Dataset Preview
The full dataset viewer is not available (click to read why). Only showing a preview of the rows.
'safe'
Error code: UnexpectedError
Need help to make the dataset viewer work? Make sure to review how to configure the dataset viewer, and open a discussion for direct support.
output string | input string | instruction string |
|---|---|---|
1 | If that flexibility is not apparent on the provision's face, consider some dictionary definitions—supposedly a staple of this Court's supposedly textualist method of reading statutes. A “system” is “a complex unity formed of many often diverse parts subject to a common plan or serving a common purpose.” Webster's Third... | The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if legal formalist reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Legal formalist reasoning is defined as when considerations such as statutory text and plain meaning influence the opinion. |
1 | In light of the relationship between the subparagraphs, it is natural to read the phrase “any other person” by referring to the immediately preceding subparagraph (A), which permits suit only by the United States, a State, or an Indian tribe. The phrase “any other person” therefore means any person other than those thr... | The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if legal formalist reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Legal formalist reasoning is defined as when considerations such as statutory text and plain meaning influence the opinion. |
1 | The dispute turns on the meaning of the word “discharge,” the key to the state certification requirement under § 401.2 The Act has no definition of the term, but provides that “[t]he term ‘discharge’ when used without qualification includes a discharge of a pollutant, and a discharge of pollutants.”3 33 U.S.C. § 1362(1... | The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if legal formalist reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Legal formalist reasoning is defined as when considerations such as statutory text and plain meaning influence the opinion. |
1 | The proposition that the federal government can, under the Interstate Commerce Clause, regulate an activity which is neither interstate nor commerce, reminds me of the old chestnut: If we had some ham, we could fix some ham and eggs, if we had some eggs. With neither ham nor eggs, the chances of fixing a recognizable m... | The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if legal formalist reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Legal formalist reasoning is defined as when considerations such as statutory text and plain meaning influence the opinion. |
1 | The plain meaning of this language is that so long as a facility recovers energy by incineration of the appropriate wastes, it (the facility ) is not subject to Subtitle C regulation as a facility that treats, stores, disposes of, or manages hazardous waste. The provision quite clearly does not contain any exclusion fo... | The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if legal formalist reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Legal formalist reasoning is defined as when considerations such as statutory text and plain meaning influence the opinion. |
1 | One would be hard pressed to find a statutory provision whose terms were any plainer than those in § 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Its very words affirmatively command all federal agencies “to insure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them do not jeopardize the continued existence” of an endangered s... | The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if legal formalist reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Legal formalist reasoning is defined as when considerations such as statutory text and plain meaning influence the opinion. |
1 | The restriction of “the waters of the United States” to exclude channels containing merely intermittent or ephemeral flow also accords with the commonsense understanding of the term. In applying the definition to “ephemeral streams,” “wet meadows,” storm sewers and culverts, “directional sheet flow during storm events,... | The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if legal formalist reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Legal formalist reasoning is defined as when considerations such as statutory text and plain meaning influence the opinion. |
1 | Congress takes no governmental action except by legislation. What the dissent refers to as “Congress' deliberate acquiescence” should more appropriately be called Congress's failure to express any opinion. We have no idea whether the Members' failure to act in 1977 was attributable to their belief that the Corps' regul... | The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if legal formalist reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Legal formalist reasoning is defined as when considerations such as statutory text and plain meaning influence the opinion. |
1 | Were there no Clean Water Act “navigable waters” apart from waters “presently used” or “susceptible to use” in interstate commerce, the “other than” clause, which begins the long parenthetical statement, would overtake the delegation of authority the provision makes at the outset. Congress, it follows, must have intend... | The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if legal formalist reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Legal formalist reasoning is defined as when considerations such as statutory text and plain meaning influence the opinion. |
1 | The Corps defines “adjacent” as “bordering, contiguous, or neighboring,” and specifies that “[w]etlands separated from *806 other waters of the United States by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes and the like are ‘adjacent wetlands.’ ” 33 CFR § 328.3(c) (2005). This definition is plainly reaso... | The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if legal formalist reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Legal formalist reasoning is defined as when considerations such as statutory text and plain meaning influence the opinion. |
1 | Though scientifically precise distinctions between “perennial” and “intermittent” flows are no doubt available, see, e.g., Dept. of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, E. Hedman & W. Osterkamp, Streamflow Characteristics Related to Channel Geometry of Streams in Western United States 15 (1982) (Water–Supply Paper 2193), ... | The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if legal formalist reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Legal formalist reasoning is defined as when considerations such as statutory text and plain meaning influence the opinion. |
1 | To begin with, the plain language of § 402.03 does not state that its coverage is limited to discretionary actions. Quite the opposite, the most natural reading of the text is that it confirms the broad construction of § 7 endorsed by our opinion in Hill. Indeed, the only way to read § 402.03 in accordance with the fac... | The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if legal formalist reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Legal formalist reasoning is defined as when considerations such as statutory text and plain meaning influence the opinion. |
1 | The Court is simply mistaken when it says that it reads § 402.03 “to mean what it says: that § 7(a)(2)'s no-jeopardy duty covers only discretionary agency actions ... .” Ante, at 2535 – 2536 (emphasis added). That is not, in fact, what § 402.03 “says.” The word “only” is the Court's addition to the text, not the Agency... | The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if legal formalist reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Legal formalist reasoning is defined as when considerations such as statutory text and plain meaning influence the opinion. |
1 | To begin with, that argument ignores the many ways, discussed above, that courts exercise independent review over the meaning of agency rules. See supra, at 2415 - 2418. As we have explained, a court must apply all traditional methods of interpretation to any rule, and must enforce the plain meaning those methods uncov... | The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if legal formalist reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Legal formalist reasoning is defined as when considerations such as statutory text and plain meaning influence the opinion. |
1 | The CAA's plain text supports the Agency: Disapproval of a SIP, without more, triggers EPA's obligation to issue a FIP. The statute sets precise deadlines for the States and EPA. Once EPA issues any new or revised NAAQS, a State “shall” propose a SIP within three years, 42 U.S.C. § 7410 (a)(1), and that SIP “shall” inc... | The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if legal formalist reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Legal formalist reasoning is defined as when considerations such as statutory text and plain meaning influence the opinion. |
1 | The practical difficulties cited by the Court of Appeals do not justify departure from the Act's plain text. See Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438, 461–462, 122 S.Ct. 941, 151 L.Ed.2d 908 (2002) (We “must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” (int... | The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if legal formalist reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Legal formalist reasoning is defined as when considerations such as statutory text and plain meaning influence the opinion. |
1 | Today, the majority approves that undemocratic revision of the Clean Air Act. The Agency came forward with a textual justification for its action, relying on a farfetched meaning of the word “significantly” in the statutory text. That justification is so feeble that today's majority does not even recite it, much less d... | The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if legal formalist reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Legal formalist reasoning is defined as when considerations such as statutory text and plain meaning influence the opinion. |
1 | But of course the statute does not focus on whether the upwind State has “achieved significantly”; it asks whether the State has “contributed significantly” to downwind pollution. The provision addresses the physical effects of physical causes, and it is only the magnitude of the relationship sufficient to trigger regu... | The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if legal formalist reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Legal formalist reasoning is defined as when considerations such as statutory text and plain meaning influence the opinion. |
1 | To its credit, the majority does not allude to, much less try to defend, the Government's “significantly” argument. But there is a serious downside to this. The sky-hook of “significantly” was called into service to counter the criterion of upwind-state responsibility plainly provided in the statute's text: amounts of ... | The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if legal formalist reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Legal formalist reasoning is defined as when considerations such as statutory text and plain meaning influence the opinion. |
1 | The second element of “plain text” on which the majority relies is small beer indeed. The Good Neighbor Provision does not expressly state that EPA must publish target quantities before the States are required to submit SIPs—even though the Clean Air Act does so for NAAQS more generally and for vehicle inspection and m... | The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if legal formalist reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Legal formalist reasoning is defined as when considerations such as statutory text and plain meaning influence the opinion. |
0 | Mr. Bagert’s written report is outside the record. The district court denied plaintiffs’s request to add it as a supplement to the administrative record. Plaintiffs challenge that ruling by the district court’s decision only in response to its ruling on their Rule 59 motion, discussed infra. For the purposes of the imm... | The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if legal formalist reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Legal formalist reasoning is defined as when considerations such as statutory text and plain meaning influence the opinion. |
0 | The plaintiffs are concerned that the proportion of tractor-trailer responses (which comprised 2% of the total responses) is not representative of the makeup of current bridge traffic. Plaintiffs calculate that trucks actually account for 12.5% of all bridge traffic. Nevertheless, even if we assume that there were addi... | The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if legal formalist reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Legal formalist reasoning is defined as when considerations such as statutory text and plain meaning influence the opinion. |
0 | Unlike the environmental impact statement requirement of the NEPA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a) is not satisfied by the filing of any application; only the granting of a NPDES permit releases a party from that provision’s prohibition. Thus, our conclusion is not altered by the fact that the Navy has now applied for a permit. | The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if legal formalist reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Legal formalist reasoning is defined as when considerations such as statutory text and plain meaning influence the opinion. |
0 | Thus, if the Corps attempted to adopt a regional supplement that applied only two of the Three Factors, Tin Cup's argument would have more force. Similarly, if the Corps attempted to adopt a regional supplement that replaced the Three Factors with other factors, that action might exceed the Corps' authority. But in thi... | The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if legal formalist reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Legal formalist reasoning is defined as when considerations such as statutory text and plain meaning influence the opinion. |
0 | It’s true that the Corps hasn’t done and won’t be doing a public interest analysis of the entire project — all six sections. But there does not appear to be a dispute over whether the project as a whole is contrary to the public interest — and it might be an impertinence for the Corps of Engineers to decide that a sist... | The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if legal formalist reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Legal formalist reasoning is defined as when considerations such as statutory text and plain meaning influence the opinion. |
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 6