nc33/MultiSpan_SQUAD huggingface dataset:
Law_of_the_United_States

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."

Question: early on American courts cited what cases?
Answer: contemporary English

Question: What century were apellate decisions regularly reported?
Answer: 19th century

Question: When did cotations to English decisions gradually disappear?
Answer: 19th century

Question: How many published reports of American volumes existed in 1810?
Answer: eighteen

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

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

Question: How many published volumes of American reports were released in 1810?
Answer: eighteen

Question: By 1910, how many volumes of American reports were there?
Answer: 8,000

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

Question: What were the lawmakers beginning to drown in?
Answer: judicial literature
Law_of_the_United_States

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.

Question: What does federal law come from?
Answer: the Constitution

Question: What gives Congress limited power to enact statutes?
Answer: the Constitution

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

Question: Where are regulations published?
Answer: in the Federal Register

Question: Where are regulations codified into?
Answer: Code of Federal Regulations

Question: Where does federal law begin?
Answer: the Constitution

Question: Who has the power and right to enact statutes for interstate dealings?
Answer: Congress

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

Question: Who do the statutes give the power of creating regulations?
Answer: executive branch agencies

Question: Where are the regulations from executive branch agencies found?
Answer: the Code of Federal Regulations
Law_of_the_United_States

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).

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

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

Question: What type of property are trademarks and copyrights?
Answer: intellectual property

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

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

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

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?
Answer: McCarran-Ferguson Act

Question: What happens when both the federal and state governments have regulations that overlap?
Answer: coexist with each other
Law_of_the_United_States

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.

Question: Who signs a bill into a law?
Answer: the President

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

Question: What is a new law given at the OFR of the NARA?
Answer: a law number

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

Question: What kind of laws are not given statutory citation by the OFR?
Answer: private laws

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

Question: What happens after a bill is delivered to the OFR?
Answer: assigned a law number

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

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

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

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.

Question: What does congress often grant to give rulemaking authority to federal agencies?
Answer: statutes

Question: Federal agencies are authorized to make what public?
Answer: regulations

Question: Regulations normally carry the force of what?
Answer: law

Question: Regualtions carry force of law when based on reasonable interpretation of what?
Answer: relevant statutes

Question: What power is granted to federal agencies by Congress?
Answer: broad rulemaking authority

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Question: Who else does stare decisis affect?
Answer: impliedly binds all persons within the court's jurisdiction
Law_of_the_United_States

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.

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

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

Question: Where do the federal courts fall?
Answer: the federal Judiciary Acts

Question: Where is judicial power found in the original Constitution?
Answer: Article Three

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

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.

Question: When did binding precedent become possible in the United States?
Answer: nineteenth century

Question: What made binding precedent a possibility?
Answer: 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 can invalidate the rule of law?
Answer: hopeless inefficiency, instability, and unpredictability

Question: Why was the rule of precedent allowed?
Answer: 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: How is a court hierarchy established?
Answer: the Judiciary Acts
Law_of_the_United_States

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).

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Question: What are states not bound by?
Answer: federal interpretations of state law

Question: What states that deference is one way only?
Answer: Erie doctrine

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

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.

Question: What does each state posess?
Answer: state constitutions, state governments, and state courts

Question: What are the 50 states in the Union known as?
Answer: separate sovereigns

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

Question: What branch of government enacts state statutes?
Answer: legislative branch

Question: Which branch of government promulgates state regulations?
Answer: executive branch
Law_of_the_United_States

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.

Question: Where are cases usually argued?
Answer: state courts

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

Question: How many new cases were filed in 2010?
Answer: 103.5 million

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

Question: How many cases did appellate courts receice in 2010?
Answer: 272,795
Law_of_the_United_States

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.

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

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

Question: What might a suspect use to challenge their detention?
Answer: writ of habeas corpus

Question: What must a police officer recite to a suspect upon arrest/
Answer: Miranda warning

Question: What acts cover tort damages from police brutality cases?
Answer: Civil Rights Act of 1871 and Bivens actions
Law_of_the_United_States

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.

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

Question: What did New York enact that replaced traditional common law proceeding?
Answer: code pleading

Question: What was code pleading ultimately replaced by?
Answer: modern notice pleading

Question: When did code pleading get replaced by modern notice pleading?
Answer: 20th century

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

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.

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

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

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