opinion stringlengths 349 204k | instruction stringclasses 163
values | question stringclasses 160
values | choices sequencelengths 0 311 | answer sequencelengths 1 1 | task stringclasses 157
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IN RE WHITAKER
No. 93-9220.
Decided October 11, 1994
Per Curiam.
Pro se petitioner Fred Whitaker filed a petition for writ of mandamus and requests permission to proceed in forma pauperis under this Court’s Rule 39. Pursuant to Rule 39.8, we deny petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner is allowed unti... | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the manner in which the Court took jurisdiction. The Court uses a variety of means whereby it undertakes to consider cases that it has been petitioned to review. The most important ones are the writ of certiorari, the writ ... | What is the manner in which the Court took jurisdiction? | [
"cert",
"appeal",
"bail",
"certification",
"docketing fee",
"rehearing or restored to calendar for reargument",
"injunction",
"mandamus",
"original",
"prohibition",
"stay",
"writ of error",
"writ of habeas corpus",
"unspecified, other"
] | [
7
] | sc_jurisdiction |
Herman Avery GUNDY, Petitioner
v.
UNITED STATES
No. 17-6086
Supreme Court of the United States.
Argued October 2, 2018
Decided June 20, 2019
Sarah Baumgartel, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Jeffrey B. Wall, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Noel J. Francisco, Solicitor General, Brian A. Benczkowski, Assistant Attorney Gen... | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the reason, if any, given by the court for granting the petition for certiorari. | What reason, if any, does the court give for granting the petition for certiorari? | [
"case did not arise on cert or cert not granted",
"federal court conflict",
"federal court conflict and to resolve important or significant question",
"putative conflict",
"conflict between federal court and state court",
"state court conflict",
"federal court confusion or uncertainty",
"state court c... | [
10
] | sc_certreason |
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. v. CITY OF THIBODAUX.
No. 398.
Argued April 2, 1959.
Decided June 8, 1959.
J. Raburn Monroe argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were /. Blanc Monroe, Monte M. Lemann, Malcolm L. Monroe and Andrew P. Carter.
Louis Fenner Claiborne argued the cause for respondent. With him o... | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the respondent of the case. The respondent is the party being sued or tried and is also known as the appellee. Characterize the respondent as the Court's opinion identifies them.
Identify the respondent by the label given ... | Who is the respondent of the case? | [
"attorney general of the United States, or his office",
"specified state board or department of education",
"city, town, township, village, or borough government or governmental unit",
"state commission, board, committee, or authority",
"county government or county governmental unit, except school district"... | [
2
] | sc_respondent |
BROWN, SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. CHOTE
No. 71-1583.
Argued February 22, 1973
Decided May 7, 1973
Burger, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Henry O. Ullerich, Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General,... | What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the treatment the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed accorded the decision of the court it reviewed, that is, whether the court below the Supreme Court (typically a federal court of appeals or a state supreme ... | What treatment did the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed accorded the decision of the court it reviewed? | [
"stay, petition, or motion granted",
"affirmed",
"reversed",
"reversed and remanded",
"vacated and remanded",
"affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part",
"affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded",
"vacated",
"petition denied or appeal dismissed",
"modify",
"remand",
"unusual ... | [
1
] | sc_lcdisposition |
"SANCHEZ-LLAMAS v. OREGON\nCERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OREGON\nNo. 04-10566.\nArgued March 29(...TRUNCATED) | "What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine t(...TRUNCATED) | What is the issue of the decision? | ["involuntary confession","habeas corpus","plea bargaining: the constitutionality of and/or the circ(...TRUNCATED) | [
32
] | sc_issue_1 |
"HODGSON et al. v. MINNESOTA et al.\nNo. 88-1125.\nArgued November 29, 1989\nDecided June 25, 1990\n(...TRUNCATED) | "What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify wh(...TRUNCATED) | "Consider that the petitioning party lost if the Supreme Court affirmed or dismissed the case, or de(...TRUNCATED) | [
"Yes",
"No"
] | [
1
] | sc_partywinning |
"UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. v. SHEEHAN\nNo. 78-344.\nDecided December 4, 1978\nPer Curiam.\nPetition(...TRUNCATED) | "What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify th(...TRUNCATED) | Who is the petitioner of the case? | ["attorney general of the United States, or his office","specified state board or department of educ(...TRUNCATED) | [
159
] | sc_petitioner |
"MU’MIN v. VIRGINIA\nNo. 90-5193.\nArgued February 20, 1991\nDecided May 30, 1991\nRehnquist, C. J(...TRUNCATED) | "What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify th(...TRUNCATED) | What is the state of the court in which the case originated? | ["Alabama","Alaska","American Samoa","Arizona","Arkansas","California","Colorado","Connecticut","Del(...TRUNCATED) | [
54
] | sc_caseoriginstate |
"UNITED STATES v. URSERY\nNo. 95-345.\nArgued April 17, 1996\nDecided June 24, 1996\nRehnquist, C. J(...TRUNCATED) | "What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify th(...TRUNCATED) | What is the court in which the case originated? | ["U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals","U.S. Court of International Trade","U.S. Court of Claim(...TRUNCATED) | [
71
] | sc_caseorigin |
"SANTA FE INDUSTRIES, INC., et al. v. GREEN et al.\nNo. 75-1753.\nArgued January 18-19, 1977\nDecide(...TRUNCATED) | "What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify th(...TRUNCATED) | Who is the respondent of the case? | ["attorney general of the United States, or his office","specified state board or department of educ(...TRUNCATED) | [
165
] | sc_respondent |
End of preview. Expand in Data Studio
CaselawQA is a benchmark comprising legal classification tasks, drawing from the Supreme Court and Songer Court of Appeals legal databases. The majority of its 10,000 questions are multiple-choice, with 5,000 sourced from each database. The questions are randomly selected from the test sets of the Lawma tasks. From a technical machine learning perspective, these tasks provide highly non-trivial classification problems where even the best models leave much room for improvement. From a substantive legal perspective, efficient solutions to such classification problems have rich and important applications in legal research.
- Downloads last month
- 44