sentence-transformers/squad huggingface dataset:
Passage: 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.

Question: What law covers wrongs which humans can inflict upon each other?

Question: Why can American tort law not be easily summarized?

Question: While attempting to standardize tort law, multiple versions of tort law have come about, what are there versions called?

Question: What covers crimes of human against human?

Question: What does tort law overlap with?

Question: What is attempting to standardize the tort law system?

Question: What is the Restatement of Torts not successfull as a whole yet?

Question: Why is tort law hard to standardize?
Passage: 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.

Question: A lot of American common law diverged from where?

Question: When would American courts follow post-revolution commonwealth rulings?

Question: Courts in commonwealth nations are often influenced by what?

Question: Most modern American common law came from what kind of law?

Question: Couts of commonwealth nations are often influenced by who's rulings?

Question: What rulings do American courts rarely follow?

Question: What is one reason American courts may follow a post Revolutionary Commonwealth ruling under what circumstances?

Question: How close is current American law to English law?

Question: What differs about American and English law?

Question: When would American law be more likely to follow English law?

Question: How close do the issues have to be in order for an English law to be used?
Passage: 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.

Question: Reception statues are generally the same as what law?

Question: Who sites pre-revolution cases when discussion evolution of judge-made law?

Question: Which US State did not enact reception statues?

Question: What do reception statutes state is the law of the state?

Question: What is the only state to not enact reception statutes?

Question: Some reception statutes impose what?

Question: Modern courts often cite which period in history cases when discussing changes in law?

Question: What are reception statutes?

Question: When are reception statutes invaild?

Question: Where did the bulk of the US's starting laws come from?

Question: Which is the only stste without reception statutes?

Question: What kind of case would a contemporary lawyer discuss when talking about an ancient judge-made common law principle?
Passage: 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?

Question: What century were apellate decisions regularly reported?

Question: When did cotations to English decisions gradually disappear?

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

Question: How many published reports of American volumes existed in 1910?

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

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

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

Question: What did the lawmakers think of the increase in reports?

Question: What were the lawmakers beginning to drown in?
Passage: 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?

Question: What gives Congress limited power to enact statutes?

Question: What do you call the official compilation and codification of federal statutes?

Question: Where are regulations published?

Question: Where are regulations codified into?

Question: Where does federal law begin?

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

Question: What is the compilation and codification of all federal statutes?

Question: Who do the statutes give the power of creating regulations?

Question: Where are the regulations from executive branch agencies found?
Passage: 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?

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

Question: What type of property are trademarks and copyrights?

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

Question: What enabled federal law to begin expanding into other areas such as avaition, telecommunications, railroads, etc.?

Question: When did the Commerce and Spending Clauses of the Constitution allow federal power to begin expanding?

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?

Question: What happens when both the federal and state governments have regulations that overlap?
Passage: 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?

Question: Where does a bill go after it is signed?

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

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

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

Question: Where does a bill go once the President signs it into effect?

Question: What happens after a bill is delivered to the OFR?

Question: After a bill is assigned a number, what is it made ready for?

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

Question: What is the United States Statutes at Large?
Passage: 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?

Question: Federal agencies are authorized to make what public?

Question: Regulations normally carry the force of what?

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

Question: What power is granted to federal agencies by Congress?

Question: Why does Congress give generalized powers to federal agencies?

Question: What gives regulations imposed by federal agencies the right to enforce their regulations?

Question: What does the Principle of Chevron provide for?
Passage: 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?

Question: What is stare decisis?

Question: Why is stare decisis a limited form of lawmaking?

Question: Who else does stare decisis affect?
Passage: 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.

Question: Who has noted that binding precedent did not exist when the Constitution was written?

Question: Why were decisions not reported or recoded correctly?

Question: What are the natural theories of law that that the English judges in the eighteenth century used?

Question: Why could one judge reject another judges opinion?

Question: Why would one judge reject another's opinion?
Passage: 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?

Question: What did the missing plenary reception do?

Question: Where do the federal courts fall?

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

Question: What does Article Three give federal agencies?
Passage: 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?

Question: What made binding precedent a possibility?

Question: What can invalidate the rule of law?

Question: Why was the rule of precedent allowed?

Question: How is a court hierarchy established?
Passage: 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?

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

Question: Why can't federal courts just make up law?

Question: When are states allowed to use plenary power?
Passage: 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?

Question: What are states not bound by?

Question: What states that deference is one way only?

Question: What does it mean when Erie states that deference is one way only?
Passage: 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?

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

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

Question: What branch of government enacts state statutes?

Question: Which branch of government promulgates state regulations?
Passage: 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?

Question: What types of cases are argued in the state courts?

Question: How many new cases were filed in 2010?

Question: What types of cases did federal district courts receive in 2010?

Question: How many cases did appellate courts receice in 2010?
Passage: 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?

Question: What did the exclusionary rule provide for?

Question: What might a suspect use to challenge their detention?

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

Question: What acts cover tort damages from police brutality cases?
Passage: 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?

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

Question: What was code pleading ultimately replaced by?

Question: When did code pleading get replaced by modern notice pleading?

Question: What did the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abolish?
Passage: 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?

Question: How do New York, Illinois and California maintain civil procedure laws?

Question: What should New York, Illinois and California be using instead of codified statutes?