatement of Torts
is_impossible: no

question: What covers crimes of human against human?
answers: text: Tort law
is_impossible: no

question: What does tort law overlap with?
answers: text: wrongs also punishable by criminal law
is_impossible: no

question: What is attempting to standardize the tort law system?
answers: text: Restatement of Torts
is_impossible: no

question: What is the Restatement of Torts not successfull as a whole yet?
answers: text: many states have chosen to adopt only certain sections
is_impossible: no

question: Why is tort law hard to standardize?
answers: text: immense size and diversity
is_impossible: no

question: What does tort not overlap with?
is_impossible: yes

question: What tried to standardize criminal law?
is_impossible: yes

question: What allows American tort law to be summarized easily?
is_impossible: yes

question: The American Law Institute unstandardized what?
is_impossible: yes

question: States have adopted all of what?
is_impossible: yes

question: Formulating judicial power is done by following what rule?
is_impossible: yes

question: What branch creates the Chevron doctrine?
is_impossible: yes

question: What power did the Founding Fathers remove in Article Three?
is_impossible: yes
context: Tort law covers the entire imaginable spectrum of wrongs which humans can inflict upon each other, and of course, partially overlaps with wrongs also punishable by criminal law. Although the American Law Institute has attempted to standardize tort law through the development of several versions of the Restatement of Torts, many states have chosen to adopt only certain sections of the Restatements and to reject others. Thus, because of its immense size and diversity, American tort law cannot be easily summarized.

qas: question: A lot of American common law diverged from where?
answers: text: English common law
is_impossible: no

question: When would American courts follow post-revolution commonwealth rulings?
answers: text: there is no American ruling on point
is_impossible: no

question: Courts in commonwealth nations are often influenced by what?
answers: text: by each other's rulings
is_impossible: no

question: Most modern American common law came from what kind of law?
answers: text: English common law
is_impossible: no

question: Couts of commonwealth nations are often influenced by who's rulings?
answers: text: each other's
is_impossible: no

question: What rulings do American courts rarely follow?
answers: text: post-Revolution Commonwealth rulings
is_impossible: no

question: What is one reason American courts may follow a post Revolutionary Commonwealth ruling under what circumstances?
answers: text: there is no American ruling on point
is_impossible: no

question: How close is current American law to English law?
answers: text: diverged significantly
is_impossible: no

question: What differs about American and English law?
answers: text: American courts rarely follow post-Revolution Commonwealth rulings
is_impossible: no

question: When would American law be more likely to follow English law?
answers: text: no American ruling on point
is_impossible: no

question: How close do the issues have to be in order for an English law to be used?
answers: text: nearly identical
is_impossible: no

question: Much of American common law is similar to what?
is_impossible: yes

question: Commonwealth nations tend to not be influenced by what?
is_impossible: yes

question: What kind of reasoning is required to follow the American ruling?
is_impossible: yes

question: When do Americans follow pre-Revolution Commonwealth rulings?
is_impossible: yes

question: What is English common law very similar to?
is_impossible: yes

question: When did Traynor publish the Restatement (Second) of Torts?
is_impossible: yes

question: What did New York enact that replaced traditional common law proceeding?
is_impossible: yes

question: California refuses to use codified statutes instead of what?
is_impossible: yes
context: However, it is important to understand that despite the presence of reception statutes, much of contemporary American common law has diverged significantly from English common law. The reason is that although the courts of the various Commonwealth nations are often influenced by each other's rulings, American courts rarely follow post-Revolution Commonwealth rulings unless there is no American ruling on point, the facts and law at issue are nearly identical, and the reasoning is strongly persuasive.

qas: question: Reception statues are generally the same as what law?
answers: text: the common law of England
is_impossible: no

question: Who sites pre-revolution cases when discussion evolution of judge-made law? 
answers: text: contemporary U.S. courts
is_impossible: no

question: Which US State did not  enact reception statues? 
answers: text: Louisiana
is_impossible: no

question: What is the only state to not enact reception statutes?
answers: text: Louisiana
is_impossible: no

question: What do reception statutes state is the law of the state?
answers: text: common law of England
is_impossible: no

question: Some reception statutes impose what?
answers: text: a specific cutoff date
is_impossible: no

question: Modern courts often cite which period in history cases when discussing changes in law?
answers: text: pre-Revolution
is_impossible: no

question: What are reception statutes?
answers: text: the common law of England (particularly judge-made law) is the law of the state
is_impossible: no

question: When are reception statutes invaild?
answers: text: repugnant to domestic law or indigenous conditions
is_impossible: no

question: Where did the bulk of the US's starting laws come from?
answers: text: English law
is_impossible: no

question: Which is the only stste without reception statutes?
answers: text: Louisiana
is_impossible: no

question: What kind of case would a contemporary lawyer discuss when talking about an ancient judge-made common law principle?
answers: text: pre-Revolution
is_impossible: no

question: What is the only US state to have a reception statute?
is_impossible: yes

question: What form of English law has been considered repugnant to the US?
is_impossible: yes

question: What specific date did Louisiana chose as a cutoff date?
is_impossible: yes

question: What cases have contemporary courts thrown out?
is_impossible: yes

question: Lowered duty of care is placed on what?
is_impossible: yes

question: What do convicts use the Miranda warning for?
is_impossible: yes

question: Where does federal law begin?
is_impossible: yes

question: Where are cases usually argued?
is_impossible: yes
context: The actual substance of English law was formally "received" into the United States in several ways. First, all U.S. states except Louisiana have enacted "reception statutes" which generally state that the common law of England (particularly judge-made law) is the law of the state to the extent that it is not repugnant to domestic law or indigenous conditions. Some reception statutes impose a specific cutoff date for reception, such as the date of a colony's founding, while others are deliberately vague. Thus, contemporary U.S. courts often cite pre-Revolution cases when discussing the evolution of an ancient judge-made common law principle into its modern form, such as the heightened duty of care traditionally imposed upon common carriers.

qas: question: early on American courts cited what cases?
answers: text: contemporary English
is_impossible: no

question: What century were apellate decisions regularly reported?
answers: text: 19th century
is_impossible: no

question: When did cotations to English decisions gradually disappear?
answers: text: 19th century
is_impossible: no

question: How many published reports of American volumes existed in 1810?
answers: text: eighteen
is_impossible: no

question: How many published reports of American volumes existed in 1910?
answers: text: over 8,000
is_impossible: no

question: When did Americans really begin to establish their own laws independent of the English?
answers: text: mid-19th century
is_impossible: no

question: How many published volumes of American reports were released in 1810?
answers: text: eighteen
is_impossible: no

question: By 1910, how many volumes of American reports were there?
answers: text: 8,000
is_impossible: no

question: What did the lawmakers think of the increase in reports?
answers: text: By 1879 one of the delegates to the California constitutional convention was already complaining
is_impossible: no

question: What were the lawmakers beginning to drown in?
answers: text: judicial literature
is_impossible: no

question: Whose cases did English courts cite early on?
is_impossible: yes

question: When did decisions from English courts begin to be reported?
is_impossible: yes

question: How many published volumes of American reports were there in 1879?
is_impossible: yes

question: Where was the delegate who praised the American judicial literature from?
is_impossible: yes

question: How many English law volumes were there in 1810?
is_impossible: yes

question: Who signs a bill into a law?
is_impossible: yes

question: What power did the Founding Fathers remove in Article Three?
is_impossible: yes

question: What was code pleading ultimately replaced by?
is_impossible: yes
context: Early on, American courts, even after the Revolution, often did cite contemporary English cases. This was because appellate decisions from many American courts were not regularly reported until the mid-19th century; lawyers and judges, as creatures of habit, used English legal materials to fill the gap. But citations to English decisions gradually disappeared during the 19th century as American courts developed their own principles to resolve the legal problems of the American people. The number of published volumes of American reports soared from eighteen in 1810 to over 8,000 by 1910. By 1879 one of the delegates to the California constitutional convention was already complaining: "Now, when we require them to state the reasons for a decision, we do not mean they shall write a hundred pages of detail. We [do] not mean that they shall include the small cases, and impose on the country all this fine judicial literature, for the Lord knows we have got enough of that already."

qas: question: What does federal law come from?
answers: text: the Constitution
is_impossible: no

question: What gives Congress limited power to enact statutes?
answers: text: the Constitution
is_impossible: no

question: What do you call the official compilation and codification of federal statutes?
answers: text: The United States Code
is_impossible: no

question: Where are regulations published?
answers: text: in the Federal Register
is_impossible: no

question: Where are regulations codified into?
answers: text: Code of Federal Regulations
is_impossible: no

question: Where does federal law begin?
answers: text: the Constitution
is_impossible: no

question: Who has the power and right to enact statutes for interstate dealings?
answers: text: Congress
is_impossible: no

question: What is the compilation and codification of all federal statutes?
answers: text: The United States Code
is_impossible: no

question: Who do the statutes give the power of creating regulations?
answers: text: executive branch agencies
is_impossible: no

question: Where are the regulations from executive branch agencies found?
answers: text: the Code of Federal Regulations
is_impossible: no

question: What does the Constitution stem from?
is_impossible: yes

question: What is an example of something Congress cannot regulate?
is_impossible: yes

question: What branch creates the Chevron doctrine?
is_impossible: yes

question: The Chevron doctrine compiles and codifies what?
is_impossible: yes

question: What is the Federal Register published in?
is_impossible: yes

question: What did New York enact that replaced traditional common law proceeding?
is_impossible: yes

question: What can invalidate the rule of law?
is_impossible: yes

question: What did the the UK courts in the end of the 19th century?
is_impossible: yes
context: Federal law originates with the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to enact statutes for certain limited purposes like regulating interstate commerce. The United States Code is the official compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal statutes. Many statutes give executive branch agencies the power to create regulations, which are published in the Federal Register and codified into the Code of Federal Regulations. Regulations generally also carry the force of law under the Chevron doctrine. Many lawsuits turn on the meaning of a federal statute or regulation, and judicial interpretations of such meaning carry legal force under the principle of stare decisis.

qas: question: What areas of the Constitution deal with issuses such as aviation, railroads, and trademarks?
answers: text: Commerce and Spending Clauses
is_impossible: no

question: In areas of law such as insurance, there are laws refusing to regulate them as long as states have laws doing what?
answers: text: regulating them
is_impossible: no

question: What type of property are trademarks and copyrights?
answers: text: intellectual property
is_impossible: no

question: What governs things such as military, money, foreign relations, etc.?
answers: text: federal law
is_impossible: no

question: What enabled federal law to begin expanding into other areas such as avaition, telecommunications, railroads, etc.?
answers: text: Commerce and Spending Clauses of the Constitution
is_impossible: no

question: When did the Commerce and Spending Clauses of the Constitution allow federal power to begin expanding?
answers: text: start of the 20th century
is_impossible: no

question: What is a law enacted by Congress that states that it refuses to regulate some industries as long as the states have regulations in place already?
answers: text: McCarran-Ferguson Act
is_impossible: no

question: What happens when both the federal and state governments have regulations that overlap?
answers: text: coexist with each other
is_impossible: no

question: What areas of law were generally ignored in the 18th and 19th centuries?
is_impossible: yes

question: When did federal law lose jurisdiction over aviation?
is_impossible: yes

question: Federal law on antitrust preempts what?
is_impossible: yes

question: What was the name of the act that allowed for broader interpretations in the 20th century?
is_impossible: yes

question: Employment laws has only what kind of law instead of federal?
is_impossible: yes

question: What does Congress sign into law?
is_impossible: yes

question: What doctrine states that state courts are bound by federal interpretations?
is_impossible: yes

question: Where do the federal courts fall?
is_impossible: yes
context: During the 18th and 19th centuries, federal law traditionally focused on areas where there was an express grant of power to the federal government in the federal Constitution, like the military, money, foreign relations (especially international treaties), tariffs, intellectual property (specifically patents and copyrights), and mail. Since the start of the 20th century, broad interpretations of the Commerce and Spending Clauses of the Constitution have enabled federal law to expand into areas like aviation, telecommunications, railroads, pharmaceuticals, antitrust, and trademarks. In some areas, like aviation and railroads, the federal government has developed a comprehensive scheme that preempts virtually all state law, while in others, like family law, a relatively small number of federal statutes (generally covering interstate and international situations) interacts with a much larger body of state law. In areas like antitrust, trademark, and employment law, there are powerful laws at both the federal and state levels that coexist with each other. In a handful of areas like insurance, Congress has enacted laws expressly refusing to regulate them as long as the states have laws regulating them (see, e.g., the McCarran-Ferguson Act).

qas: question: Who signs a bill into a law?
answers: text: the President
is_impossible: no

question: Where does a bill go after it is signed?
answers: text: Office of the Federal Register (OFR) of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)
is_impossible: no

question: What is a new law given at the OFR of the NARA?
answers: text: a law number
is_impossible: no

question: After being given a law number, a new law is prepared for publication as what?
answers: text: a slip law
is_impossible: no

question: What kind of laws are not given statutory citation by the OFR?
answers: text: private laws
is_impossible: no

question: Where does a bill go once the President signs it into effect?
answers: text: delivered to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)
is_impossible: no

question: What happens after a bill is delivered to the OFR?
answers: text: assigned a law number
is_impossible: no

question: After a bill is assigned a number, what is it made ready for?
answers: text: publication as a slip law
is_impossible: no

question: Once the slip laws are placed into the United States Statutes at Large, what are they called?
answers: text: session laws
is_impossible: no

question: What is the United States Statutes at Large?
answers: text: a chronological arrangement of the laws in the exact order that they have been enacted
is_impossible: no

question: What does Congress sign into law?
is_impossible: yes

question: What organization gives private laws legal statutory citations?
is_impossible: yes

question: Bound volumes of bills are called what?
is_impossible: yes

question: What type of laws does the NARA grant statutory citations to?
is_impossible: yes

question: Who signs a bill after it is delivered to the OFR?
is_impossible: yes

question: What does not place much weight on live testimony?
is_impossible: yes

question: Which branch of government promulgates state regulations?
is_impossible: yes

question: Criminal law can be fixed by private parties bringing what?
is_impossible: yes
context: After the President signs a bill into law (or Congress enacts it over his veto), it is delivered to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) where it is assigned a law number, and prepared for publication as a slip law. Public laws, but not private laws, are also given legal statutory citation by the OFR. At the end of each session of Congress, the slip laws are compiled into bound volumes called the United States Statutes at Large, and they are known as session laws. The Statutes at Large present a chronological arrangement of the laws in the exact order that they have been enacted.

qas: question: What does congress often grant to give rulemaking authority to federal agencies?
answers: text: statutes
is_impossible: no

question: Federal agencies are authorized to make what public?
answers: text: regulations
is_impossible: no

question: Regulations normally carry the force of what?
answers: text: law
is_impossible: no

question: Regualtions carry force of law when based on reasonable interpretation of what?
answers: text: relevant statutes
is_impossible: no

question: What power is granted to federal agencies by Congress?
answers: text: broad rulemaking authority
is_impossible: no

question: Why does Congress give generalized powers to federal agencies?
answers: text: too gridlocked to draft detailed statutes that explain how the agency should react to every possible situation
is_impossible: no

question: What gives regulations imposed by federal agencies the right to enforce their regulations?
answers: text: the principle of Chevron
is_impossible: no

question: What does the Principle of Chevron provide for?
answers: text: regulations normally carry the force of law as long as they are based on a reasonable interpretation of the relevant statutes
is_impossible: no

question: What do federal agencies enact for rulemaking purposes?
is_impossible: yes

question: Gridlock allows Congress to draft what?
is_impossible: yes

question: What does Congress believe hampers an agency's ability to deal with situations?
is_impossible: yes

question: Congress's state of gridlock is referred to as what principle?
is_impossible: yes

question: The Chevron deference prevents regulations from interpreting what?
is_impossible: yes

question: What is the only US state to have a reception statute?
is_impossible: yes

question: What non-standardized contract law?
is_impossible: yes

question: How many levels of felonies are there?
is_impossible: yes
context: Congress often enacts statutes that grant broad rulemaking authority to federal agencies. Often, Congress is simply too gridlocked to draft detailed statutes that explain how the agency should react to every possible situation, or Congress believes the agency's technical specialists are best equipped to deal with particular fact situations as they arise. Therefore, federal agencies are authorized to promulgate regulations. Under the principle of Chevron deference, regulations normally carry the force of law as long as they are based on a reasonable interpretation of the relevant statutes.

qas: question: What is used to determine whether federal judicial power extends to formulating binding precedent?
answers: text: stare decisis
is_impossible: no

question: What is stare decisis?
answers: text: the act of deciding a case becomes a limited form of lawmaking in itself
is_impossible: no

question: Why is stare decisis a limited form of lawmaking?
answers: text: an appellate court's rulings will thereby bind itself and lower courts in future cases
is_impossible: no

question: Who else does stare decisis affect?
answers: text: impliedly binds all persons within the court's jurisdiction
is_impossible: no

question: Formulating judicial power is done by following what rule?
is_impossible: yes

question: What fraction of federal appellate cases were published in 2007?
is_impossible: yes

question: When did federal appellate cases begin to be published?
is_impossible: yes

question: What do decisions made by lower courts bind?
is_impossible: yes

question: Who are unaffected by stare decisis?
is_impossible: yes

question: How many trial courts received domestic relations cases in 2010?
is_impossible: yes

question: What does the Principle of Chevron provide for?
is_impossible: yes

question: How is a court hierarchy established?
is_impossible: yes
context: The difficult question is whether federal judicial power extends to formulating binding precedent through strict adherence to the rule of stare decisis. This is where the act of deciding a case becomes a limited form of lawmaking in itself, in that an appellate court's rulings will thereby bind itself and lower courts in future cases (and therefore also impliedly binds all persons within the court's jurisdiction). Prior to a major change to federal court rules in 2007, about one-fifth of federal appellate cases were published and thereby became binding precedents, while the rest were unpublished and bound only the parties to each case.

qas: question: Who has noted that binding precedent did not exist when the Constitution was written?
answers: text: federal judge Alex Kozinski
is_impossible: no

question: Why were decisions not reported or recoded correctly?
answers: text: reporters often simply rewrote or failed to publish decisions which they disliked
is_impossible: no

question: What are the natural theories of law that that the English judges in the eighteenth century used?
answers: text: law was believed to have an existence independent of what individual judges said
is_impossible: no

question: Why could one judge reject another judges opinion?
answers: text: saw themselves as merely declaring the law which had always theoretically existed, and not as making the law
is_impossible: no

question: Why would one judge reject another's opinion?
answers: text: incorrect statement of the law
is_impossible: no

question: What began at the time the Constitution was framed?
is_impossible: yes

question: What was the name of the judge who believed he was declaring a pre-existing law?
is_impossible: yes

question: When did the natural law theory fall out of fashion?
is_impossible: yes

question: Reporters were not allowed to prevent publication based on what?
is_impossible: yes

question: What did the the UK courts in the end of the 19th century?
is_impossible: yes

question: When was the Miranda warning penned?
is_impossible: yes

question: What non-standardized contract law?
is_impossible: yes

question: Regualtions carry force of law when based on reasonable interpretation of what?
is_impossible: yes
context: As federal judge Alex Kozinski has pointed out, binding precedent as we know it today simply did not exist at the time the Constitution was framed. Judicial decisions were not consistently, accurately, and faithfully reported on both sides of the Atlantic (reporters often simply rewrote or failed to publish decisions which they disliked), and the United Kingdom lacked a coherent court hierarchy prior to the end of the 19th century. Furthermore, English judges in the eighteenth century subscribed to now-obsolete natural law theories of law, by which law was believed to have an existence independent of what individual judges said. Judges saw themselves as merely declaring the law which had always theoretically existed, and not as making the law. Therefore, a judge could reject another judge's opinion as simply an incorrect statement of the law, in the way that scientists regularly reject each other's conclusions as incorrect statements of the laws of science.

qas: question: How did the federal agencies differ from their English counter-parts?
answers: text: no plenary reception statute at the federal level that continued the common law
is_impossible: no

question: What did the missing plenary reception do?
answers: text: granted federal courts the power to formulate legal precedent
is_impossible: no

question: Where do the federal courts fall?
answers: text: the federal Judiciary Acts
is_impossible: no

question: Where is judicial power found in the original Constitution?
answers: text: Article Three
is_impossible: no

question: What does Article Three give federal agencies?
answers: text: implied judicial power of common law courts to formulate persuasive precedent
is_impossible: no

question: Federal courts are outside of the jurisdiction of what federal acts?
is_impossible: yes

question: What power did the Founding Fathers remove in Article Three?
is_impossible: yes

question: Who did the Supreme Court grant judicial power to?
is_impossible: yes

question: Where is the plenary reception statute found in the Constitution?
is_impossible: yes

question: When did scholars begin to argue that judicial power includes precedential effect?
is_impossible: yes

question: Where are the minority of US crimes prosecuted?
is_impossible: yes

question: How is a court hierarchy established?
is_impossible: yes

question: What fraction of federal appellate cases were published in 2007?
is_impossible: yes
context: Unlike the situation with the states, there is no plenary reception statute at the federal level that continued the common law and thereby granted federal courts the power to formulate legal precedent like their English predecessors. Federal courts are solely creatures of the federal Constitution and the federal Judiciary Acts. However, it is universally accepted that the Founding Fathers of the United States, by vesting "judicial power" into the Supreme Court and the inferior federal courts in Article Three of the United States Constitution, thereby vested in them the implied judicial power of common law courts to formulate persuasive precedent; this power was widely accepted, understood, and recognized by the Founding Fathers at the time the Constitution was ratified. Several legal scholars have argued that the federal judicial power to decide "cases or controversies" necessarily includes the power to decide the precedential effect of those cases and controversies.

qas: question: When did binding precedent become possible in the United States?
answers: text: nineteenth century
is_impossible: no

question: What made binding precedent a possibility?
answers: text: creation of a clear court hierarchy (under the Judiciary Acts), and the beginning of regular verbatim publication of U.S. appellate decisions by West Publishing
is_impossible: no

question: What can invalidate the rule of law?
answers: text: hopeless inefficiency, instability, and unpredictability
is_impossible: no

question: Why was the rule of precedent allowed?
answers: text: in the absence of case law, it would be completely unworkable for every minor issue in every legal case to be briefed, argued, and decided
is_impossible: no

question: How is a court hierarchy established?
answers: text: the Judiciary Acts
is_impossible: no

question: What did Kozinski make possible?
is_impossible: yes

question: When was West Publishing created?
is_impossible: yes

question: What company published the Judiciary Acts?
is_impossible: yes

question: What public policy has been ruled as an undermining of the rule of law?
is_impossible: yes

question: What is the name of the writer of the rule of binding precedent?
is_impossible: yes

question: Where was the delegate who praised the American judicial literature from?
is_impossible: yes

question: What does congress often grant to give rulemaking authority to federal agencies?
is_impossible: yes

question: What was rescinded in 1871?
is_impossible: yes
context: In turn, according to Kozinski's analysis, the contemporary rule of binding precedent became possible in the U.S. in the nineteenth century only after the creation of a clear court hierarchy (under the Judiciary Acts), and the beginning of regular verbatim publication of U.S. appellate decisions by West Publishing. The rule gradually developed, case-by-case, as an extension of the judiciary's public policy of effective judicial administration (that is, in order to efficiently exercise the judicial power). The rule of precedent is generally justified today as a matter of public policy, first, as a matter of fundamental fairness, and second, because in the absence of case law, it would be completely unworkable for every minor issue in every legal case to be briefed, argued, and decided from first principles (such as relevant statutes, constitutional provisions, and underlying public policies), which in turn would create hopeless inefficiency, instability, and unpredictability, and thereby undermine the rule of law.

qas: question: What states that there is no general federal common law?
answers: text: the doctrine of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
is_impossible: no

question: When was the doctrine of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins put into effect?
answers: text: 1938
is_impossible: no

question: Why can't federal courts just make up law?
answers: text: lack the plenary power possessed by state courts
is_impossible: no

question: When are states allowed to use plenary power?
answers: text: absence of constitutional or statutory provisions replacing the common law
is_impossible: no

question: Who won Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins?
is_impossible: yes

question: When was the Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins rescinded?
is_impossible: yes

question: What type of power do Federal courts have that state courts do not?
is_impossible: yes

question: What is an example of a law that is not an extension of English common law?
is_impossible: yes

question: Maritime law is not subject to what limitation?
is_impossible: yes

question: When did binding precedent become possible in the United States?
is_impossible: yes

question: Where are the regulations from executive branch agencies found?
is_impossible: yes

question: Employment laws has only what kind of law instead of federal?
is_impossible: yes
context: Under the doctrine of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), there is no general federal common law. Although federal courts can create federal common law in the form of case law, such law must be linked one way or another to the interpretation of a particular federal constitutional provision, statute, or regulation (which in turn was enacted as part of the Constitution or after). Federal courts lack the plenary power possessed by state courts to simply make up law, which the latter are able to do in the absence of constitutional or statutory provisions replacing the common law. Only in a few narrow limited areas, like maritime law, has the Constitution expressly authorized the continuation of English common law at the federal level (meaning that in those areas federal courts can continue to make law as they see fit, subject to the limitations of stare decisis).

qas: question: What is a major implication of the Erie doctrine?
answers: text: federal courts cannot dictate the content of state law when there is no federal issue
is_impossible: no

question: What are states not bound by?
answers: text: federal interpretations of state law
is_impossible: no

question: What states that deference is one way only?
answers: text: Erie doctrine
is_impossible: no

question: What does it mean when Erie states that deference is one way only?
answers: text: state courts are not bound by federal interpretations of state law
is_impossible: no

question: The Erie doctrine allows federal courts to intercede even when there is no what?
is_impossible: yes

question: What doctrine states that state courts are bound by federal interpretations?
is_impossible: yes

question: When can federal trial courts ignore state law?
is_impossible: yes

question: What must federal trial courts apply when the state law is not pursuant?
is_impossible: yes

question: The Erie doctrine states that federal courts can do what?
is_impossible: yes

question: What kind of reasoning is required to follow the American ruling?
is_impossible: yes

question: How is a court hierarchy established?
is_impossible: yes

question: What do you call the official compilation and codification of federal statutes?
is_impossible: yes
context: The other major implication of the Erie doctrine is that federal courts cannot dictate the content of state law when there is no federal issue (and thus no federal supremacy issue) in a case. When hearing claims under state law pursuant to diversity jurisdiction, federal trial courts must apply the statutory and decisional law of the state in which they sit, as if they were a court of that state, even if they believe that the relevant state law is irrational or just bad public policy. And under Erie, deference is one-way only: state courts are not bound by federal interpretations of state law.

qas: question: What does each state posess?
answers: text: state constitutions, state governments, and state courts
is_impossible: no

question: What are the 50 states in the Union known as?
answers: text: separate sovereigns
is_impossible: no

question: Which branch of government promulgates state regulations?
answers: text: executive branch
is_impossible: no

question: What branch of government enacts state statutes?
answers: text: legislative branch
is_impossible: no

question: Which ranch applies, interprets, and occasionally overturns both state statutes and regulations?
answers: text: judicial branch
is_impossible: no

question: What branch applies but cannot overturn statutes?
is_impossible: yes

question: How many local ordinances are there?
is_impossible: yes

question: What cannot preempt the states' plenary power?
is_impossible: yes

question: How are decisions appealed to the state supreme courts?
is_impossible: yes

question: The US has only one what?
is_impossible: yes

question: What is criminal law?
is_impossible: yes

question: What two levels of crime are there?
is_impossible: yes

question: Why were decisions not reported or recoded correctly?
is_impossible: yes
context: The fifty American states are separate sovereigns, with their own state constitutions, state governments, and state courts. All states have a legislative branch which enacts state statutes, an executive branch that promulgates state regulations pursuant to statutory authorization, and a judicial branch that applies, interprets, and occasionally overturns both state statutes and regulations, as well as local ordinances. They retain plenary power to make laws covering anything not preempted by the federal Constitution, federal statutes, or international treaties ratified by the federal Senate. Normally, state supreme courts are the final interpreters of state constitutions and state law, unless their interpretation itself presents a federal issue, in which case a decision may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by way of a petition for writ of certiorari. State laws have dramatically diverged in the centuries since independence, to the extent that the United States cannot be regarded as one legal system as to the majority of types of law traditionally under state control, but must be regarded as 50 separate systems of tort law, family law, property law, contract law, criminal law, and so on.

qas: question: Where are cases usually argued?
answers: text: state courts
is_impossible: no

question: What types of cases are argued in the state courts?
answers: text: involve claims and defenses under state laws
is_impossible: no

question: How many new cases were filed in 2010?
answers: text: 103.5 million
is_impossible: no

question: How many cases did appellate courts receice in 2010?
answers: text: 272,795
is_impossible: no

question: What types of cases did federal district courts receive in 2010?
answers: text: 282,000 new civil cases, 77,000 new criminal cases, and 1.5 million bankruptcy cases
is_impossible: no

question: How many new cases were filed in 2012?
is_impossible: yes

question: There were 20.4 million traffic cases in what year?
is_impossible: yes

question: How many trial courts received domestic relations cases in 2010?
is_impossible: yes

question: What organization started in 2012?
is_impossible: yes

question: How many civil cases did the federal district courts close in 2010?
is_impossible: yes

question: Couts of commonwealth nations are often influenced by who's rulings?
is_impossible: yes

question: What does not place much weight on live testimony?
is_impossible: yes

question: How many levels of felonies are there?
is_impossible: yes
context: Most cases are litigated in state courts and involve claims and defenses under state laws. In a 2012 report, the National Center for State Courts' Court Statistics Project found that state trial courts received 103.5 million newly filed cases in 2010, which consisted of 56.3 million traffic cases, 20.4 million criminal cases, 19.0 million civil cases, 5.9 million domestic relations cases, and 1.9 million juvenile cases. In 2010, state appellate courts received 272,795 new cases. By way of comparison, all federal district courts in 2010 together received only about 282,000 new civil cases, 77,000 new criminal cases, and 1.5 million bankruptcy cases, while federal appellate courts received 56,000 new cases.

qas: question: What makes up the law of criminal procedure?
answers: text: federal constitutional case law interwoven with the federal and state statutes
is_impossible: no

question: What did the exclusionary rule provide for?
answers: text: inability of legislatures in the U.S. to enact statutes that would actually force law enforcement officers to respect the constitutional rights
is_impossible: no

question: What might a suspect use to challenge their detention?
answers: text: writ of habeas corpus
is_impossible: no

question: What must a police officer recite to a suspect upon arrest/
answers: text: Miranda warning
is_impossible: no

question: What acts cover tort damages from police brutality cases?
answers: text: Civil Rights Act of 1871 and Bivens actions
is_impossible: no

question: What have US legislatures been able to enact successfully?
is_impossible: yes

question: What rule did the federal judiciary overturn?
is_impossible: yes

question: When was the Miranda warning penned?
is_impossible: yes

question: What do convicts use the Miranda warning for?
is_impossible: yes

question: What was rescinded in 1871?
is_impossible: yes

question: Who signs a bill into a law?
is_impossible: yes

question: When did binding precedent become possible in the United States?
is_impossible: yes

question: California refuses to use codified statutes instead of what?
is_impossible: yes
context: The law of criminal procedure in the United States consists of a massive overlay of federal constitutional case law interwoven with the federal and state statutes that actually provide the foundation for the creation and operation of law enforcement agencies and prison systems as well as the proceedings in criminal trials. Due to the perennial inability of legislatures in the U.S. to enact statutes that would actually force law enforcement officers to respect the constitutional rights of criminal suspects and convicts, the federal judiciary gradually developed the exclusionary rule as a method to enforce such rights. In turn, the exclusionary rule spawned a family of judge-made remedies for the abuse of law enforcement powers, of which the most famous is the Miranda warning. The writ of habeas corpus is often used by suspects and convicts to challenge their detention, while the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and Bivens actions are used by suspects to recover tort damages for police brutality.

qas: question: What is over all judicial proceedings involving private party lawsuits?
answers: text: The law of civil procedure
is_impossible: no

question: What did New York enact that replaced traditional common law proceeding?
answers: text: code pleading
is_impossible: no

question: What was code pleading ultimately replaced by?
answers: text: modern notice pleading
is_impossible: no

question: When did code pleading get replaced by modern notice pleading?
answers: text: 20th century
is_impossible: no

question: What did the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abolish?
answers: text: The old English division between common law and equity courts
is_impossible: no

question: What replaced code pleading in 1850?
is_impossible: yes

question: How many states enacted Field Code?
is_impossible: yes

question: What state enacted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938?
is_impossible: yes

question: When did The Delaware Court of Chancery become an equity court?
is_impossible: yes

question: What was divided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?
is_impossible: yes

question: What is an example of a law that is not an extension of English common law?
is_impossible: yes

question: What is a major implication of the Erie doctrine?
is_impossible: yes

question: What types of cases did federal district courts receive in 2010?
is_impossible: yes
context: The law of civil procedure governs process in all judicial proceedings involving lawsuits between private parties. Traditional common law pleading was replaced by code pleading in 24 states after New York enacted the Field Code in 1850 and code pleading in turn was subsequently replaced again in most states by modern notice pleading during the 20th century. The old English division between common law and equity courts was abolished in the federal courts by the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938; it has also been independently abolished by legislative acts in nearly all states. The Delaware Court of Chancery is the most prominent of the small number of remaining equity courts.

qas: question: Which states have not adopted FRCP?
answers: text: New York, Illinois, and California are the most significant
is_impossible: no

question: How do New York, Illinois and California maintain civil procedure laws?
answers: text: codified statutes enacted by the state legislature
is_impossible: no

question: What should New York, Illinois and California be using instead of codified statutes?
answers: text: court rules promulgated by the state supreme court
is_impossible: no

question: Which three states adopted the FRCP?
is_impossible: yes

question: How many states no longer have civil procedure laws from state legislature?
is_impossible: yes

question: What did California claim was wrong with state legislature?
is_impossible: yes

question: California refuses to use codified statutes instead of what?
is_impossible: yes

question: Key portions of what were changed to make the legislature more distinct?
is_impossible: yes

question: What do torts lead to?
is_impossible: yes

question: What cases have contemporary courts thrown out?
is_impossible: yes

question: What can result in incarceration?
is_impossible: yes
context: New York, Illinois, and California are the most significant states that have not adopted the FRCP. Furthermore, all three states continue to maintain most of their civil procedure laws in the form of codified statutes enacted by the state legislature, as opposed to court rules promulgated by the state supreme court, on the ground that the latter are undemocratic. But certain key portions of their civil procedure laws have been modified by their legislatures to bring them closer to federal civil procedure.

qas: question: What is extensive pretrial discovery a part of?
answers: text: American civil procedure
is_impossible: no

question: What is a pretrial deposition?
answers: text: summary judgment
is_impossible: no

question: What is an opt-out class action?
answers: text: the burden falls on class members to notify the court that they do not wish to be bound by the judgment
is_impossible: no

question: What is an opt-in class action?
answers: text: class members must join into the class
is_impossible: no

question: What is the American Rule?
answers: text: parties generally bear their own attorneys' fees
is_impossible: no

question: What does not place much weight on live testimony?
is_impossible: yes

question: What country's courts have opt-in class actions?
is_impossible: yes

question: What is the name of the opt-out class action?
is_impossible: yes

question: What are pretrial dispositions designed to result in?
is_impossible: yes

question: American legislators do not provide exceptions for what rule?
is_impossible: yes

question: Regualtions carry force of law when based on reasonable interpretation of what?
is_impossible: yes

question: What cases have contemporary courts thrown out?
is_impossible: yes

question: What did the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abolish?
is_impossible: yes
context: Generally, American civil procedure has several notable features, including extensive pretrial discovery, heavy reliance on live testimony obtained at deposition or elicited in front of a jury, and aggressive pretrial "law and motion" practice designed to result in a pretrial disposition (that is, summary judgment) or a settlement. U.S. courts pioneered the concept of the opt-out class action, by which the burden falls on class members to notify the court that they do not wish to be bound by the judgment, as opposed to opt-in class actions, where class members must join into the class. Another unique feature is the so-called American Rule under which parties generally bear their own attorneys' fees (as opposed to the English Rule of "loser pays"), though American legislators and courts have carved out numerous exceptions.

qas: question: What is criminal law?
answers: text: prosecution by the state of wrongful acts
is_impossible: no

question: What type of wrongful act will the state prosecute?
answers: text: acts which are considered to be so serious that they are a breach of the sovereign's peace
is_impossible: no

question: What can result in incarceration?
answers: text: crimes
is_impossible: no

question: Where are the majority of the U.S.'s crimes prosecuted?
answers: text: state level
is_impossible: no

question: Who focuses on things such as evading payment of federal income tax, mail theft, or physical attacks on federal officials, as well as interstate crimes like drug trafficking and wire fraud?
answers: text: Federal criminal law
is_impossible: no

question: What is it called when the state is prosecuted?
is_impossible: yes

question: Criminal law can be fixed by private parties bringing what?
is_impossible: yes

question: What do torts lead to?
is_impossible: yes

question: Where are the minority of US crimes prosecuted?
is_impossible: yes

question: What is an example of a tort?
is_impossible: yes

question: Federal agencies are authorized to make what public?
is_impossible: yes

question: What different kinds of law make up the laws of the United States?
is_impossible: yes

question: What is the foundation of the United States federal government?
is_impossible: yes
context: Criminal law involves the prosecution by the state of wrongful acts which are considered to be so serious that they are a breach of the sovereign's peace (and cannot be deterred or remedied by mere lawsuits between private parties). Generally, crimes can result in incarceration, but torts (see below) cannot. The majority of the crimes committed in the United States are prosecuted and punished at the state level. Federal criminal law focuses on areas specifically relevant to the federal government like evading payment of federal income tax, mail theft, or physical attacks on federal officials, as well as interstate crimes like drug trafficking and wire fraud.

qas: question: What two levels of crime are there?
answers: text: felonies and misdemeanors
is_impossible: no

question: What is a misdemeanor?
answers: text: minor crimes
is_impossible: no

question: What results in lengthy prison sentences as well as subsequent probation, large fines, and orders to pay restitution directly to victims?
answers: text: felony convictions
is_impossible: no

question: What usually happens with misdemeanors?
answers: text: a year or less in jail and a substantial fine
is_impossible: no

question: What is a third level of crime that some states have adopted?
answers: text: infractions
is_impossible: no

question: How many levels of felonies are there?
is_impossible: yes

question: What are felonies?
is_impossible: yes

question: Who do misdemeanors pay fines to?
is_impossible: yes

question: Misdemeanors may lead to a loss of what?
is_impossible: yes

question: What third level do many states remove?
is_impossible: yes

question: What type of property are trademarks and copyrights?
is_impossible: yes

question: What is the name of the opt-out class action?
is_impossible: yes

question: When did the natural law theory fall out of fashion?
is_impossible: yes
context: Some states distinguish between two levels: felonies and misdemeanors (minor crimes). Generally, most felony convictions result in lengthy prison sentences as well as subsequent probation, large fines, and orders to pay restitution directly to victims; while misdemeanors may lead to a year or less in jail and a substantial fine. To simplify the prosecution of traffic violations and other relatively minor crimes, some states have added a third level, infractions. These may result in fines and sometimes the loss of one's driver's license, but no jail time.

qas: question: What is contract law?
answers: text: obligations established by agreement (express or implied) between private parties
is_impossible: no

question: What standardized contract law?
answers: text: Uniform Commercial Code
is_impossible: no

question: What kinds of agreements do contract law cover?
answers: text: express or implied
is_impossible: no

question: What does contract law not cover?
is_impossible: yes

question: What non-standardized contract law?
is_impossible: yes

question: What did the Restatement (Second) of Contracts standardize?
is_impossible: yes

question: The Uniform Commercial Code limited the diversity of what?
is_impossible: yes

question: What types of agreements does the Restatement of Contracts cover?
is_impossible: yes

question: What fraction of federal appellate cases were published in 2007?
is_impossible: yes

question: What type of government system do Indian reservations have? 
is_impossible: yes

question: What does Congress sign into law?
is_impossible: yes
context: Contract law covers obligations established by agreement (express or implied) between private parties. Generally, contract law in transactions involving the sale of goods has become highly standardized nationwide as a result of the widespread adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code. However, there is still significant diversity in the interpretation of other kinds of contracts, depending upon the extent to which a given state has codified its common law of contracts or adopted portions of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts.