romikgosai/squad_modified huggingface dataset:
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Who has noted that binding precedent did not exist when the Constitution was written?
A: federal judge Alex Kozinski', '
Q: Why were decisions not reported or recoded correctly?
A: reporters often simply rewrote or failed to publish decisions which they disliked', '
Q: What are the natural theories of law that that the English judges in the eighteenth century used?
A: law was believed to have an existence independent of what individual judges said', '
Q: Why could one judge reject another judges opinion?
A: saw themselves as merely declaring the law which had always theoretically existed, and not as making the law', "
Q: Why would one judge reject another's opinion?
A: incorrect statement of the law"]
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: How did the federal agencies differ from their English counter-parts?
A: no plenary reception statute at the federal level that continued the common law', '
Q: What did the missing plenary reception do?
A: granted federal courts the power to formulate legal precedent', '
Q: Where do the federal courts fall?
A: the federal Judiciary Acts', '
Q: Where is judicial power found in the original Constitution?
A: Article Three', '
Q: What does Article Three give federal agencies?
A: implied judicial power of common law courts to formulate persuasive precedent']
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: When did binding precedent become possible in the United States?
A: nineteenth century', '
Q: What made binding precedent a possibility?
A: 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', '
Q: What can invalidate the rule of law?
A: hopeless inefficiency, instability, and unpredictability', '
Q: Why was the rule of precedent allowed?
A: 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', '
Q: How is a court hierarchy established?
A: the Judiciary Acts']
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).

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What states that there is no general federal common law?
A: the doctrine of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins', '
Q: When was the doctrine of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins put into effect?
A: 1938', "
Q: Why can't federal courts just make up law?
A: lack the plenary power possessed by state courts", '
Q: When are states allowed to use plenary power?
A: absence of constitutional or statutory provisions replacing the common law']
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What is a major implication of the Erie doctrine?
A: federal courts cannot dictate the content of state law when there is no federal issue', '
Q: What are states not bound by?
A: federal interpretations of state law', '
Q: What states that deference is one way only?
A: Erie doctrine', '
Q: What does it mean when Erie states that deference is one way only?
A: state courts are not bound by federal interpretations of state law']
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What does each state posess?
A: state constitutions, state governments, and state courts', '
Q: What are the 50 states in the Union known as?
A: separate sovereigns', '
Q: Which ranch applies, interprets, and occasionally overturns both state statutes and regulations?
A: judicial branch', '
Q: What branch of government enacts state statutes?
A: legislative branch', '
Q: Which branch of government promulgates state regulations?
A: executive branch']
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Where are cases usually argued?
A: state courts', '
Q: What types of cases are argued in the state courts?
A: involve claims and defenses under state laws', '
Q: How many new cases were filed in 2010?
A: 103.5 million', '
Q: What types of cases did federal district courts receive in 2010?
A: 282,000 new civil cases, 77,000 new criminal cases, and 1.5 million bankruptcy cases', '
Q: How many cases did appellate courts receice in 2010?
A: 272,795']
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What makes up the law of criminal procedure?
A: federal constitutional case law interwoven with the federal and state statutes', '
Q: What did the exclusionary rule provide for?
A: inability of legislatures in the U.S. to enact statutes that would actually force law enforcement officers to respect the constitutional rights', '
Q: What might a suspect use to challenge their detention?
A: writ of habeas corpus', '
Q: What must a police officer recite to a suspect upon arrest/
A: Miranda warning', '
Q: What acts cover tort damages from police brutality cases?
A: Civil Rights Act of 1871 and Bivens actions']
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What is over all judicial proceedings involving private party lawsuits?
A: The law of civil procedure', '
Q: What did New York enact that replaced traditional common law proceeding?
A: code pleading', '
Q: What was code pleading ultimately replaced by?
A: modern notice pleading', '
Q: When did code pleading get replaced by modern notice pleading?
A: 20th century', '
Q: What did the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abolish?
A: The old English division between common law and equity courts']
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Which states have not adopted FRCP?
A: New York, Illinois, and California are the most significant', '
Q: How do New York, Illinois and California maintain civil procedure laws?
A: codified statutes enacted by the state legislature', '
Q: What should New York, Illinois and California be using instead of codified statutes?
A: court rules promulgated by the state supreme court']
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What is extensive pretrial discovery a part of?
A: American civil procedure', '
Q: What is a pretrial deposition?
A: summary judgment', '
Q: What is an opt-out class action?
A: the burden falls on class members to notify the court that they do not wish to be bound by the judgment', '
Q: What is an opt-in class action?
A: class members must join into the class', "
Q: What is the American Rule?
A: parties generally bear their own attorneys' fees"]
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What is criminal law?
A: prosecution by the state of wrongful acts', "
Q: What type of wrongful act will the state prosecute?
A: acts which are considered to be so serious that they are a breach of the sovereign's peace", '
Q: 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?
A: Federal criminal law', "
Q: Where are the majority of the U.S.'s crimes prosecuted?
A: state level", '
Q: What can result in incarceration?
A: crimes']
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What two levels of crime are there?
A: felonies and misdemeanors', '
Q: What is a misdemeanor?
A: minor crimes', '
Q: What results in lengthy prison sentences as well as subsequent probation, large fines, and orders to pay restitution directly to victims?
A: felony convictions', '
Q: What usually happens with misdemeanors?
A: a year or less in jail and a substantial fine', '
Q: What is a third level of crime that some states have adopted?
A: infractions']
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What is contract law?
A: obligations established by agreement (express or implied) between private parties', '
Q: What standardized contract law?
A: Uniform Commercial Code', '
Q: What kinds of agreements do contract law cover?
A: express or implied']
Myanmar (myan-MAR i/miɑːnˈmɑːr/ mee-ahn-MAR, /miˈɛnmɑːr/ mee-EN-mar or /maɪˈænmɑːr/ my-AN-mar (also with the stress on first syllable); Burmese pronunciation: [mjəmà]),[nb 1] officially the Republic of the Union of Myanmar and also known as Burma, is a sovereign state in Southeast Asia bordered by Bangladesh, India, China, Laos and Thailand. One-third of Myanmar's total perimeter of 1,930 km (1,200 miles) forms an uninterrupted coastline along the Bay of Bengal and the Andaman Sea. The country's 2014 census revealed a much lower population than expected, with 51 million people recorded. Myanmar is 676,578 square kilometres (261,227 sq mi) in size. Its capital city is Naypyidaw and its largest city is Yangon (Rangoon).

Questions and answers:
["
Q: How much a  Myanmar's boundaries are encompassed by beachfront lands?
A: (1,200 miles) forms an uninterrupted coastline", '
Q: How many people dwell in  Myanmar ?
A: 51 million people recorded', '
Q: What is the land mass of  Myanmar ?
A: Myanmar is 676,578 square kilometres (261,227 sq mi) in size', '
Q: Is the capital city the holder of the largest amount of the population in  Myanmar ?
A: largest city is Yangon (Rangoon)', '
Q: What is the name of the capital city of Myanmar?
A: capital city is Naypyidaw']
Early civilisations in Myanmar included the Tibeto-Burman-speaking Pyu city-states in Upper Burma and the Mon kingdoms in Lower Burma. In the 9th century, the Bamar people entered the upper Irrawaddy valley and, following the establishment of the Pagan Kingdom in the 1050s, the Burmese language, culture and Theravada Buddhism slowly became dominant in the country. The Pagan Kingdom fell due to the Mongol invasions and several warring states emerged. In the 16th century, reunified by the Taungoo Dynasty, the country was for a brief period the largest empire in the history of Southeast Asia. The early 19th century Konbaung Dynasty ruled over an area that included modern Myanmar and briefly controlled Manipur and Assam as well. The British conquered Myanmar after three Anglo-Burmese Wars in the 19th century and the country became a British colony. Myanmar became an independent nation in 1948, initially as a democratic nation and then, following a coup d'état in 1962, a military dictatorship.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What were the names of some of the early cultures located in Myanmar?
A: Tibeto-Burman-speaking Pyu city-states in Upper Burma and the Mon kingdoms in Lower Burma', '
Q: When did the dominant religion of Myanmar become something outside of the mainstream ? 
A: in the 1050s, the Burmese language, culture and Theravada Buddhism slowly became dominant in the country.', '
Q: What caused the downfall of the downfall of the the original kingdom in Myanmar?
A: The Pagan Kingdom fell due to the Mongol invasions and several warring states emerged', '
Q: Whose rule  was Myanmar under when it was one of the most massive kingdoms in Southeast Asia ?
A: Taungoo Dynasty', '
Q: When did was Myanmar ruled by the Taungoo Dynasty ?
A: In the 16th century']
For most of its independent years, the country has been engrossed in rampant ethnic strife and Burma's myriad ethnic groups have been involved in one of the world's longest-running ongoing civil wars. During this time, the United Nations and several other organisations have reported consistent and systematic human rights violations in the country. In 2011, the military junta was officially dissolved following a 2010 general election, and a nominally civilian government was installed. While former military leaders still wield enormous power in the country, Burmese Military have taken steps toward relinquishing control of the government. This, along with the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and political prisoners, has improved the country's human rights record and foreign relations, and has led to the easing of trade and other economic sanctions. There is, however, continuing criticism of the government's treatment of the Muslim Rohingya minority and its poor response to the religious clashes. In the landmark 2015 election, Aung San Suu Kyi's party won a majority in both houses, ending military rule.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What portion of the government was eventually separated from government participation? 
A: the military junta', "
Q: Has the country been able to overcome the problems of government with the previous regime?
A: Aung San Suu Kyi's party won a majority in both houses, ending military rule.", '
Q: What type of government is now established in Myanmar?
A: a nominally civilian government', '
Q: Are previous leaders a hendrence to the current government?
A: former military leaders still wield enormous power in the country', "
Q: What major conflict is Myanmar known for?
A: one of the world's longest-running ongoing civil wars."]