Law_of_the_United_States

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: answers: United States Constitution
question: What is the foundation of the United States federal government?

answers: The Constitution
question: In the Unites States what sets out the boundaries of federal law?

answers: The United States Code
question: What is defined as the official codification of federal statutory law?

answers: law of the United States
question: What is compromised of many levels of codified and uncodified forms of law?

answers: federal judiciary
question: The constitution set boundaries for case law that originates from where?

answers: the United States Constitution
question: What is the foundation of the U.S. federal government?

answers: The Constitution
question: What sets out the boundries of federal law?

answers: codified and uncodified
question: What two forms of law make up the laws of the United States?

answers: The United States Code
question: What is th eofficial compilation of federal statutory law called?

answers: codified and uncodified
question: What different kinds of law make up the laws of the United States?

answers: the United States Constitution
question: What is the most important document in the US, setting the boundries for all other laws?

answers: Senate
question: What branch of gevernment is responsible for ratifing treaties?

answers: the executive branch
question: With branch of government deals with new regulations?

answers: the federal judiciary
question: Who's responsibility is case law?

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: answers: Federal law and treaties
question: What comes before state and territorial laws in the 50 U.S states?

answers: the Constitution
question: Federal sovereign only possess authority if it is stated in what?

answers: federal constitutional rights
question: States may grant their citizens border rights as long as they do not infringe on what?

answers: state law
question: Most U.S law, the kind of law we live everyday, consists of what kind of law?

answers: vary greatly from one state to the next.
question: Does every state have the same laws?

answers: conflicting state and territorial laws
question: Federal law overrides what laws?

answers: universal
question: The scope of federal power is not what?

answers: dual-sovereign system
question: What type of system is American Federalism?

answers: Indian reservations
question: American Federalism can also be considered tripartite because of the presence of what?

answers: the federal Constitution
question: States can grant their people broader rights than those granted in what document?

answers: Federal law and treaties
question: Is there anything that trumps state law?

answers: 50
question: How many state make up the United States?

answers: as long as they do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights
question: Can states grant rights to citizens that are not defined by the constitution?

answers: "living law"
question: What is day-to-day, operational law considered?

answers: state law
question: What is living law mostly made up of?

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: answers: a subsequent statute
question: In order for a unconstitutional statue to disappear, it has to be deleted by?  

answers: federal and state statutes
question: What has remained on the books after they were ruled unconstitutional? 

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

answers: the Supreme Court
question: Who can reverse an unconstitutional court ruling?

answers: it must be deleted
question: What must happen to a statute for it to become unconstitutional?

answers: a subsequent statute
question: What can delete a statute and make it unconstitutional?

answers: decades
question: Some federal and state statutes remain on the books for how long after they are ruled unconstitutional?

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

answers: the Supreme Court
question: Any court that enforces an unconstitutional statute will be overturned by what court?

answers: deleted by a subsequent statute
question: If a statute is unconstitutional, how is it removed?

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

answers: reversed by the Supreme Court
question: What would happen if a lower court tried to enforce an unconstitutional statute?

answers: constitutionality has been expressly established in prior cases
question: What must happen before the Supreme Court will reverse a decision by a lower court refusing to uphold a constitutional law?

answers: risk reversal by the Supreme Court
question: What would happen if a lower court refused to uphold a constitutional law?

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: answers: law of warranty
question: The rule of liability for defective products originated from what law?

answers: Greenman v. Yuba Power Products
question: In what case did the supreme court of California, throw away warranties and strictly impose liability for defective products?

answers: rule of strict liability for defective products
question: What was most influential American 20th century tort law?

answers: 1963
question: What year was the case Greenman v. Yuba Power products?

answers: rule of strict liability for defective products
question: What is one of the most influential changes to tort law?

answers: Roger J. Traynor
question: Who was at the forefront of the fight to change the laws on defective products?

answers: 1964
question: When was the Greenman rule in Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts published?

answers: Greenman v. Yuba Power Products
question: What case was fundamental in the fight to change warranty laws?

answers: 1985
question: When was the Restatement (Second) of Torts beginning to be adopted outside of the United States?

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: answers: Tort law
question: What law covers wrongs which humans can inflict upon each other?

answers: because of its immense size and diversity
question: Why can American tort law not be easily summarized?

answers: Restatement of Torts
question: While attempting to standardize tort law, multiple versions of tort law have come about, what are there versions called?

answers: Tort law
question: What covers crimes of human against human?

answers: wrongs also punishable by criminal law
question: What does tort law overlap with?

answers: Restatement of Torts
question: What is attempting to standardize the tort law system?

answers: many states have chosen to adopt only certain sections
question: What is the Restatement of Torts not successfull as a whole yet?

answers: immense size and diversity
question: Why is tort law hard to standardize?

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: answers: English common law
question: A lot of American common law diverged from where?

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

answers: by each other's rulings
question: Courts in commonwealth nations are often influenced by what?

answers: English common law
question: Most modern American common law came from what kind of law?

answers: each other's
question: Couts of commonwealth nations are often influenced by who's rulings?

answers: post-Revolution Commonwealth rulings
question: What rulings do American courts rarely follow?

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

answers: diverged significantly
question: How close is current American law to English law?

answers: American courts rarely follow post-Revolution Commonwealth rulings
question: What differs about American and English law?

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

answers: nearly identical
question: How close do the issues have to be in order for an English law to be used?

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: answers: the common law of England
question: Reception statues are generally the same as what law?

answers: contemporary U.S. courts
question: Who sites pre-revolution cases when discussion evolution of judge-made law? 

answers: Louisiana
question: Which US State did not  enact reception statues? 

answers: common law of England
question: What do reception statutes state is the law of the state?

answers: Louisiana
question: What is the only state to not enact reception statutes?

answers: a specific cutoff date
question: Some reception statutes impose what?

answers: pre-Revolution
question: Modern courts often cite which period in history cases when discussing changes in law?

answers: the common law of England (particularly judge-made law) is the law of the state
question: What are reception statutes?

answers: repugnant to domestic law or indigenous conditions
question: When are reception statutes invaild?

answers: English law
question: Where did the bulk of the US's starting laws come from?

answers: Louisiana
question: Which is the only stste without reception statutes?

answers: pre-Revolution
question: What kind of case would a contemporary lawyer discuss when talking about an ancient judge-made common law principle?

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: answers: contemporary English
question: early on American courts cited what cases?

answers: 19th century
question: What century were apellate decisions regularly reported?

answers: 19th century
question: When did cotations to English decisions gradually disappear?

answers: eighteen
question: How many published reports of American volumes existed in 1810?

answers: over 8,000
question: How many published reports of American volumes existed in 1910?

answers: mid-19th century
question: When did Americans really begin to establish their own laws independent of the English?

answers: eighteen
question: How many published volumes of American reports were released in 1810?

answers: 8,000
question: By 1910, how many volumes of American reports were there?

answers: By 1879 one of the delegates to the California constitutional convention was already complaining
question: What did the lawmakers think of the increase in reports?

answers: judicial literature
question: What were the lawmakers beginning to drown in?

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: answers: the Constitution
question: What does federal law come from?

answers: the Constitution
question: What gives Congress limited power to enact statutes?

answers: The United States Code
question: What do you call the official compilation and codification of federal statutes?

answers: in the Federal Register
question: Where are regulations published?

answers: Code of Federal Regulations
question: Where are regulations codified into?

answers: the Constitution
question: Where does federal law begin?

answers: Congress
question: Who has the power and right to enact statutes for interstate dealings?

answers: The United States Code
question: What is the compilation and codification of all federal statutes?

answers: executive branch agencies
question: Who do the statutes give the power of creating regulations?

answers: the Code of Federal Regulations
question: Where are the regulations from executive branch agencies found?

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: answers: Commerce and Spending Clauses
question: What areas of the Constitution deal with issuses such as aviation, railroads, and trademarks?

answers: regulating them
question: In areas of law such as insurance, there are laws refusing to regulate them as long as states have laws doing what?

answers: intellectual property
question: What type of property are trademarks and copyrights?

answers: federal law
question: What governs things such as military, money, foreign relations, etc.?

answers: Commerce and Spending Clauses of the Constitution
question: What enabled federal law to begin expanding into other areas such as avaition, telecommunications, railroads, etc.?

answers: start of the 20th century
question: When did the Commerce and Spending Clauses of the Constitution allow federal power to begin expanding?

answers: McCarran-Ferguson Act
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: coexist with each other
question: What happens when both the federal and state governments have regulations that overlap?

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: answers: the President
question: Who signs a bill into a law?

answers: Office of the Federal Register (OFR) of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)
question: Where does a bill go after it is signed?

answers: a law number
question: What is a new law given at the OFR of the NARA?

answers: a slip law
question: After being given a law number, a new law is prepared for publication as what?

answers: private laws
question: What kind of laws are not given statutory citation by the OFR?

answers: delivered to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)
question: Where does a bill go once the President signs it into effect?

answers: assigned a law number
question: What happens after a bill is delivered to the OFR?

answers: publication as a slip law
question: After a bill is assigned a number, what is it made ready for?

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

answers: a chronological arrangement of the laws in the exact order that they have been enacted
question: What is the United States Statutes at Large?

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: answers: statutes
question: What does congress often grant to give rulemaking authority to federal agencies?

answers: regulations
question: Federal agencies are authorized to make what public?

answers: law
question: Regulations normally carry the force of what?

answers: relevant statutes
question: Regualtions carry force of law when based on reasonable interpretation of what?

answers: broad rulemaking authority
question: What power is granted to federal agencies by Congress?

answers: too gridlocked to draft detailed statutes that explain how the agency should react to every possible situation
question: Why does Congress give generalized powers to federal agencies?

answers: the principle of Chevron
question: What gives regulations imposed by federal agencies the right to enforce their regulations?

answers: regulations normally carry the force of law as long as they are based on a reasonable interpretation of the relevant statutes
question: What does the Principle of Chevron provide for?

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: answers: stare decisis
question: What is used to determine whether federal judicial power extends to formulating binding precedent?

answers: the act of deciding a case becomes a limited form of lawmaking in itself
question: What is stare decisis?

answers: an appellate court's rulings will thereby bind itself and lower courts in future cases
question: Why is stare decisis a limited form of lawmaking?

answers: impliedly binds all persons within the court's jurisdiction
question: Who else does stare decisis affect?

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: answers: federal judge Alex Kozinski
question: Who has noted that binding precedent did not exist when the Constitution was written?

answers: reporters often simply rewrote or failed to publish decisions which they disliked
question: Why were decisions not reported or recoded correctly?

answers: law was believed to have an existence independent of what individual judges said
question: What are the natural theories of law that that the English judges in the eighteenth century used?

answers: saw themselves as merely declaring the law which had always theoretically existed, and not as making the law
question: Why could one judge reject another judges opinion?

answers: incorrect statement of the law
question: Why would one judge reject another's opinion?

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

answers: granted federal courts the power to formulate legal precedent
question: What did the missing plenary reception do?

answers: the federal Judiciary Acts
question: Where do the federal courts fall?

answers: Article Three
question: Where is judicial power found in the original Constitution?

answers: implied judicial power of common law courts to formulate persuasive precedent
question: What does Article Three give federal agencies?

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: answers: nineteenth century
question: When did binding precedent become possible in the United States?

answers: 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
question: What made binding precedent a possibility?

answers: hopeless inefficiency, instability, and unpredictability
question: What can invalidate the rule of law?

answers: 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
question: Why was the rule of precedent allowed?

answers: the Judiciary Acts
question: How is a court hierarchy established?

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

answers: 1938
question: When was the doctrine of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins put into effect?

answers: lack the plenary power possessed by state courts
question: Why can't federal courts just make up law?

answers: absence of constitutional or statutory provisions replacing the common law
question: When are states allowed to use plenary power?

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

answers: federal interpretations of state law
question: What are states not bound by?

answers: Erie doctrine
question: What states that deference is one way only?

answers: state courts are not bound by federal interpretations of state law
question: What does it mean when Erie states that deference is one way only?

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: answers: state constitutions, state governments, and state courts
question: What does each state posess?

answers: separate sovereigns
question: What are the 50 states in the Union known as?

answers: judicial branch
question: Which ranch applies, interprets, and occasionally overturns both state statutes and regulations?

answers: legislative branch
question: What branch of government enacts state statutes?

answers: executive branch
question: Which branch of government promulgates state regulations?

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: answers: state courts
question: Where are cases usually argued?

answers: involve claims and defenses under state laws
question: What types of cases are argued in the state courts?

answers: 103.5 million
question: How many new cases were filed in 2010?

answers: 282,000 new civil cases, 77,000 new criminal cases, and 1.5 million bankruptcy cases
question: What types of cases did federal district courts receive in 2010?

answers: 272,795
question: How many cases did appellate courts receice in 2010?

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: answers: federal constitutional case law interwoven with the federal and state statutes
question: What makes up the law of criminal procedure?

answers: inability of legislatures in the U.S. to enact statutes that would actually force law enforcement officers to respect the constitutional rights
question: What did the exclusionary rule provide for?

answers: writ of habeas corpus
question: What might a suspect use to challenge their detention?

answers: Miranda warning
question: What must a police officer recite to a suspect upon arrest/

answers: Civil Rights Act of 1871 and Bivens actions
question: What acts cover tort damages from police brutality cases?

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: answers: The law of civil procedure
question: What is over all judicial proceedings involving private party lawsuits?

answers: code pleading
question: What did New York enact that replaced traditional common law proceeding?

answers: modern notice pleading
question: What was code pleading ultimately replaced by?

answers: 20th century
question: When did code pleading get replaced by modern notice pleading?

answers: The old English division between common law and equity courts
question: What did the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abolish?

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: answers: New York, Illinois, and California are the most significant
question: Which states have not adopted FRCP?

answers: codified statutes enacted by the state legislature
question: How do New York, Illinois and California maintain civil procedure laws?

answers: court rules promulgated by the state supreme court
question: What should New York, Illinois and California be using instead of codified statutes?

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: answers: American civil procedure
question: What is extensive pretrial discovery a part of?

answers: summary judgment
question: What is a pretrial deposition?

answers: the burden falls on class members to notify the court that they do not wish to be bound by the judgment
question: What is an opt-out class action?

answers: class members must join into the class
question: What is an opt-in class action?

answers: parties generally bear their own attorneys' fees
question: What is the American Rule?

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: answers: prosecution by the state of wrongful acts
question: What is criminal law?

answers: acts which are considered to be so serious that they are a breach of the sovereign's peace
question: What type of wrongful act will the state prosecute?

answers: Federal criminal law
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: state level
question: Where are the majority of the U.S.'s crimes prosecuted?

answers: crimes
question: What can result in incarceration?

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: answers: felonies and misdemeanors
question: What two levels of crime are there?

answers: minor crimes
question: What is a misdemeanor?

answers: felony convictions
question: What results in lengthy prison sentences as well as subsequent probation, large fines, and orders to pay restitution directly to victims?

answers: a year or less in jail and a substantial fine
question: What usually happens with misdemeanors?

answers: infractions
question: What is a third level of crime that some states have adopted?

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.
qas: answers: obligations established by agreement (express or implied) between private parties
question: What is contract law?

answers: Uniform Commercial Code
question: What standardized contract law?

answers: express or implied
question: What kinds of agreements do contract law cover?