Datasets:

alea-institute
/

alea-scotus-holdings

id stringlengths 20 20	text stringlengths 82 2.98k	case_name stringlengths 11 145	citation stringlengths 10 13	year int64 1.91k 2.03k	holding_source stringclasses 2 values	layout stringclasses 2 values	template stringclasses 5 values	n_tokens int64 27 679
sch-0015be40b95447f1	Leading case: United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006). Held: A trial court’s erroneous deprivation of a criminal defendant’s choice of counsel entitles him to reversal of his conviction. (a) In light of the Government’s concession of erroneous deprivation, the trial court’s error violated respondent’s Sixt...	United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez	548 U.S. 140	2,006	syllabus	plain	bluebook	550
sch-001809c9120702ee	In Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997), the Supreme Court held: Washington's prohibition against "caus[ing]'' or "aid[ing]'' a suicide does not violate the Due Process Clause. Pp. ____-____. (a) An examination of our Nation's history, legal traditions, and practices demonstrates that Anglo-American common law...	Washington v. Glucksberg	521 U.S. 702	1,997	syllabus	plain	para	447
sch-001d28d9f600f5f4	<\|start\|><\|user\|> Tell me the holding in Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia Ex Rel. Virginia State Bar.<\|eot\|> <\|assistant\|> In the Court's words (Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia Ex Rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1 (1964)): "We hold that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of...	Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia Ex Rel. Virginia State Bar	377 U.S. 1	1,964	wehold	chat	chat	109
sch-0033b6d143de0b10	Case: Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett Citation: 494 U.S. 638 Decided: 1990 Court: Supreme Court of the United States Holding (syllabus): Exclusivity provisions in state workers' compensation laws do not bar migrant workers from availing themselves of a private right of action under § 1854. (a) The explicit language of AWPA'...	Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett	494 U.S. 638	1,990	syllabus	plain	para	467
sch-0035b4c458656e8b	Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (1983). Held: The insurance proceeds petitioner received as a result of his arson activities constitute an "interest" within the meaning of § 1963(a)(1) and are therefore subject to forfeiture. (a) Section 1963(a)(1) does not reach only "interests in an enterprise." Where the term...	Russello v. United States	464 U.S. 16	1,983	syllabus	plain	bluebook	465
sch-0042a1a8510ef2ae	Question: What did the Supreme Court hold in Smith v. Maryland? Answer: The syllabus of Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), states: Held: The installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required. (a) Application of the Fourth Amend...	Smith v. Maryland	442 U.S. 735	1,979	syllabus	plain	qa	388
sch-0052c53567b59219	386 U.S. 547 Pierson v. Ray Decided 1967 Opinion of the Court: "We hold that the defense of good faith and probable cause, which the Court of Appeals found available to the officers in the common-law action for false arrest and imprisonment, is also available to them in the action under § 1983."	Pierson v. Ray	386 U.S. 547	1,967	wehold	plain	block	61
sch-005fff5a71b9fe94	In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988), the Supreme Court held: Respondents' First Amendment rights were not violated. (a) First Amendment rights of students in the public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings, and must be applied in light of the s...	Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier	484 U.S. 260	1,988	syllabus	plain	para	429
sch-00857827592e9f27	United States Gypsum Co. v. National Gypsum Co. was decided by the Supreme Court in 1957 (352 U.S. 457). The opinion of the Court states: "We conclude that in the circumstances present here it was error to regard the inclusion of the contract Counts as constituting a 'fresh' patent misuse on Gypsum's part."	United States Gypsum Co. v. National Gypsum Co.	352 U.S. 457	1,957	wehold	plain	para	73
sch-00974c7180e93616	Cite: Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1980). Held: The searches of appellant and the seizure of what was in his pocket contravened the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. (a) When the search warrant was issued the authorities had no probable cause to believe that any person found in the tavern, aside from the bartender,...	Ybarra v. Illinois	444 U.S. 85	1,980	syllabus	plain	bluebook	426
sch-00ad5ec7b8fda3f3	Syllabus excerpt, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244 (1991): Held: Title VII does not apply extraterritorially to regulate the employment practices of United States firms that employ American citizens abroad. Petitioners' evidence, while not totally lacking in probative v...	Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Arabian American Oil Co.	499 U.S. 244	1,991	syllabus	plain	block	595
sch-00b4ea5a805ad411	<\|start\|><\|user\|> What was decided in Kansas v. Hendricks (1997)?<\|eot\|> <\|assistant\|> According to the syllabus (521 U.S. 346, 1997), the Court held: 1.The Act's definition of "mental abnormality'' satisfies "substantive'' due process requirements. An individual's constitutionally protected liberty interest in avoidin...	Kansas v. Hendricks	521 U.S. 346	1,997	syllabus	chat	chat	508
sch-00bfa83591499925	The syllabus to Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782 (2001), sets out the Court's holding as follows: 1. Penry's argument is unavailing that the admission into evidence of the portion of the Peebles report referring to his future dangerousness violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. This case is di...	Penry v. Johnson	532 U.S. 782	2,001	syllabus	plain	para	517
sch-00c07df1dcc8941f	The holding of McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961), in the Court's own words: "For these reasons, we hold that the Maryland statutes are not laws respecting an establishment of religion."	McGowan v. Maryland	366 U.S. 420	1,961	wehold	plain	para	46
sch-00c83a9e3a37b323	Question: Tell me the holding in Gregory v. Ashcroft. Answer: Gregory v. Ashcroft (1991), reported at 501 U.S. 452. The syllabus summarizes the holding: 1. Missouri's mandatory retirement requirement for judges does not violate the ADEA. (a) The authority of a State's people to determine the qualifications of their mo...	Gregory v. Ashcroft	501 U.S. 452	1,991	syllabus	plain	qa	527
sch-00e2916cadd884a7	Supreme Court of the United States Safford Unified School District v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009) Held: 1. The search of Savana’s underwear violated the Fourth Amendment. (a) For school searches, “the public interest is best served by a Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness that stops short of probable cause.” ...	Safford Unified School District v. Redding	557 U.S. 364	2,009	syllabus	plain	block	369
sch-00e358c56bdb9757	Authority: United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984). Held: The Fourth Amendment did not require the DEA agent to obtain a warrant before testing the white powder. (a) The fact that employees of the private carrier independently opened the package and made an examination that might have been impermissible for a Go...	United States v. Jacobsen	466 U.S. 109	1,984	syllabus	plain	bluebook	455
sch-00e846be843d5dae	Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. 419 U.S. 281 (1975) Held: 1. The District Court erred in refusing to enforce the ICC's order. (a) Under the 'arbitrary and capricious' standard the scope of review is a narrow one whereby a reviewing court must 'consider whether the decision was based o...	Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc.	419 U.S. 281	1,975	syllabus	plain	block	467
sch-00ed7d254dce595e	<\|start\|><\|user\|> Tell me the holding in Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States.<\|eot\|> <\|assistant\|> The syllabus of Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366 (1973), states: Held: 1. Otter Tail is not insulated from antitrust regulation by reason of the Federal Power Act, whose legislative history manifests ...	Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States	410 U.S. 366	1,973	syllabus	chat	chat	521
sch-00eec2fc4374d673	Syllabus excerpt, Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990): Held: The Fourth Amendment permits a properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in-home arrest when the searching officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a...	Maryland v. Buie	494 U.S. 325	1,990	syllabus	plain	block	475
sch-0102c36dc3bcfb16	<\|start\|><\|user\|> Summarize the holding of Hensley v. Eckerhart (1983).<\|eot\|> <\|assistant\|> The syllabus of Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983), states: Held: The District Court did not properly consider the relationship between the extent of success and the amount of the attorney's fee award. The extent of a pl...	Hensley v. Eckerhart	461 U.S. 424	1,983	syllabus	chat	chat	185
sch-01117d87e9c5a96c	<\|start\|><\|user\|> What is Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, known for holding?<\|eot\|> <\|assistant\|> The opinion of the Court in Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969), says: "We thus conclude that in terms of the general criteria of justiciability, this case is justiciable."<\|eot\|> <\|end\|>	Powell v. McCormack	395 U.S. 486	1,969	wehold	chat	chat	76
sch-0126bca7cecdcae2	Authority: Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987). Held: 1. The warrantless search of petitioner's residence was "reasonable" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment because it was conducted pursuant to a regulation that is itself a reasonable response to the "special needs" of a probation system. (a) Supervision...	Griffin v. Wisconsin	483 U.S. 868	1,987	syllabus	plain	bluebook	451
sch-013887b06e93f6f3	<\|start\|><\|user\|> Give me the holding of Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, decided in 1984.<\|eot\|> <\|assistant\|> In Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984), the Supreme Court held: The Eleventh Amendment prohibited the District Court from ordering state officials to conform thei...	Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman	465 U.S. 89	1,984	syllabus	chat	chat	508
sch-015e71aa649fb7b0	For Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990), the syllabus prepared by the Reporter of Decisions reads in part: "Held: The child-disability regulations are inconsistent with the statutory standard of "comparable severity." (a) While adults who do not qualify under the listings still have the opportunity to show that the...	Sullivan v. Zebley	493 U.S. 521	1,990	syllabus	plain	para	408
sch-01771344f46df745	Q: What was decided in United States v. W. M. Webb, Inc. (1970)? A: In the Court's words (United States v. W. M. Webb, Inc., 397 U.S. 179 (1970)): "We conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in declining to judge the status of the captains and crewmen against the standards of maritime law."	United States v. W. M. Webb, Inc.	397 U.S. 179	1,970	wehold	plain	qa	70
sch-01794961ad36e005	A summary of the holding in Illinois v. Perkins (1990), reported at 496 U.S. 292, from the Reporter of Decisions' syllabus: An undercover law enforcement officer posing as a fellow inmate need not give Miranda warnings to an incarcerated suspect before asking questions that may elicit an incriminating response. The Mir...	Illinois v. Perkins	496 U.S. 292	1,990	syllabus	plain	para	519
sch-01811b2c7ff8cb7e	Leading case: United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995). Held: The trial judge's refusal to submit the question of "materiality" to the jury was unconstitutional. (a) The Fifth and Sixth Amendments require criminal convictions to rest upon a jury determination that the defendant is guilty of every element of the cri...	United States v. Gaudin	515 U.S. 506	1,995	syllabus	plain	bluebook	485
sch-01835fae92a7617f	Q: What did the Court decide in Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423? A: According to the syllabus (457 U.S. 423, 1982), the Court held: The federal courts should abstain from interfering with the ongoing disciplinary proceedings within the jurisdiction of the New Jersey Supreme Cou...	Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'n	457 U.S. 423	1,982	syllabus	plain	qa	419
sch-0193ebba44b77331	499 U.S. 467 McCleskey v. Zant Decided 1991 Held: McCleskey's failure to raise his Massiah claim in his first federal habeas petition constituted abuse of the writ. (a) Much confusion exists as to the proper standard for applying the abuse-of-the-writ doctrine, which refers to a complex and evolving body of equitable ...	McCleskey v. Zant	499 U.S. 467	1,991	syllabus	plain	block	227
sch-019870ba551d4347	Question: What was decided in United States v. Ventresca (1965)? Answer: The opinion of the Court in United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965), says: "We conclude that the affidavit showed probable cause and that the Court of Appeals misapprehended its judicial function in reviewing this affidavit by giving it an...	United States v. Ventresca	380 U.S. 102	1,965	wehold	plain	qa	78
sch-019d562c240bfae0	Authority: Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991). Held: An ADEA claim can be subjected to compulsory arbitration. (a) Statutory claims may be the subject of an arbitration agreement, enforceable pursuant to the FAA. See, e.g., Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614,...	Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.	500 U.S. 20	1,991	syllabus	plain	bluebook	555
sch-01c6be1f3b48707a	Case: Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. Citation: 500 U.S. 20 Decided: 1991 Court: Supreme Court of the United States Holding (syllabus): An ADEA claim can be subjected to compulsory arbitration. (a) Statutory claims may be the subject of an arbitration agreement, enforceable pursuant to the FAA. See, e.g., Mitsu...	Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.	500 U.S. 20	1,991	syllabus	plain	para	571
sch-01daa135f11cb7ac	In Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976), the Supreme Court held: 1. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar a backpay award to petitioners in No. 75-251, since that Amendment and the principle of state sovereignty that it embodies are limited by the enforcement provisions of § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which gra...	Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer	427 U.S. 445	1,976	syllabus	plain	para	196
sch-01e3be3e0054d14b	In Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), the Supreme Court held: Congress’ Commerce Clause authority includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law. (a) For the purposes of consolidating various drug laws into a comprehensive statute, providing meaningful reg...	Gonzales v. Raich	545 U.S. 1	2,005	syllabus	plain	para	275
sch-01ea0ed11c374687	Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Delgado was decided by the Supreme Court in 1984 (466 U.S. 210). The syllabus gives the holding: The factory surveys did not result in the seizure of the entire work forces, and the individual questioning of the respondent employees by INS agents concerning their citizenship di...	Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Delgado	466 U.S. 210	1,984	syllabus	plain	para	335
sch-01f4f0740c7b545b	Reported at 461 U.S. 95, City of Los Angeles v. Lyons (1983) is summarized in its syllabus this way: 1. The case is not rendered moot even though while it was pending in this Court, city police authorities prohibited use of a certain type of chokehold in any circumstances and imposed a 6-month moratorium on the use of ...	City of Los Angeles v. Lyons	461 U.S. 95	1,983	syllabus	plain	para	447
sch-01f56a39524cd0b1	For Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1991), the syllabus prepared by the Reporter of Decisions reads in part: "Held: 1. Irwin's complaint was untimely. Section 2000e-16(c) requires that the EEOC's letter be "received" but does not specify that receipt must be by the claimant rather than by his repr...	Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs	498 U.S. 89	1,991	syllabus	plain	para	366
sch-01f79901d41c894b	The syllabus to Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (1978), sets out the Court's holding as follows: 1. The trial judge's failure either to appoint separate counsel or to take adequate steps to ascertain whether the risk of a conflict of interests was too remote to warrant separate counsel, in the face of the representa...	Holloway v. Arkansas	435 U.S. 475	1,978	syllabus	plain	para	489
sch-01fb3d100a587c51	<\|start\|><\|user\|> What did the Court decide in Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384?<\|eot\|> <\|assistant\|> The Court held, as the syllabus puts it: The statute of limitations upon a §1983 claim seeking damages for a false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment, where the arrest is followed by criminal proceedings, begins ...	Wallace v. Kato	549 U.S. 384	2,007	syllabus	chat	chat	347
sch-020b1e0ebeea0735	In Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), the Supreme Court held: 1. A claim of "hostile environment" sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that is actionable under Title VII. (a) The language of Title VII is not limited to "economic" or "tangible" discrimination. Equal Employment Opportunity C...	Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson	477 U.S. 57	1,986	syllabus	plain	para	389
sch-020e68b397e1f186	Question: What did the Court decide in Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88? Answer: The opinion of the Court in Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940), says: "We hold that the danger of injury to an industrial concern is neither so serious nor so imminent as to justify the sweeping proscription of freedom of discussion...	Thornhill v. Alabama	310 U.S. 88	1,940	wehold	plain	qa	90
sch-02116836343d535e	498 U.S. 279 Grogan v. Garner Decided 1991 Held: Preponderance of the evidence is the standard of proof for § 523(a)'s dischargeability exceptions. Neither § 523 and its legislative history nor the legislative history of § 523's predecessor prescribes a standard of proof, a silence that is inconsistent with the view t...	Grogan v. Garner	498 U.S. 279	1,991	syllabus	plain	block	458
sch-021ec5664288ad50	See Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) ("We thus conclude that in terms of the general criteria of justiciability, this case is justiciable.").	Powell v. McCormack	395 U.S. 486	1,969	wehold	plain	bluebook	39
sch-022a5d0b1a0e1b30	McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (1991), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. According to its syllabus, the Court held: McCleskey's failure to raise his Massiah claim in his first federal habeas petition constituted abuse of the writ. (a) Much confusion exists as to the proper standard for applying ...	McCleskey v. Zant	499 U.S. 467	1,991	syllabus	plain	para	235
sch-0262e8175d76dcda	Question: What is Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215, known for holding? Answer: According to the syllabus (597 U.S. 215, 2022), the Court held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people an...	Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization	597 U.S. 215	2,022	syllabus	plain	qa	541
sch-0266f9f2f6c1d6bc	The Supreme Court's 1991 opinion in Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, held as follows (syllabus): Neither the admission of the challenged evidence nor the jury instruction as to its use rises to the level of a due process violation. (a) The prior injury evidence, although not linked to McGuire himself, was probative on ...	Estelle v. McGuire	502 U.S. 62	1,991	syllabus	plain	para	229
sch-026c9b2cfd184fe9	Leading case: Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008). Held: 1. MCA §7 denies the federal courts jurisdiction to hear habeas actions, like the instant cases, that were pending at the time of its enactment. Section §7(b)’s effective date provision undoubtedly applies to habeas actions, which, by definition, “relate to.....	Boumediene v. Bush	553 U.S. 723	2,008	syllabus	plain	bluebook	569
sch-0275df6af24a6601	Q: What is Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, known for holding? A: Decided in 1975 (422 U.S. 66), Cort v. Ash held: 1. The Amendments constitute an intervening law that relegates to the Commission's cognizance respondent's complaint as citizen or stockholder for injunctive relief against any alleged violations of § 610 in futu...	Cort v. Ash	422 U.S. 66	1,975	syllabus	plain	qa	458
sch-027a71b7a4a3f295	<\|start\|><\|user\|> Give me the holding of Blum v. Yaretsky, decided in 1982.<\|eot\|> <\|assistant\|> In Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982), the Supreme Court held: 1. Respondents have standing to challenge the procedural adequacy of facility-initiated discharges and transfers to lower levels of care. Although respondent...	Blum v. Yaretsky	457 U.S. 991	1,982	syllabus	chat	chat	314
sch-029c93a5fe61ad9c	The syllabus to Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005), sets out the Court's holding as follows: Because petitioner filed his federal habeas petition beyond the deadline and is not entitled to statutory or equitable tolling for any of that time period, his federal petition is barred by AEDPA's statute of limitations....	Pace v. DiGuglielmo	544 U.S. 408	2,005	syllabus	plain	para	487
sch-029effdbcc55bd04	<\|start\|><\|user\|> Tell me the holding in United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Co..<\|eot\|> <\|assistant\|> United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Co. (1992), reported at 504 U.S. 505. The majority opinion states: "We hold that the statutory language may not be construed to require payment of the tax under these facts."<\|e...	United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Co.	504 U.S. 505	1,992	wehold	chat	chat	72
sch-02b433a9cb5d79b3	Decided in 1980 and reported at 446 U.S. 335, Cuyler v. Sullivan produced this holding, in the words of the syllabus: 1. The Court of Appeals did not exceed the proper scope of review when it rejected the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's conclusion that the two lawyers had not undertaken multiple representation. The Pennsy...	Cuyler v. Sullivan	446 U.S. 335	1,980	syllabus	plain	para	425
sch-02bec57afb629a90	Cite: Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519 (1978). Held: 1. Generally speaking, 5 U.S.C. § 553 (1976 ed.) establishes the maximum procedural requirements that Congress was willing to have the courts impose upon federal agencies in conducting rulemaking proceedings,...	Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.	435 U.S. 519	1,978	syllabus	plain	bluebook	423
sch-02c4bec92d81e5a4	Case: Taylor v. Illinois Citation: 484 U.S. 400 Decided: 1988 Court: Supreme Court of the United States Holding (syllabus): 1. The Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment may, in an appropriate case, be violated by the imposition of a discovery sanction that entirely excludes the testimony of a material defens...	Taylor v. Illinois	484 U.S. 400	1,988	syllabus	plain	para	399
sch-02c687c97ce7e2d0	In its 1993 decision in Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, the Supreme Court held: A constitutionally deficient reasonable-doubt instruction cannot be harmless error. (a) Sullivan's Sixth Amendment right to jury trial was denied by the giving of a constitutionally deficient beyond-a-reasonable-doubt instruction. The ...	Sullivan v. Louisiana	508 U.S. 275	1,993	syllabus	plain	para	506
sch-031390f95b77dc48	Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. According to its syllabus, the Court held: 1. Petitioner is entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds if he can establish as a matter of law that a reasonable officer could have believed that the search...	Anderson v. Creighton	483 U.S. 635	1,987	syllabus	plain	para	456
sch-032e69a65067b301	<\|start\|><\|system\|> You are an assistant for a small law office.<\|eot\|> <\|user\|> Tell me the holding in Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine.<\|eot\|> <\|assistant\|> In Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981), the Supreme Court held: When the plaintiff in a Title VII case has prov...	Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine	450 U.S. 248	1,981	syllabus	chat	chat	427
sch-0333365da638c29d	See Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, 554 U.S. 60 (2008). Held: Sections 16645.2 and 16645.7 are pre-empted by the NLRA. (a) The NLRA contains no express pre-emption provision, but this Court has held pre-emption necessary to implement federal labor policy where, inter alia, Congress intended particular conduct to “be unre...	Chamber of Commerce v. Brown	554 U.S. 60	2,008	syllabus	plain	bluebook	551
sch-0334a6df94b41606	In its 1972 decision in United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, the Supreme Court held: Under these circumstances the Court of Appeals was correct in remanding the case to the District Court for reconsideration of the sentence imposed upon the defendant.	United States v. Tucker	404 U.S. 443	1,972	syllabus	plain	para	45
sch-033ad5095062e3f3	Q: What was decided in Cupp v. Murphy (1973)? A: Decided in 1973 (412 U.S. 291), Cupp v. Murphy held: In view of the station-house detention upon probable cause, the very limited intrusion undertaken to preserve highly evanescent evidence was not violative of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.	Cupp v. Murphy	412 U.S. 291	1,973	syllabus	plain	qa	75
sch-03470ce298aca1ad	The holding of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543 (1964), in the Court's own words: "We hold that the disappearance by merger of a corporate employer which has entered into a collective bargaining agreement with a union does not automatically terminate all rights of the employees covered by the agreeme...	John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston	376 U.S. 543	1,964	wehold	plain	para	88
sch-036423428b72c03d	Question: What did the Court decide in Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445? Answer: The syllabus of Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985), states: Held: 1. Since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court interpreted a state statute as...	Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution v. Hill	472 U.S. 445	1,985	syllabus	plain	qa	281
sch-0372071497a92918	<\|start\|><\|user\|> What did the Court decide in Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70?<\|eot\|> <\|assistant\|> The syllabus of Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (2008), states: Held: Neither the Labeling Act’s pre-emption provision nor the Federal Trade Commission’s actions in this field pre-empt respondents’ state...	Altria Group, Inc. v. Good	555 U.S. 70	2,008	syllabus	chat	chat	341
sch-03751d6174aa42d4	Q: What did the Court decide in Sailors v. Board of Education, 387 U.S. 105? A: In the Court's words (Sailors v. Board of Education, 387 U.S. 105 (1967)): "We conclude that a three-judge court was properly convened, for unlike the situation in Moody v. Flowers, ante, p. 97, this is a case where the state statute that ...	Sailors v. Board of Education	387 U.S. 105	1,967	wehold	plain	qa	103
sch-038a6629a0c30930	536 U.S. 730 Hope v. Pelzer Decided 2002 Held: The defense of qualified immunity was precluded at the summary judgment phase. (a) Hope's allegations, if true, establish an Eighth Amendment violation. Among the "`unnecessary and wanton' inflictions of pain [constituting cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Ame...	Hope v. Pelzer	536 U.S. 730	2,002	syllabus	plain	block	328
sch-03a3eecf47ff6ec5	Supreme Court authority: Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976). Held: Deliberate indifference by prison personnel to a prisoner's serious illness or injury constitutes cruel and unusual punishment contravening the Eighth Amendment. Here, however, respondent's claims against Gray do not suggest such indifference, the al...	Estelle v. Gamble	429 U.S. 97	1,976	syllabus	plain	bluebook	171
sch-03c242a321c9d86f	<\|start\|><\|user\|> Can you state the holding of Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378?<\|eot\|> <\|assistant\|> Rankin v. McPherson (1987), reported at 483 U.S. 378. The syllabus summarizes the holding: Respondent's discharge violated her First Amendment right to freedom of expression. (a) The content, form, and context of resp...	Rankin v. McPherson	483 U.S. 378	1,987	syllabus	chat	chat	361
sch-03ce35ea3c0892d5	<\|start\|><\|user\|> What was decided in Schriro v. Summerlin (2004)?<\|eot\|> <\|assistant\|> The Court held, as the syllabus puts it: Ring does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review. (a) A "new rule" resulting from a decision of this Court applies to convictions that are already final only in limit...	Schriro v. Summerlin	542 U.S. 348	2,004	syllabus	chat	chat	259
sch-03cf370851e33262	Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519 (1983) Syllabus (excerpt): Held: Based on the allegations of the complaint, the Union was not a person injured by reason of a violation of the antitrust laws within the meaning of § 4 of the Clayton Act. (a) Even...	Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters	459 U.S. 519	1,983	syllabus	plain	block	334
sch-0426058342fbf6a3	Q: Summarize the holding of Flood v. Kuhn (1972). A: The Court held, as the syllabus puts it: The longstanding exemption of professional baseball from the antitrust laws, Federal Baseball Club v. National League, 259 U.S. 200, 42 S.Ct. 465, 66 L.Ed. 898 (1922); Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356, 74 S.Ct. ...	Flood v. Kuhn	407 U.S. 258	1,972	syllabus	plain	qa	193
sch-042c8109b7f6beeb	In its 1992 decision in Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410, the Supreme Court held: Section 506(d) does not allow Dewsnup to "strip down" respondents' lien to the judicially determined value of the collateral, because respondents' claim is secured by a lien and has been fully allowed pursuant to § 502 and, therefore, cannot...	Dewsnup v. Timm	502 U.S. 410	1,992	syllabus	plain	para	373
sch-046abfcb5ad335f8	Supreme Court authority: Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (1986). Held: A federal habeas petitioner, such as respondent, cannot show cause for a procedural default by establishing that competent defense counsel's failure to raise a substantive claim of error was inadvertent rather than deliberate. (a) The mere fact that...	Murray v. Carrier	477 U.S. 478	1,986	syllabus	plain	bluebook	369
sch-047ab1158333a3ea	Supreme Court authority: Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973). Held: Under the facts and circumstances of this case, petitioner was denied a fair trial, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (a) The application of the 'voucher' rule prevented petitioner, through cross-examination o...	Chambers v. Mississippi	410 U.S. 284	1,973	syllabus	plain	bluebook	216
sch-0494e700199b0476	What did the Court decide in Mathews v. Eldridge? The syllabus of the decision, reported at 424 U.S. 319 (1976), states the holding: 1. The District Court had jurisdiction over respondent's constitutional claim, since the denial of his request for benefits was a final decision with respect to that claim for purposes of...	Mathews v. Eldridge	424 U.S. 319	1,976	syllabus	plain	para	435
sch-04954e9c2dcdcb8c	For Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing, 545 U.S. 308 (2005), the syllabus prepared by the Reporter of Decisions reads in part: "Held: The national interest in providing a federal forum for federal tax litigation is sufficiently substantial to support the exercise of federalquestion ...	Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing	545 U.S. 308	2,005	syllabus	plain	para	527
sch-049d40c3b9534a6b	For Bender v. Williamsport Area School District, 475 U.S. 534 (1986), the syllabus prepared by the Reporter of Decisions reads in part: "Held: Respondent had no standing to appeal, and therefore the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to hear his appeal. (a) Federal courts have only the power that is authorized by Art...	Bender v. Williamsport Area School District	475 U.S. 534	1,986	syllabus	plain	para	287
sch-049d825decac3826	<\|start\|><\|user\|> Give me the holding of Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris, decided in 1989.<\|eot\|> <\|assistant\|> Decided in 1989 (489 U.S. 688), Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris held: The Board of Estimate's structure is inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amend...	Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris	489 U.S. 688	1,989	syllabus	chat	chat	483
sch-04a2bee4f80f19f3	Question: What was the holding of Thomas v. Arn? Answer: Decided in 1986 (474 U.S. 140), Thomas v. Arn held: A court of appeals may adopt a rule conditioning appeal, when taken from a district court judgment that adopts a magistrate's recommendation, upon the filing of objections with the district court identifying tho...	Thomas v. Arn	474 U.S. 140	1,986	syllabus	plain	qa	401
sch-04a3d44af9a843ec	Cite: Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011). Held: 1. Review under §2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits. (a) As amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), §2254 sets several limits on a federal court’s power ...	Cullen v. Pinholster	563 U.S. 170	2,011	syllabus	plain	bluebook	564
sch-04a565ba28487ed6	404 U.S. 257 Santobello v. New York Decided 1971 Held: The interests of justice and proper recognition of the prosecution's duties in relation to promises made in connection with 'any agreement on a plea of guilty' require that the judgment be vacated and that the case be remanded to the state courts for further consi...	Santobello v. New York	404 U.S. 257	1,971	syllabus	plain	block	108
sch-04acadb7396c516e	See Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U.S. 31 (1962) ("We hold that three judges are similarly not required when, as here, prior decisions make frivolous any claim that a state statute on its face is not unconstitutional.").	Bailey v. Patterson	369 U.S. 31	1,962	wehold	plain	bluebook	52
sch-04b1d02e928240a5	Leading case: Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990). Held: 1. A voluntary Rule 41(a)(1)(i) dismissal does not deprive a district court of jurisdiction over a Rule 11 motion. This view is consistent with Rule 11's purposes of deterring baseless filings and streamlining federal court procedure and is not c...	Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.	496 U.S. 384	1,990	syllabus	plain	bluebook	459
sch-04b6729bea9d64ab	Case: Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor Citation: 481 U.S. 58 Decided: 1987 Court: Supreme Court of the United States Holding (syllabus): 1. Under Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 107 S.Ct. 1549, 95 L.Ed.2d 39, respondent's common law contract and tort claims are pre-empted by ERISA, and this lawsuit fa...	Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor	481 U.S. 58	1,987	syllabus	plain	para	374
sch-04e0877e2b97b644	<\|start\|><\|user\|> What rule did Heck v. Humphrey establish?<\|eot\|> <\|assistant\|> The Court held, as the syllabus puts it: In order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 ...	Heck v. Humphrey	512 U.S. 477	1,994	syllabus	chat	chat	460
sch-04ef600a6baae8db	Holding of the Court in Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (1975), quoted from the syllabus: 1. The Amendments constitute an intervening law that relegates to the Commission's cognizance respondent's complaint as citizen or stockholder for injunctive relief against any alleged violations of § 610 in future elections, since this ...	Cort v. Ash	422 U.S. 66	1,975	syllabus	plain	para	445
sch-04f42b8ae0fc8298	<\|start\|><\|system\|> You are a reference librarian.<\|eot\|> <\|user\|> What is Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637, known for holding?<\|eot\|> <\|assistant\|> Decided in 1998 (523 U.S. 637), Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal held: 1.Because respondent's claim was not a "second or successive'' petition under §2244(b), this...	Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal	523 U.S. 637	1,998	syllabus	chat	chat	474
sch-04f6cd4e76d51646	<\|start\|><\|user\|> What did the Supreme Court hold in Rhines v. Weber?<\|eot\|> <\|assistant\|> Rhines v. Weber (2005), reported at 544 U.S. 269. The syllabus summarizes the holding: A district court has discretion to stay a mixed petition to allow a petitioner to present his unexhausted claims to the state court in the fir...	Rhines v. Weber	544 U.S. 269	2,005	syllabus	chat	chat	311
sch-0509929c748a7eea	Q: Summarize the holding of Rawlings v. Kentucky (1980). A: According to the syllabus (448 U.S. 98, 1980), the Court held: 1. The conclusion that petitioner did not sustain his burden of proving that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in Cox's purse so as to allow him to challenge the validity of the search of...	Rawlings v. Kentucky	448 U.S. 98	1,980	syllabus	plain	qa	468
sch-05159c7adb7039c7	For Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250 (1980), the syllabus prepared by the Reporter of Decisions reads in part: "Held: Respondent's Title VII and § 1981 claims were untimely. (a) The allegations of the complaint do not support respondent's "continuing violation" argument that discrimination motivated the Co...	Delaware State College v. Ricks	449 U.S. 250	1,980	syllabus	plain	para	432
sch-05173c0083536647	Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. According to its syllabus, the Court held: 1. Lack of a contractual or tenure right to re-employment, taken alone, did not defeat respondent's claim that the nonrenewal of his contract violated his free speech right under...	Perry v. Sindermann	408 U.S. 593	1,972	syllabus	plain	para	199
sch-0527cdd3b2e3c3db	<\|start\|><\|user\|> Can you state the holding of Burt v. Titlow, 571 U.S. 12?<\|eot\|> <\|assistant\|> Burt v. Titlow (2013), reported at 571 U.S. 12. The syllabus summarizes the holding: The Sixth Circuit failed to apply the “doubly deferential” standard of review recognized by the Court’s case law when it refused to credit...	Burt v. Titlow	571 U.S. 12	2,013	syllabus	chat	chat	210
sch-053f371bc61206b1	<\|start\|><\|user\|> What is Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, known for holding?<\|eot\|> <\|assistant\|> The opinion of the Court in Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969), says: "We also conclude that the record evidence is sufficient to support a finding of damage r...	Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.	395 U.S. 100	1,969	wehold	chat	chat	93
sch-0548633670b6db4e	339 U.S. 827 Automatic Radio Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc Decided 1950 Opinion of the Court: "We hold that in licensing the use of patents to one engaged in a related enterprise, it is not per se a misuse of patents to measure the consideration by a percentage of the licensee's sales."	Automatic Radio Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc	339 U.S. 827	1,950	wehold	plain	block	75
sch-0551a7235fa4d6b7	Q. What was decided in Johnson v. United States (1997)? A. The syllabus of Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997), states: Held: The trial court's action in this case was not "plain error'' of the sort which an appellate court may notice under Rule 52(b). (a) Since §1623's text leaves no doubt that materiality i...	Johnson v. United States	520 U.S. 461	1,997	syllabus	plain	qa	445
sch-056cfe45138b6998	499 U.S. 573 United States v. Centennial Savings Bank FSB Decided 1991 Held: 1. Centennial realized tax-deductible losses when it exchanged mortgage interests with the other lender. Cottage Savings Assn. v. Commissioner, 499 U.S. 554, 111 S.Ct. 1503, 113 L.Ed.2d 589. 2. The early withdrawal penalties collected by Cent...	United States v. Centennial Savings Bank FSB	499 U.S. 573	1,991	syllabus	plain	block	351
sch-056d2f93d2d406a2	In its 1960 decision in Schilling v. Rogers, 363 U.S. 666, the Supreme Court wrote: "We conclude that the Trading with the Enemy Act excludes a judicial remedy in this instance, and that because of this, as well as because of the discretionary character of the administrative action involved, the Administrative Procedur...	Schilling v. Rogers	363 U.S. 666	1,960	wehold	plain	para	78
sch-056e07409f800ea1	Here is the holding of Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 (1991), as the official syllabus states it: The Court of Appeals properly concluded that the District Court should have dismissed Siegert's suit because he had not overcome Gilley's qualified immunity defense. Siegert failed to allege the violation of a clearly est...	Siegert v. Gilley	500 U.S. 226	1,991	syllabus	plain	para	221
sch-05aaa034026e1f5d	Ricci v. DeStefano 557 U.S. 557 (2009) Held: The City’s action in discarding the tests violated Title VII. (a) Title VII prohibits intentional acts of employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a)(1) (disparate treatment), as well as policies or practices t...	Ricci v. DeStefano	557 U.S. 557	2,009	syllabus	plain	block	260
sch-05ab44ed1c3b8fee	Question: What was the holding of California Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.? Answer: The Court held, as the syllabus puts it: 1. California's wine-pricing system constitutes resale price maintenance in violation of the Sherman Act, since the wine producer holds the power to prevent price competiti...	California Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.	445 U.S. 97	1,980	syllabus	plain	qa	425

End of preview. Expand in Data Studio

ALEA U.S. Supreme Court holdings

Short documents that state what the U.S. Supreme Court held in widely cited and landmark cases, quoting the holding verbatim from the official syllabus ("Held: …") or, where no syllabus is available, from the first qualifying "We hold that …" sentence of the majority opinion. Nothing is paraphrased and no language model was used: only the frame around each quotation varies (question and answer, chat, prose, block and citation-style layouts), and each frame names its source ("the syllabus states", "the majority opinion states").

4,828 documents, 1.58M tokens (ALEA sw16k tokenizer), covering 1,029 cases:

holding source	cases	documents
syllabus	815	3,881
majority opinion (we hold)	214	947

Cases were selected from the most-cited Supreme Court decisions in CourtListener's citation graph, a list of landmark cases, and frequently cited recent decisions. Each case has 3 to 6 renderings.

Fields

id, text, case_name, citation (U.S. Reports), year, holding_source (syllabus or wehold), layout (plain / chat), template (the layout family), n_tokens (sw16k). Chat documents use the reserved tokens <|start|>, <|system|>, <|user|>, <|assistant|>, <|eot|>, <|end|> of the ALEA sw16k tokenizer.

How the holdings were extracted

Syllabus: the "Held:" paragraph(s), cut before the disposition line, the "delivered the opinion" line or the list of counsel. Running headers, footnote blocks and "Pp." page references are removed and line-end hyphenation is rejoined only where the joined word is a known word. Long syllabi keep the lead paragraph and the numbered holdings. Every paragraph must be found again in the normalized source text.
Majority opinion ("we hold"): the first majority-opinion sentence of 15–80 words that opens with "We hold" or "We conclude" and has no citation, quotation, disposition, conditional or unresolved reference. A manual check of 50 fresh cases found no wrong-case sentences and no boundary errors; the remaining defects were sentences that refer back to earlier text.
Case names come from English Wikipedia article titles for landmark cases and otherwise from the cleaner of the CourtListener and Caselaw Access Project captions.

Sources and licence

Opinion text and syllabi: CourtListener bulk opinion files (Free Law Project). U.S. Supreme Court opinions and the Reporter of Decisions' syllabi are works of the U.S. government in the public domain.
The frames (questions, lead-ins, layouts) are ALEA's and are released under CC-BY-4.0; the quoted holdings remain in the public domain.

Filtering

Every document passed ALEA's fail-closed decontamination against its evaluation suites (benchmark and held-out probe 13-grams and 8-grams, case-law question sets, in-context-learning probe words and pairs, a copyright 13-gram index). Cases whose holdings are asked about in those evaluations were removed entirely, so several famous decisions are deliberately absent. Held-out evaluation items are not part of this release.

Pre-release screens on every row: decontamination hits 0 (fail-closed; probe-word and held-out-pair checks in their prose variant); contact-detail patterns street official 5 (reviewed by sampling: public-record organisational contacts such as agency offices, or invented records; no private individual's contact details found); slur/vulgar lexicon 0 documents; RoBERTa toxicity classifier (s-nlp/roberta_toxicity_classifier, any 64-word chunk ≥ 0.8) on a seeded sample of 2,000 documents: 0 flagged.

Limitations

Coverage is uneven: syllabi with a "Held:" paragraph are rare before 1970, so older cases appear mostly through "we hold" sentences or not at all; per curiam and plurality decisions are under-represented.
A syllabus is a summary prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the reader's convenience; it is not part of the opinion of the Court.
Some slip-opinion syllabi keep blank page placeholders ("Pp. -.") and a few ambiguous line-break joins as printed in the source.
The holdings include criminal-law decisions and quote the Court's descriptions of the facts.

Citation

If you use this data, please cite the ALEA project, the Free Law Project (CourtListener) and the Caselaw Access Project.

Downloads last month: 46

Models trained or fine-tuned on alea-institute/alea-scotus-holdings

alea-institute/alea-r3-moe-2b-a417m

Text Generation • 2B • Updated 4 days ago • 120